pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.23314 · v1 · pith:HNKQFT77new · submitted 2026-05-22 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

The dual effect of group-scale environments on galaxy quenching during cluster infall: pre-processing and protection

Haoran Dou , Heng Yu , Xiaolan Hou This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 04:17 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxy quenchingcluster environmentgroup-scale environmentspre-processinginfall processstar formationcluster infallsubstructure identification
0
0 comments X

The pith

Group-scale environments pre-process galaxies to higher quenching before cluster entry and then delay their quenching inside the cluster.

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

The paper tracks galaxies falling into massive clusters and separates those that arrive already bound in groups from those that arrive alone. Group galaxies start with a higher fraction already quiescent at large distances, showing the effect of earlier processing inside their groups. Once deeper in the cluster, the quiescent fraction of these group galaxies rises more slowly than for isolated galaxies, pointing to a temporary shielding by the group halo. The result is a two-part influence: groups begin the quenching process earlier but then slow the final stages driven by the cluster. This path-dependent behavior refines how environment shapes when and how star formation ends in cluster members.

Core claim

Along the infall process quantified by the d_R proxy in the R-V diagram, the quiescent fraction stays roughly constant at large radii before rising toward the cluster center around d_R ~ 2.5. Group-associated galaxies identified by the Blooming Tree algorithm show a higher quiescent fraction than isolated galaxies at early infall stages, consistent with pre-processing, yet their quiescent fraction rises only at smaller d_R values, indicating a subsequent protection effect in which group halos buffer against rapid cluster-driven quenching.

What carries the argument

The Blooming Tree algorithm for identifying group-scale substructures combined with the d_R infall proxy in the projected radius-velocity diagram to separate group-associated from isolated galaxies and track their quenching along the accretion path.

If this is right

  • Group galaxies begin with elevated quiescent fractions at large d_R due to pre-processing in group halos.
  • The rise in quiescent fraction for group galaxies is shifted inward to smaller d_R compared with isolated galaxies.
  • Group-scale halos therefore buffer their members against rapid quenching once inside the cluster.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Accounting for this path dependence may be needed to match observed quenching timelines in cosmological simulations.
  • The protection effect could be tested by checking whether group galaxies retain more cold gas reservoirs at intermediate cluster radii.
  • Improved three-dimensional velocity data would reduce projection uncertainties and strengthen or weaken the separation of the two populations.

Load-bearing premise

The Blooming Tree algorithm and d_R proxy correctly separate group galaxies from isolated ones and measure their true position along the infall track without major bias from projection or velocity errors.

What would settle it

Repeating the analysis with an independent substructure finder or a different infall metric and finding identical quiescent-fraction tracks for group and isolated galaxies would falsify the reported dual effect.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.23314 by Haoran Dou, Heng Yu, Xiaolan Hou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Stellar mass as a function of redshift. The top panel shows the observed stellar masses (gray dots) and the corre￾sponding limiting masses (black dots) of all galaxies. The mid￾dle and bottom panels show the same relations for star-forming (blue) and quiescent (red) galaxies, respectively. Open circles mark the 95th percentiles of the limiting-mass distributions in redshift bins of width ∆z = 0.01. Solid c… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Star formation activity as a function of stellar mass for the full sample (left column) and the mass-complete sample (right column). Panels (a) and (b) show log SFR versus log(M⋆/M⊙), while panels (c) and (d) show log sSFR versus log M⋆/M⊙. The red lines indicate the adopted threshold of log10 sSFR/yr−1 = −11 for separating star-forming and quiescent galaxies. The solid black lines mark the stellar-mass cu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Quiescent fraction fQ in the R–V diagram. Top: the raw, binned distribution in the R–V diagram. Bins containing fewer than five galaxies are left blank (white). Bottom: the same distribution after smoothing. Dashed lines illustrate the parallel lines (slope k = −3.7, Dou & Yu 2025) used to define the infall proxy dR. total number of galaxies. Uncertainties in fQ are com￾puted using the Wilson score interva… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The distribution in the R–V diagram for cluster galaxies (red), group galaxies (orange), and isolated galaxies (blue), respectively, with colors indicating the number densities. The dashed lines illustrate the parallel lines of Dou & Yu (2025). 0 1 2 3 4 5 dR 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 lo g M /M 0.6 0.8 1.0 fQ 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 fQ 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 fQ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Quiescent fraction fQ as a function of stellar mass and the infall proxy dR for the full galaxy sample. The bottom-left panel shows fQ in the log M⋆/M⊙ −dR plane with colors indicat￾ing fQ. The top and right panels show the corresponding one￾dimensional trends of fQ as a function of dR and log M⋆/M⊙, respectively. The bin sizes ∆dR and ∆ log M⋆/M⊙ are both 0.25. The fQ values in each bin are indicated by t… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Quiescent fraction fQ for galaxies in three local environments as a function of stellar mass (left) and the infall proxy dR (right). The bin sizes are ∆ log M⋆/M⊙ = 0.5 and ∆dR = 0.6, respectively. Cluster, group, and isolated galaxies are shown by the red, orange, and blue curves, respectively. Shaded squares indicate the uncertainties in fQ. 0 1 2 3 4 5 dR 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 fQ 9.5 logM … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Quiescent fraction fQ as a function of the infall proxy dR for galaxies across different local environments and different stellar-mass bins. The bin size is ∆dR = 0.6. plateau at the beginning of infall and a steady quenching after a transition point. This behavior is broadly consistent with the well known “delay-then-rapid” quenching scenario (Wetzel et al. 2013; Haines et al. 2013). In this framework, ga… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Furthermore, it is crucial to recognize the diluting im￾pact of any residual contamination. The quiescent fraction of group galaxies will be lower than the genuine value if they are contaminated by interlopers, thus reducing the offset between group and isolated galaxies we have ob￾served. Therefore, the conclusions about “pre-processing” and “protection” can be safely regarded as a conservative lower limi… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distributions of the Dn4000 index for cluster (red), group (orange), and isolated (blue) galaxies across different dR intervals. The p-values derived from two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) tests comparing these populations are provided in the upper left corner of each panel. The subscripts ’i’, ’g’, and ’c’ denote the isolated, group, and cluster galaxies, respectively. 6. Summary In this paper, we invest… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Context. It is well established that the cluster environment effectively quenches star formation in member galaxies. Amis. We aim to explore how the accretion path of infalling galaxies influences the cluster-driven quenching process. Methods. We compiled a large spectroscopic galaxy sample around 25 low-redshift, X-ray luminous massive clusters. We identified cluster substructures using the Blooming Tree algorithm and distinguished between galaxies accreted as part of group-scale structures and those accreted in isolation. The infall process was quantified using an infall proxy, $d_{\rm R}$, defined in the $R$--$V$ diagram. Results. Along the infall process, the quiescent fraction remains approximately constant at the outskirts and then increases steadily toward cluster center, with a transition occurring around $d_{\rm R}\sim 2.5$. We find that group-associated galaxies follow a distinct quenching track compared to isolated galaxies, indicating a dual effect of group-scale environments. At the early infall stages, group galaxies exhibit a higher quiescent fraction, consistent with ``pre-processing'' in group-scale halos. However, after entering the cluster environment, the rise in their quiescent fraction is delayed to smaller $d_{\rm R}$ compared to isolated galaxies. This suggests a phenomenological ``protection'' effect, in which group-scale halos buffer member galaxies against rapid cluster-driven quenching. Conclusions. We conclude that group-scale environments affect quenching in two ways: via pre-processing prior to cluster infall, and through a subsequent protection effect within the cluster environment.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes a spectroscopic sample of galaxies around 25 low-redshift X-ray luminous clusters. Using the Blooming Tree algorithm to identify substructures, it separates galaxies accreted in groups from those accreted in isolation. An infall proxy d_R is defined in the projected R-V diagram to track position along the accretion path. The central claim is that group-scale environments exert a dual influence on quenching: pre-processing produces a higher quiescent fraction at large d_R (early infall), while a subsequent 'protection' effect delays the rise in quiescent fraction at small d_R inside the cluster relative to isolated galaxies. The quiescent fraction is roughly constant at large d_R then rises toward the center, with a transition near d_R ~ 2.5.

Significance. If the separation of accretion histories and the reported track offset are robust, the result adds a phenomenological 'protection' mechanism to the existing pre-processing literature and offers a way to reconcile apparently contradictory environmental quenching signals. The large cluster sample and explicit algorithmic separation of group vs. isolated accretion paths are strengths that would make the finding useful for refining semi-analytic models and hydrodynamical simulations of cluster infall.

major comments (1)
  1. [Methods] Methods section (Blooming Tree identification and d_R definition): the dual-effect claim rests on the assumption that the Blooming Tree algorithm cleanly separates group-associated galaxies and that d_R accurately orders galaxies along their 3D infall track. No completeness/purity metrics from mocks that incorporate projection and velocity errors are reported; without such tests the observed offset in quiescent-fraction tracks could arise from line-of-sight contamination rather than true pre-processing and protection.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: 'Amis.' is a typographical error for 'Aims.'

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and for recognizing the potential significance of the dual-effect finding. We address the single major comment below and will incorporate the requested validation in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods section (Blooming Tree identification and d_R definition): the dual-effect claim rests on the assumption that the Blooming Tree algorithm cleanly separates group-associated galaxies and that d_R accurately orders galaxies along their 3D infall track. No completeness/purity metrics from mocks that incorporate projection and velocity errors are reported; without such tests the observed offset in quiescent-fraction tracks could arise from line-of-sight contamination rather than true pre-processing and protection.

    Authors: We agree that the current manuscript does not report completeness and purity metrics derived from mocks that include projection effects and velocity uncertainties. Although the Blooming Tree algorithm has been validated in earlier studies, dedicated tests tailored to our 25-cluster sample and the d_R definition would strengthen the claim that the observed track offset reflects physical pre-processing and protection rather than contamination. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection to the Methods that presents mock-catalog tests quantifying completeness and purity for the group versus isolated classification, together with an assessment of how residual line-of-sight contamination would affect the quiescent-fraction trends. These additions will directly address the referee's concern. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical sample splits and direct fraction measurements.

full rationale

The paper identifies substructures via Blooming Tree, partitions galaxies into group-associated versus isolated, defines the d_R proxy in the projected R-V diagram, and reports observed differences in quiescent fraction versus d_R. These are direct empirical measurements on the compiled spectroscopic sample rather than any fitted parameter, self-referential definition, or prediction that reduces to the input by construction. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes appear in the abstract or described chain that would force the dual-effect claim tautologically. The derivation remains self-contained observational analysis.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; all such elements would be located in the methods and results sections that are unavailable.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5808 in / 1078 out tokens · 17663 ms · 2026-05-25T04:17:23.078343+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 93 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    F., Argudo-Fernández, M., & Badenes, C

    Almeida, A., Anderson, S. F., Argudo-Fernández, M., & Badenes, C. 2023, ApJS, 267, 44 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Bahé, Y. M., McCarthy, I. G., Balogh, M. L., & Font, A. S. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 3017

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    2016, ApJS, 224, 33

    Balestra, I., Mercurio, A., Sartoris, B., et al. 2016, ApJS, 224, 33

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    L., Navarro, J

    Balogh, M. L., Navarro, J. F., & Morris, S. L. 2000, ApJ, 540, 113

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    T., Hsu, J

    Barrett, P., Hunter, J., Miller, J. T., Hsu, J. C., & Greenfield, P. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV, ed. P. Shopbell, M. Britton, & R. Ebert, 91

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

    F., Wolf, C., Meisenheimer, K., et al

    Bell, E. F., Wolf, C., Meisenheimer, K., et al. 2004, ApJ, 608, 752

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    L., et al

    Belli, S., Park, M., Davies, R. L., et al. 2024, Nature, 630, 54

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    C., Stewart, K

    Berrier, J. C., Stewart, K. R., Bullock, J. S., et al. 2009, ApJ, 690, 1292

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    R., Faber, S

    Blumenthal, G. R., Faber, S. M., Primack, J. R., & Rees, M. J. 1984, Nature, 311, 517

    work page 1984

  9. [9]

    2022, A&A Rev., 30, 3

    Boselli, A., Fossati, M., & Sun, M. 2022, A&A Rev., 30, 3

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    & Gavazzi, G

    Boselli, A. & Gavazzi, G. 2014, A&A Rev., 22, 74

    work page 2014

  11. [11]

    A., Amram, P., Combes, F., & Gach, J

    Bournaud, F., Duc, P. A., Amram, P., Combes, F., & Gach, J. L. 2004, A&A, 425, 813

    work page 2004

  12. [12]

    Brambila, D., Lopes, P. A. A., Ribeiro, A. L. B., & Cortesi, A. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 785801

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1151

    work page 2004

  14. [14]

    2014, A&A, 562, A21

    Cicone, C., Maiolino, R., Sturm, E., et al. 2014, A&A, 562, A21

    work page 2014

  15. [15]

    M., Krughoff, K

    Colberg, J. M., Krughoff, K. S., & Connolly, A. J. 2005, MNRAS, 359, 272

    work page 2005

  16. [16]

    2021, PASA, 38, e035

    Cortese, L., Catinella, B., & Smith, R. 2021, PASA, 38, e035

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    J., Springel, V., White, S

    Croton, D. J., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 11

    work page 2006

  18. [18]

    S., & White, S

    Davis, M., Efstathiou, G., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1985, ApJ, 292, 371 De Lucia, G., Fontanot, F., Hirschmann, M., & Xie, L. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.01724 DESI Collaboration, Aghamousa, A., Aguilar, J., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00036

    work page arXiv 1985

  19. [19]

    1999, MNRAS, 309, 610

    Diaferio, A. 1999, MNRAS, 309, 610

    work page 1999

  20. [20]

    & Geller, M

    Diaferio, A. & Geller, M. J. 1997, ApJ, 481, 633

    work page 1997

  21. [21]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 4760

    Donnari, M., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 4760

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    Dou, H. & Yu, H. 2025, A&A, 699, A95

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    1980, ApJ, 236, 351 Euclid Collaboration, Mellier, Y., Abdurro’uf, et al

    Dressler, A. 1980, ApJ, 236, 351 Euclid Collaboration, Mellier, Y., Abdurro’uf, et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A1

    work page 1980

  24. [24]

    S., & Santini, P

    Fontanot, F., De Lucia, G., Monaco, P., Somerville, R. S., & Santini, P. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1776

    work page 2009

  25. [25]

    G., Förster Schreiber, N

    Franx, M., van Dokkum, P. G., Förster Schreiber, N. M., et al. 2008, ApJ, 688, 770

    work page 2008

  26. [26]

    2024, scipy/scipy: SciPy 1.13.0

    Gommers, R., Virtanen, P., Haberland, M., et al. 2024, scipy/scipy: SciPy 1.13.0

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    Gunn, J. E. & Gott, J. Richard, I. 1972, ApJ, 176, 1

    work page 1972

  28. [28]

    P., Pereira, M

    Haines, C. P., Pereira, M. J., Smith, G. P., et al. 2013, ApJ, 775, 126

    work page 2013

  29. [29]

    J., Le Fèvre, O., et al

    Ilbert, O., McCracken, H. J., Le Fèvre, O., et al. 2013, A&A, 556, A55 Kauffmann, G., White, S. D. M., Heckman, T. M., et al. 2004, MN- RAS, 353, 713

    work page 2013

  30. [30]

    & Mulchaey, J

    Kawata, D. & Mulchaey, J. S. 2008, ApJ, 672, L103

    work page 2008

  31. [31]

    J., Bayliss, M

    Kim, K. J., Bayliss, M. B., Noble, A. G., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 32

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    M., et al

    Kleiner, D., Serra, P., Maccagni, F. M., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A32

    work page 2021

  33. [33]

    F., Blanc, G

    Kollmeier, J., Anderson, S. F., Blanc, G. A., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51, 274

    work page 2019

  34. [34]

    Koopmann, R. A. & Kenney, J. D. P. 2004, ApJ, 613, 866

    work page 2004

  35. [35]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 926

    Kotecha, S., Welker, C., Zhou, Z., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 926

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    B., Tinsley, B

    Larson, R. B., Tinsley, B. M., & Caldwell, C. N. 1980, ApJ, 237, 692

    work page 1980

  37. [37]

    Euclid Definition Study Report

    Laureijs, R., Amiaux, J., Arduini, S., et al. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1110.3193

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  38. [38]

    The DESI Experiment, a whitepaper for Snowmass 2013

    Levi, M., Bebek, C., Beers, T., et al. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1308.0847

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  39. [39]

    I., van de Weygaert, R., Cautun, M., et al

    Libeskind, N. I., van de Weygaert, R., Cautun, M., et al. 2018, MN- RAS, 473, 1195

    work page 2018

  40. [40]

    Lopes, P. A. A., Ribeiro, A. L. B., & Brambila, D. 2024, MNRAS, 527, L19

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    L., Balogh, M

    McGee, S. L., Balogh, M. L., Bower, R. G., Font, A. S., & McCarthy, I. G. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 937

    work page 2009

  42. [42]

    L., Balogh, M

    McGee, S. L., Balogh, M. L., Wilman, D. J., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 996

    work page 2011

  43. [43]

    2015, ApJ, 806, 4

    Merten, J., Meneghetti, M., Postman, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 4

    work page 2015

  44. [44]

    1996, Na- ture, 379, 613

    Moore, B., Katz, N., Lake, G., Dressler, A., & Oemler, A. 1996, Na- ture, 379, 613

    work page 1996

  45. [45]

    1998, ApJ, 495, 139

    Moore, B., Lake, G., & Katz, N. 1998, ApJ, 495, 139

    work page 1998

  46. [46]

    More, S., Diemer, B., & Kravtsov, A. V. 2015, ApJ, 810, 36

    work page 2015

  47. [47]

    2016, ApJ, 825, 39

    More, S., Miyatake, H., Takada, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, 39

    work page 2016

  48. [48]

    G., Webb, T

    Noble, A. G., Webb, T. M. A., Muzzin, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 118

    work page 2013

  49. [49]

    G., Webb, T

    Noble, A. G., Webb, T. M. A., Yee, H. K. C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 816, 48

    work page 2016

  50. [50]

    Oman, K. A. & Hudson, M. J. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 3083

    work page 2016

  51. [51]

    A., Hudson, M

    Oman, K. A., Hudson, M. J., & Behroozi, P. S. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 2307

    work page 2013

  52. [52]

    C., de Carvalho, R

    Oxland, M., Parker, L. C., de Carvalho, R. R., & Sampaio, V. M. 2024, Satellite quenching and morphological transformation of galaxies in groups and clusters

    work page 2024

  53. [53]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 1702, aDS Bibcode: 2019MN- RAS.484.1702P

    Pasquali, A., Smith, R., Gallazzi, A., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 1702, aDS Bibcode: 2019MN- RAS.484.1702P

    work page 2019

  54. [54]

    J., Kovač, K., et al

    Peng, Y.-j., Lilly, S. J., Kovač, K., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 193 Piffaretti, R., Arnaud, M., Pratt, G. W., Pointecouteau, E., & Melin, J. B. 2011, A&A, 534, A109

    work page 2010

  55. [55]

    L., Lourenço, A

    Piraino-Cerda, F., Jaffé, Y. L., Lourenço, A. C., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 919

    work page 2024

  56. [56]

    2010, A&A, 523, A13

    Pozzetti, L., Bolzonella, M., Zucca, E., et al. 2010, A&A, 523, A13

    work page 2010

  57. [57]

    Primack, J. R. 2024, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 74, 173

    work page 2024

  58. [58]

    2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 085007

    Qu, C.-G., Yu, H., Diaferio, A., Sohn, J., & Liu, D. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 085007

    work page 2023

  59. [59]

    H., Basu, K., Ettori, S., et al

    Reiprich, T. H., Basu, K., Ettori, S., et al. 2013, Space Sci. Rev., 177, 195

    work page 2013

  60. [60]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 843, 128, aDS Bibcode: 2017ApJ...843..128R

    Rhee, J., Smith, R., Choi, H., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 843, 128, aDS Bibcode: 2017ApJ...843..128R

    work page 2017

  61. [61]

    D., Parker, L

    Roberts, I. D., Parker, L. C., Brown, T., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 42

    work page 2019

  62. [62]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 3502

    Rohr, E., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 3502

    work page 2023

  63. [63]

    Salim, S., Boquien, M., & Lee, J. C. 2018, ApJ, 859, 11

    work page 2018

  64. [64]

    C., Janowiecki, S., et al

    Salim, S., Lee, J. C., Janowiecki, S., et al. 2016, ApJS, 227, 2

    work page 2016

  65. [65]

    M., Charlot, S., et al

    Salim, S., Rich, R. M., Charlot, S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 267

    work page 2007

  66. [66]

    M., de Carvalho, R

    Sampaio, V. M., de Carvalho, R. R., Aragón-Salamanca, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 982

    work page 2024

  67. [67]

    M., de Carvalho, R

    Sampaio, V. M., de Carvalho, R. R., Ferreras, I., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 3065

    work page 2021

  68. [68]

    M., Simmons, B

    Schawinski, K., Urry, C. M., Simmons, B. D., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 889

    work page 2014

  69. [69]

    L., Diaferio, A., Murante, G., & Borgani, S

    Serra, A. L., Diaferio, A., Murante, G., & Borgani, S. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 800

    work page 2011

  70. [70]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 4239

    Sherman, S., Jogee, S., Florez, J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 4239

    work page 2020

  71. [71]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 39

    Shi, K., Malavasi, N., Toshikawa, J., & Zheng, X. 2024, ApJ, 961, 39

    work page 2024

  72. [72]

    J., Lucey, J

    Smith, R. J., Lucey, J. R., Price, J., Hudson, M. J., & Phillipps, S. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 3167

    work page 2012

  73. [73]

    & Baade, W

    Spitzer, Lyman, J. & Baade, W. 1951, ApJ, 113, 413

    work page 1951

  74. [74]

    R., et al

    Strateva, I., Ivezić, Ž., Knapp, G. R., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 1861

    work page 2001

  75. [75]

    A., Weinberg, D

    Strauss, M. A., Weinberg, D. H., Lupton, R. H., et al. 2002, AJ, 124, 1810

    work page 2002

  76. [76]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 2297

    Taylor, E., Almaini, O., Merrifield, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 2297

    work page 2023

  77. [77]

    A., Bell, E

    Terrazas, B. A., Bell, E. F., Pillepich, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 1888

    work page 2020

  78. [78]

    2010, ApJ, 720, L149

    Teyssier, R., Chapon, D., & Bournaud, F. 2010, ApJ, 720, L149

    work page 2010

  79. [79]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 5406 van de Voort, F., Bahé, Y

    Trussler, J., Maiolino, R., Maraston, C., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 5406 van de Voort, F., Bahé, Y. M., Bower, R. G., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 3460 van den Bosch, F. C., Aquino, D., Yang, X., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 79 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science and Engineering, 13, 22

    work page 2020

  80. [80]

    & Ricker, P

    Vijayaraghavan, R. & Ricker, P. M. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 2713 von der Linden, A., Wild, V., Kauffmann, G., White, S. D. M., &

    work page 2013

Showing first 80 references.