Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Interacting galaxies in the IllustrisTNG simulations -- VIII: Pericentric star formation rate enhancements are driven both by increased fuelling and efficiency

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In close galaxy flybys inside the TNG100-1 simulation, the central star formation burst is mostly driven by higher star formation efficiency (about 70 per cent of the boost), not by extra gas supply.

desk verdict Solid pericentre-stacked measurement of interaction-triggered star formation in TNG100-1, with a real but unquantified time-axis systematic and a definition-dependent fuel/efficiency split. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14031 v1 pith:OZ2UL6XR submitted 2025-01-23 astro-ph.GA

Lawrence Faria , David R. Patton , Stéphane Courteau , Sara Ellison , Westley Brown This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxyinteractionspericentricencountersstarformationefficiencygasfractionspecificrateIllustrisTNGTNG100-1pairs
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 asks what actually powers the burst of star formation when a galaxy swings close past a companion: fresh gas arriving at the centre, or the central gas becoming better at turning itself into stars. Using 18,534 distinct pericentric encounters reconstructed from the TNG100-1 cosmological simulation, it stacks galaxy properties on a common clock measured from closest approach and finds that for the closest encounters ($r_{\mathrm{peri}} \le 50$ kpc) the central specific star formation rate rises by a factor of $1.6 \pm 0.1$, peaking roughly 0.1 Gyr after pericentre when the pair is about 75 kpc apart. Because $\mathrm{sSFR} = \mathrm{SFE_H} \times f_{\mathrm{gas}}$, the enhancement splits cleanly in log space into a fuelling term and an efficiency term, and the split attributes about 70 per cent of the peak boost to a rise in star formation efficiency and only 30 per cent to a rise in gas fraction. The question matters because fuelling versus efficiency is currently contested in observations and merger simulations, and this is a large-sample, cosmological-context answer with an explicit phase-resolved decomposition.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the identity $\mathrm{sSFR} = \mathrm{SFE_H} \times f_{\mathrm{gas}}$, with $\mathrm{SFE_H} \equiv \mathrm{SFR}/M_{\mathrm{H}}$ defined as star formation per unit total hydrogen mass in all gas phases, chosen because TNG100-1 does not report molecular gas mass. Taking logarithms turns the enhancement ratio into a sum, $\log Q(\mathrm{sSFR}) = \log Q(f_{\mathrm{gas}}) + \log Q(\mathrm{SFE_H})$; normalising by $\log Q(\mathrm{sSFR})$ splits the fractional rise $\delta\mathrm{sSFR}/\mathrm{sSFR_i}$ into a fuelled term and an efficiency term that sum to exactly one. Applied to stacked averages phased on reconstructed pericentre times from 6D kinematic interpolation of the pair orbits, this decomposition is what converts two correlated boosts into the quantitative 70/30 split.

What would settle it

Recompute pericentre times directly from the simulation's particle velocities instead of the interpolated orbits and re-stack the 18,534 encounters; if the $1.6 \pm 0.1$ peak, the roughly 0.1 Gyr delay, and the 70/30 efficiency-fuel split shift by more than the quoted uncertainties, the signal is an artefact of the time axis. Running the same stack on the higher-time-resolution TNG50 run, which the paper lists as future work, would settle the question directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the TNG100-1 cosmological simulation, the paper stacks 18,534 distinct pericentric encounters of massive galaxies ($M_* > 10^{10}\,M_\odot$) with companions at stellar mass ratios of 0.1 to 10 and tracks the specific star formation rate, gas fraction, and star formation efficiency inside the central stellar half-mass radius as functions of time relative to closest approach. For the closest encounters ($r_{\mathrm{peri}} \le 50$ kpc), mean central sSFR rises to $1.6 \pm 0.1$ times its pre-encounter value, peaking about 0.1 Gyr after pericentre when the pair is on average about 75 kpc apart; gas fraction peaks at $1.2 \pm 0.1$ and star formation efficiency at $1.4 \pm 0.1$ on the same timescale, while central gas metallicity drops, signalling inflow of metal-poor gas. Because $\mathrm{sSFR} = \mathrm{SFE_H} \times f_{\mathrm{gas}}$, the fractional boost decomposes additively in log space, and the decomposition shows that about 70 per cent of the peak central sSFR enhancement is attributable to the rise in efficiency and 30 per cent to the rise in gas fraction. In the outer shell the same enhancements are weaker and peak about 0.05 Gyr earlier, and in per-galaxy terms 57.1 per cent of galaxies at the peak are individually efficiency-driven.

Load-bearing premise

The stacked timeline rests on the reconstructed moments of closest approach being accurate to better than half the roughly 0.15 Gyr gap between simulation snapshots, and the paper itself notes a systematic periodic pattern at exactly that spacing in how those moments fall.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Pair surveys that classify interactions by projected separation should expect the starburst to appear well after closest approach, at mean separations near 75 kpc rather than 30 kpc, which explains enhanced sSFR seen at wide separations.
  • Mean sSFR in the closest-encounter bin falls below the passively evolving sample by about 0.5 Gyr after pericentre, so the burst is followed by a phase of suppressed star formation consistent with gas exhaustion or feedback.
  • Enhancements in the outer shell are weaker and peak about 0.05 Gyr earlier than in the centre, supporting a picture in which the encounter's effect propagates inward.
  • Models that attribute encounter-triggered star formation purely to gas inflow miss the dominant channel: in TNG100-1 the central galaxies become more efficient at assembling and converting star-forming gas.
  • Restricting to first-passage encounters, 70 per cent of the sample, reproduces the full-dataset enhancements, so repeated passages are not responsible for the average result.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If higher efficiency is the dominant channel, resolved molecular-gas observations of close pairs should show a shortened depletion time even where the total gas fraction is not yet elevated; this is a direct observational discriminator the paper does not run.
  • The 70/30 average may hide subpopulations in which the balance inverts: the per-galaxy split at the peak is only 57/43, so binning by stellar mass ratio or orbital eccentricity could plausibly flip the dominant driver for some subsets.
  • Because the paper itself flags the systematic periodicity in pericentre times at the snapshot spacing, re-running the stack on the higher-time-resolution TNG50 run would test whether the roughly 0.1 Gyr delay is physical or pinned to the snapshot grid.
  • The inward-propagating signal (outer shell peaking about 0.05 Gyr before the centre) and the roughly 0.4 Gyr metallicity-dilution timescale together imply a measurable central gas inflow that could be checked against particle-level gas velocities in TNG100-1, a test left for future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper uses the TNG100-1 cosmological simulation to construct a catalogue of 18,534 distinct pericentric encounters from orbit reconstructions of Patton et al. (2024). Stacking galaxy properties relative to pericentre time, it reports that within R1/2 the sSFR of hosts in the r_peri <= 50 kpc bin is enhanced by 1.6 ± 0.1 relative to the pre-encounter value, peaking about 0.1 Gyr after pericentre at a mean pair separation of about 75 kpc. The same stacking gives fgas and SFEH enhancements of 1.2 ± 0.1 and 1.4 ± 0.1, and a log-space decomposition of sSFR = fgas x SFEH is used to attribute roughly 70 per cent of the peak sSFR enhancement to increased SFEH and 30 per cent to increased fgas. The paper also reports central metallicity dilution and an outer-to-inner time lag, interpreted as evidence of inflow of pristine gas toward the centre.

Significance. If the timing result is robust, the paper provides a valuable bridge between observational pair catalogues and high-resolution merger simulations: a large, cosmologically representative sample of interactions with properties measured as a function of orbital phase rather than projected separation. The paper has genuine strengths: a large sample size, transparent discussion of selection effects, dropout-controlled comparison of snapshot-limited subsamples (Fig. 6), a first-passage robustness check (Appendix A), and an explicit statement of the indirect nature of the inflow evidence. The central fuelling-versus-efficiency result, however, rests on two methodological choices that need tightening before the quantitative claim can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.2, Figure 2] The stacked time axis is built from pericentre times reconstructed by 6D kinematic interpolation between snapshots separated by ~0.15 Gyr. The right panel of Figure 2 shows periodic structure in the Delta-t distribution at this cadence, and the text states that these variations "are likely systematic." Because the zero-point of Delta-t enters every stacked curve, a systematic phase error in the reconstructed pericentres would both dilute the peak amplitude and bias the reported peak time of +0.12 Gyr and the corresponding mean separation of 75 kpc in Figures 4, 5, and 7. This is not a cosmetic issue; it directly affects the headline timing result. Please quantify the sensitivity, for example by Monte Carlo perturbing each pericentre time by up to half a snapshot interval, by repeating the stacking with pericentre times fixed to snapshot times, or by splitting the sample according to where in the snapshot interval the pericentre falls, and report the resulting changes in Q(sSFR), Q(fgas), Q(SFEH), the peak time, and the peak separation.
  2. [Section 3.3, Eq. (4)] SFEH is not measured directly per galaxy; it is computed from the ratio of the sample-averaged sSFR to the sample-averaged fgas (Section 3.3). For individual galaxies sSFR_i = SFEH_i x fgas_i, but the mean of a product is not the product of the means, so this ratio is an fgas-weighted mean SFEH whose weighting can evolve during the encounter. The log-space decomposition in Eqs. (7)-(11) is then an exact identity for the averaged Q values rather than a statement about the average of per-galaxy efficiencies, and the reported 70 per cent / 30 per cent efficiency/fuelling split could change if the covariance between SFEH and fgas evolves with time. Please compute SFEH directly per galaxy (for example SFR/MH) and compare the average of per-galaxy Q(SFEH) with the ratio-derived Q(SFEH), or otherwise demonstrate that the weighting effect is negligible.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.2, bullet list] The bullet "At least 4 snapshots between the selected pericentre, and either the next pericentre, the merger..." is ambiguous; it should be reworded to make clear whether this is a required temporal gap before or after the selected pericentre.
  2. [Figure 5 caption] The caption says "mean pair separation bounded by the 25th and 75th percentiles," which conflates a mean with a percentile range; please clarify that the shaded band spans the interquartile range of separations around the mean.
  3. [Section 3.1, Eq. (3)] The definition of SFEH as (SFR/MH2) x (MH2/MH) is unnecessarily roundabout; it reduces identically to SFR/MH, and simplifying the definition would avoid the impression that molecular gas directly enters the quantity actually measured.
  4. [Abstract and Section 3.5] The "70 per cent" attribution is obtained from a log-space decomposition (Eq. 9); the abstract and conclusions should state this explicitly so that readers do not interpret it as a linear additive decomposition of the sSFR enhancement.
  5. [Figure 11] The shaded regions in Figure 11 are described as 2-sigma errors from a Jackknife technique, while Figures 4, 7, and 8 use the 2-sigma standard error in the mean; please specify the resampling unit and label the two error definitions consistently.
  6. [Data Availability] The data availability statement mentions only the public IllustrisTNG data; if possible, please also state whether the new 18,534-encounter catalogue will be released, as it would be a valuable community resource.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the enhancement factors are direct simulation measurements; the fuelling/efficiency split is a transparent algebraic decomposition, and the only self-citation chain (orbital reconstruction) is external prior work whose timing systematics are acknowledged.

full rationale

The paper's central results are stacked averages of sSFR, fgas, and metallicity measured directly from TNG100-1 snapshots; these are empirical quantities, not outputs of a fitted model. The reported enhancements (Q(sSFR)=1.6±0.1, Q(fgas)=1.2±0.1, Q(SFEH)=1.4±0.1) are mean values from the encounter sample (Figures 4 and 7), with no free parameter fitted to the claimed outcome. Section 3.5's 70/30 per cent split is derived from the exact identity sSFR = fgas multiplied by SFEH (Eq. 4), via log Q(sSFR) = log Q(fgas) + log Q(SFEH) (Eq. 8). This is an accounting decomposition, not an independent physical measurement; the paper explicitly states that SFEH is calculated from the averaged sSFR and fgas according to Equation 4, so it does not present the split as an independent confirmation. The conclusion that enhanced SFEH is the primary driver is definition-dependent on how the fuelled and efficiency fractions are defined, but the construction is transparent and does not involve fitting a parameter and then calling it a prediction. The orbital-reconstruction catalogue (Patton et al. 2024) is self-cited and load-bearing for the pericentre time axis, but it is a separate published reconstruction, not a uniqueness theorem invoked to forbid alternatives. The paper itself flags the periodicity in the time-relative-to-pericentre distribution at the snapshot cadence as 'likely systematic' (Section 2.2, Figure 2), which is an important limitation for the timing and peak-separation claims; however, this is a systematic-error and accuracy concern, not a circularity in the derivation chain. Overall, no claimed result reduces by construction to its own input in a way that would constitute circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data. The selection thresholds (e.g., rperi bins, 1 Gyr spacing, size cut at 150 kpc) are hand-chosen analysis choices that shape the sample but are not fitted to maximize the reported effect. The moving-average bin width of 3000 galaxies is a smoothing choice. The paper introduces no new physical entities; all quantities are defined from existing simulation outputs.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption TNG100-1 simulation's subgrid physics (star formation, feedback) and galaxy identification (Subfind) provide a faithful enough model of galaxy interactions to draw conclusions about real galaxies.
    The entire study treats the simulation as ground truth; Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption The 6D kinematic orbit reconstruction of Patton et al. (2024) accurately locates pericentre times between snapshots.
    The stacking and all time-resolved results use these reconstructed pericentres (Section 2.2, Figure 1). The paper itself notes systematic features in the time-relative-to-pericentre distribution (Figure 2).
  • domain assumption A galaxy's properties respond primarily to its closest companion; other companions can be ignored.
    Stated in Section 2.2: 'we assume that the changes in the galaxies' properties will be most strongly affected by the pericentric passage of their closest companion.'
  • domain assumption The first Δt bin (about 0.5 Gyr before pericentre) represents an unperturbed pre-encounter baseline.
    All Q enhancements are normalized to the first bin; Section 3.2, Eq. 5. If interactions begin earlier, the quoted enhancements are conservative lower limits.
  • domain assumption Effects of earlier pericentres dissipate within 1 Gyr, so encounters selected with >= 1 Gyr spacing are 'distinct'.
    Selection criteria, Section 2.2; Appendix A tests first passages but does not fully remove memory effects from earlier passages outside the redshift range.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interacting galaxies in the IllustrisTNG simulations -- VIII: Pericentric star formation rate enhancements are driven both by increased fuelling and efficiency." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OZ2UL6XR

@misc{pith2026250114031,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interacting galaxies in the IllustrisTNG simulations -- VIII: Pericentric star formation rate enhancements are driven both by increased fuelling and efficiency},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OZ2UL6XR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14031}
}
abstract

Using the TNG100-1 cosmological simulations, we explore how galaxy properties, such as specific star formation rate ($\rm sSFR=SFR/M_*$), gas fraction ($\rm f_{gas} \,= \, M_{\rm H}/M_{*}$), and star formation efficiency ($\rm SFE_{H} = SFR/M_{H}$), change over the course of galaxy-galaxy interactions. We identify 18,534 distinct encounters from the reconstructed orbits of a sample of massive galaxies ($\rm M_{*} > 10^{10} \; \rm M_{\odot}$) with companions within a stellar mass ratio of 0.1 to 10. Using these encounters, we study the variation of galaxy properties over time as they approach and move away from pericentric encounters over a redshift range of $0 \leq z < 1$. Following the closest pericentric encounters ($\leq 50$ kpc) of a host galaxy with its companion, we find that sSFR is enhanced by a factor of $1.6 \pm 0.1$ on average within the central stellar half-mass radius (R\textsubscript{1/2}) compared to pre-encounter values. Our results show a time delay between pericentre and maximum sSFR enhancement of $\sim$0.1 Gyr with a mean galaxy separation of 75 kpc. We similarly find that $\rm f_{gas}$ is enhanced by a factor of $1.2 \pm 0.1$, and $\rm SFE_{H}$ is enhanced by a factor of $1.4 \pm 0.1$ following the pericentre of an encounter within the same timescale. Additionally, we find evidence of inflowing gas towards the centre, measured by comparing the $\rm f_{gas}$ and metallicity within the central R\textsubscript{1/2} to the galactic outskirts. We find that approximately 70 per cent of the peak sSFR enhancement can be attributed to the increase in $\rm SFE_{H}$, with the increase in $\rm f_{gas}$ contributing the remaining 30 per cent.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14031 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 3D separation (r) versus time relative to the present day (t) for the reconstructed orbit of a galaxy pair. The red circles represent the data obtained from the consecutive discrete snapshots of TNG100-1, while the blue line represents the results of the 6D kinematic interpolation. The blue and green crosses represent identified pericentres and apocentres, respectively. The green and orange circles show snapshots ar… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution of galaxy pair separation at pericentre, rperi (left panel) and time relative to pericentre, Δt (right panel). The left panel shows the range of rperi emergent from our selection criteria ranging from 0 - 500 kpc, while the right panel shows the time ranging from 0.5 Gyr before the pericentre (denoted by a negative Δt) to 1 Gyr after the pericentre (denoted by a positive Δt). an extended encounter, wher… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Four examples of encounters in our final dataset. On the top panel of each plot is the snapshot data (red circles), as well as the 6D kinematic interpolation (blue line). On the second and third panels of each plot, the 𝑠𝑆𝐹𝑅 (Gyr−1 ) and fgas within R1/2 for the host galaxy are plotted (blue and green circles, respectively), with the dashed lines added for readability and not representing any quantitative interpolat… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The upper panel shows the mean sSFR versus time relative to the pericentre (Δ𝑡) within R1/2 for all host galaxies. The different colours represent various rperi bins. The black vertical line at Δt = 0 represents the time of the pericentre. The shaded regions represent …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mean sSFR within R1/2 for host galaxies with rperi = 0-50 kpc (blue) compared to mean sSFR when limited to the first 7 snapshots of all encounters with at least 7 snapshots (green), and the first 10 snapshots of all encounters with at least 10 snapshots (red). MNRAS 00…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mean galaxy properties of interest versus time relative to the pericentre within R1/2 for all host galaxies. The second row shows the enhancements (Q) of these properties versus time relative to the pericentre. The different colours represent various rperi bins. The bl…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mean galaxy properties of interest versus time relative to the pericentre within outer stellar half-mass radius shell (R - R1/2) for all host galaxies. The second row shows the enhancements (Q) of these properties versus time relative to the pericentre. The different c…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mean gas metallicity versus time relative to pericentre within R1/2 (left panel) and R - R1/2 (right panel) for host galaxies with rperi = 0-50 kpc. The black vertical line at Δt = 0 represents the time of the pericentre. The shaded regions represent the 2𝜎 standard er…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Mean gas metallicity gradient versus time relative to pericentre calculated using the metallicity in R1/2 (Figure 9a) and R - R1/2 (Figure 9b) for host galaxies with rperi = 0-50 kpc. The black vertical line at Δt = 0 represents the time of the pericentre. The shaded …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Enhancement in sSFR (blue), as well as the fraction driven by fuelling (red) and efficiency (green), versus time relative to pericentre within 𝑅1/2 (left) and 𝑅 − 𝑅1/2 (right) for host galaxies with rperi = 0-50 kpc. The black vertical line at tperi = 0 represents the…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Scatter plot showing the fuelled fraction of 𝛿sSFR versus the efficiency fraction of 𝛿sSFR for individual galaxies at the time of average peak post-pericentre central sSFR enhancement from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]

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

  1. Performance of morphological classifiers for galaxy mergers compared to current machine learning methods

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

    Updated G-M20 and G-C morphological cuts achieve ~70% merger precision comparable to ML, with better high-z robustness, but only select pre-mergers.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  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]

    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...

  3. [3]

    N., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..182..543A 182, 543

    Abazajian K. N., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..182..543A 182, 543

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 2009

  4. [5]

    K., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201425397 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...579A..45B 579, A45

    Barrera-Ballesteros J. K., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201425397 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...579A..45B 579, A45

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425397 2015

  5. [6]

    J., Geller M

    Barton E. J., Geller M. J., Kenyon S. J., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308392 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...530..660B 530, 660

    doi:10.1086/308392 2000

  6. [7]

    J., Arnold J

    Barton E. J., Arnold J. A., Zentner A. R., Bullock J. S., Wechsler R. H., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/522620 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...671.1538B 671, 1538

    work page doi:10.1086/522620 2007

  7. [8]

    Belfiore F., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx789 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469..151B 469, 151

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx789 2017

  8. [9]

    W., Ellison S

    Bickley R. W., Ellison S. L., Patton D. R., Bottrell C., Gwyn S., Hudson M. J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1500 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.3294B 514, 3294

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1500 2022

Show all 104 references
  1. [10]

    W., Ellison S

    Bickley R. W., Ellison S. L., Patton D. R., Wilkinson S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad088 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.6149B 519, 6149

    2023 doi

  2. [11]

    W., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1951 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.3068B 533, 3068

    Bickley R. W., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1951 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.3068B 533, 3068

    2024 doi

  3. [12]

    A., Barnes J

    Blumenthal K. A., Barnes J. E., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1605 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.3952B 479, 3952

    2018 doi

  4. [13]

    Boselli A., Gavazzi G., Donas J., Scodeggio M., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/318734 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AJ....121..753B 121, 753

    2001 doi

  5. [14]

    R., Ellison S

    Brown W., Patton D. R., Ellison S. L., Faria L., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1314 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.5107B 522, 5107

    2023 doi

  6. [15]

    L., Patton D

    Bustamante S., Ellison S. L., Patton D. R., Sparre M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1025 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.3469B 494, 3469

    2020 doi

  7. [16]

    H., Ellison S

    Byrne-Mamahit S., Hani M. H., Ellison S. L., Quai S., Patton D. R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3674 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.4966B 519, 4966

    2023 doi

  8. [17]

    R., Ellison S

    Byrne-Mamahit S., Patton D. R., Ellison S. L., Bickley R., Ferreira L., Hani M., Quai S., Wilkinson S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae419 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.5864B 528, 5864

    2024 doi

  9. [18]

    Carton D., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1343 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.4293C 478, 4293

    2018 doi

  10. [19]

    Casteels K. R. V., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1799 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.1157C 445, 1157

    2014 doi

  11. [20]

    Contreras-Santos A., Knebe A., Cui W., Haggar R., Pearce F., Gray M., De Petris M., Yepes G., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2127 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.515.5375C 515, 5375

    2022 doi

  12. [21]

    J., Jonsson P., Primack J

    Cox T. J., Jonsson P., Primack J. R., Somerville R. S., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11107.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.373.1013C 373, 1013

    2006

  13. [22]

    J., Jonsson P., Somerville R

    Cox T. J., Jonsson P., Somerville R. S., Primack J. R., Dekel A., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12730.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.384..386C 384, 386

    2008

  14. [23]

    H., Appleby S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz937 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.2827D 486, 2827

    Dav \'e R., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar D., Narayanan D., Li Q., Rafieferantsoa M. H., Appleby S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz937 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.2827D 486, 2827

    2019 doi

  15. [24]

    J., Liske J., Driver S

    De Propris R., Conselice C. J., Liske J., Driver S. P., Patton D. R., Graham A. W., Allen P. D., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/520488 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...666..212D 666, 212

    2007 doi

  16. [25]

    L., Semelin B., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066959 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...468...61D 468, 61

    Di Matteo P., Combes F., Melchior A. L., Semelin B., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066959 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...468...61D 468, 61

    2007 doi

  17. [26]

    Diemer B., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aae387 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..238...33D 238, 33

    2018 doi

  18. [27]

    Diemer B., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1323 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487.1529D 487, 1529

    2019 doi

  19. [28]

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

    2014 doi

  20. [29]

    L., Patton D

    Ellison S. L., Patton D. R., Simard L., McConnachie A. W., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/135/5/1877 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....135.1877E 135, 1877

    2008 doi

  21. [30]

    L., Patton D

    Ellison S. L., Patton D. R., Simard L., McConnachie A. W., Baldry I. K., Mendel J. T., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17076.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.407.1514E 407, 1514

    2010

  22. [31]

    L., Patton D

    Ellison S. L., Patton D. R., Mendel J. T., Scudder J. M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19624.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.418.2043E 418, 2043

    2011

  23. [32]

    L., Mendel J

    Ellison S. L., Mendel J. T., Patton D. R., Scudder J. M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1562 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.435.3627E 435, 3627

    2013 doi

  24. [33]

    L., Catinella B., Cortese L., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1247 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.3447E 478, 3447

    Ellison S. L., Catinella B., Cortese L., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1247 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.3447E 478, 3447

    2018 doi

  25. [34]

    L., Viswanathan A., Patton D

    Ellison S. L., Viswanathan A., Patton D. R., Bottrell C., McConnachie A. W., Gwyn S., Cuillandre J.-C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1431 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487.2491E 487, 2491

    2019 doi

  26. [35]

    L., Thorp M

    Ellison S. L., Thorp M. D., Pan H.-A., Lin L., Scudder J. M., Bluck A. F. L., S \'a nchez S. F., Sargent M., 2020a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.6027E 492, 6027

    doi

  27. [36]

    L., et al., 2020b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slz179 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493L..39E 493, L39

    Ellison S. L., et al., 2020b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slz179 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493L..39E 493, L39

    doi

  28. [37]

    L., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slac109 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517L..92E 517, L92

    Ellison S. L., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slac109 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517L..92E 517, L92

    2022 doi

  29. [38]

    L., Ferreira L., Wild V., Wilkinson S., Rowlands K., Patton D

    Ellison S. L., Ferreira L., Wild V., Wilkinson S., Rowlands K., Patton D. R., 2024, @doi [OJAp, submitted] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.06357 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241006357E p. arXiv:2410.06357

    2024 doi arXiv

  30. [39]

    E., Lara-L \'o pez M

    Gardu \ n o L. E., Lara-L \'o pez M. A., L \'o pez-Cruz O., Hopkins A. M., Owers M. S., Pimbblet K. A., Holwerda B. W., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3799 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.2969G 501, 2969

    2021 doi

  31. [40]

    Genel S., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3078 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.3976G 474, 3976

    2018 doi

  32. [41]

    H., Gosain H., Ellison S

    Hani M. H., Gosain H., Ellison S. L., Patton D. R., Torrey P., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa459 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.3716H 493, 3716

    2020 doi

  33. [42]

    M., Avila-Reese V., Conselice C

    Hern \'a ndez-Toledo H. M., Avila-Reese V., Conselice C. J., Puerari I., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/427134 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AJ....129..682H 129, 682

    2005 doi

  34. [43]

    T., Kudritzki R.-P., Kewley L

    Ho I. T., Kudritzki R.-P., Kewley L. J., Zahid H. J., Dopita M. A., Bresolin F., Rupke D. S. N., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448.2030H 448, 2030

    2015 doi

  35. [44]

    F., Hernquist L., Cox T

    Hopkins P. F., Hernquist L., Cox T. J., Kere s D., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/524362 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJS..175..356H 175, 356

    2008 doi

  36. [45]

    F., Cox T

    Hopkins P. F., Cox T. J., Hernquist L., Narayanan D., Hayward C. C., Murray N., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt017 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.1901H 430, 1901

    2013 doi

  37. [46]

    S., Mihos J

    Iono D., Yun M. S., Mihos J. C., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/424797 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...616..199I 616, 199

    2004 doi

  38. [47]

    Kaneko H., Kuno N., Iono D., Tamura Y., Tosaki T., Nakanishi K., Sawada T., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/65.1.20 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASJ...65...20K 65, 20

    2013 doi

  39. [48]

    Kaneko H., Kuno N., Iono D., Tamura Y., Tosaki T., Nakanishi K., Sawada T., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psx041 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASJ...69...66K 69, 66

    2017 doi

  40. [49]

    J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305588 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...498..541K 498, 541

    Kennicutt Robert C. J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305588 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...498..541K 498, 541

    1998 doi

  41. [50]

    J., Rupke D., Zahid H

    Kewley L. J., Rupke D., Zahid H. J., Geller M. J., Barton E. J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/721/1/L48 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721L..48K 721, L48

    2010 doi

  42. [52]

    G., Alonso S., Mesa V., O'Mill A

    Lambas D. G., Alonso S., Mesa V., O'Mill A. L., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...539A..45L 539, A45

    2012 doi

  43. [53]

    L., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/128 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...825..128L 825, 128

    Larson K. L., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/128 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...825..128L 825, 128

    2016 doi

  44. [54]

    K., Walter F., Brinks E., Bigiel F., de Blok W

    Leroy A. K., Walter F., Brinks E., Bigiel F., de Blok W. J. G., Madore B., Thornley M. D., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2782 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....136.2782L 136, 2782

    2008 doi

  45. [56]

    Li W., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1473 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523..720L 523, 720

    2023 doi

  46. [57]

    Lin L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/718/2/1158 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...718.1158L 718, 1158

    2010 doi

  47. [58]

    M., Jonsson P., Cox T

    Lotz J. M., Jonsson P., Cox T. J., Primack J. R., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14004.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.391.1137L 391, 1137

    2008

  48. [59]

    Marinacci F., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2206 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.5113M 480, 5113

    2018 doi

  49. [60]

    Michiyama T., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psw087 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PASJ...68...96M 68, 96

    2016 doi

  50. [61]

    C., Hernquist L., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177353 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...464..641M 464, 641

    Mihos J. C., Hernquist L., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177353 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...464..641M 464, 641

    1996 doi

  51. [62]

    Moreno J., Bluck A. F. L., Ellison S. L., Patton D. R., Torrey P., Moster B. P., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1694 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.436.1765M 436, 1765

    2013 doi

  52. [63]

    L., Patton D

    Moreno J., Torrey P., Ellison S. L., Patton D. R., Bluck A. F. L., Bansal G., Hernquist L., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv094 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448.1107M 448, 1107

    2015 doi

  53. [64]

    Moreno J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz417 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.1320M 485, 1320

    2019 doi

  54. [65]

    Moreno J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2952 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.3113M 503, 3113

    2021 doi

  55. [66]

    P., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty618 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.1206N 477, 1206

    Naiman J. P., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty618 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.1206N 477, 1206

    2018 doi

  56. [67]

    Nelson D., et al., 2019, @doi [Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology] 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ComAC...6....2N 6, 2

    2019 doi

  57. [68]

    Pan H.-A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaeb92 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...868..132P 868, 132

    2018 doi

  58. [69]

    Pan H.-A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab311c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...881..119P 881, 119

    2019 doi

  59. [70]

    Richard I., Choi Y.-Y., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/524192 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...674..784P 674, 784

    Park C., Gott J. Richard I., Choi Y.-Y., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/524192 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...674..784P 674, 784

    2008 doi

  60. [71]

    R., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324543 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...565..208P 565, 208

    Patton D. R., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324543 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...565..208P 565, 208

    2002 doi

  61. [72]

    R., Grant J

    Patton D. R., Grant J. K., Simard L., Pritchet C. J., Carlberg R. G., Borne K. D., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/491672 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AJ....130.2043P 130, 2043

    2005 doi

  62. [73]

    R., Torrey P., Ellison S

    Patton D. R., Torrey P., Ellison S. L., Mendel J. T., Scudder J. M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slt058 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.433L..59P 433, L59

    2013 doi

  63. [74]

    R., Qamar F

    Patton D. R., Qamar F. D., Ellison S. L., Bluck A. F. L., Simard L., Mendel J. T., Moreno J., Torrey P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1494 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461.2589P 461, 2589

    2016 doi

  64. [75]

    R., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa913 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.4969P 494, 4969

    Patton D. R., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa913 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.4969P 494, 4969

    2020 doi

  65. [76]

    R., Faria L., Hani M

    Patton D. R., Faria L., Hani M. H., Torrey P., Ellison S. L., Thakur S. D., Westlake R. I., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae608 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529.1493P 529, 1493

    2024 doi

  66. [77]

    Pillepich A., et al., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2656 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.4077P 473, 4077

    doi

  67. [78]

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

    doi

  68. [79]

    H., Ellison S

    Quai S., Hani M. H., Ellison S. L., Patton D. R., Woo J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab988 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.1888Q 504, 1888

    2021 doi

  69. [80]

    Rodriguez-Gomez V., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv264 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449...49R 449, 49

    2015 doi

  70. [81]

    Rupke D. S. N., Kewley L. J., Chien L. H., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/1255 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...723.1255R 723, 1255

    2010 doi

  71. [82]

    Saintonge A., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/73 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...758...73S 758, 73

    2012 doi

  72. [83]

    Saintonge A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aa97e0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJS..233...22S 233, 22

    2017 doi

  73. [84]

    T., Ellison S

    Sargent M. T., Ellison S. L., Mendel J. T., Saintonge A., Moln \'a r D. C., Scudder J. M., Violino G., 2024, @doi [OJAp, submitted] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.06572 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240906572S p. arXiv:2409.06572

    2024 doi arXiv

  74. [85]

    L., McAlpine W., Hickox R

    Satyapal S., Ellison S. L., McAlpine W., Hickox R. C., Patton D. R., Mendel J. T., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu650 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.1297S 441, 1297

    2014 doi

  75. [86]

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

    2015 doi

  76. [88]

    M., Ellison S

    Scudder J. M., Ellison S. L., Torrey P., Patton D. R., Mendel J. T., 2012b, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21749.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.426..549S 426, 549

    2012

  77. [89]

    M., Ellison S

    Scudder J. M., Ellison S. L., Momjian E., Rosenberg J. L., Torrey P., Patton D. R., Fertig D., Mendel J. T., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv588 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.3719S 449, 3719

    2015 doi

  78. [90]

    D., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae25e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...867...92S 867, 92

    Silverman J. D., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae25e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...867...92S 867, 92

    2018 doi

  79. [91]

    H., Richter P., Ellison S

    Sparre M., Whittingham J., Damle M., Hani M. H., Richter P., Ellison S. L., Pfrommer C., Vogelsberger M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3171 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.2720S 509, 2720

    2022 doi

  80. [92]

    Springel V., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.401..791S 401, 791

    2010

  81. [93]

    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

  82. [94]

    Springel V., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature03597 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Natur.435..629S 435, 629

    2005 doi

  83. [95]

    Springel V., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3304 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475..676S 475, 676

    2018 doi

  84. [96]

    Teyssier R., Chapon D., Bournaud F., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/720/2/L149 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...720L.149T 720, L149

    2010 doi

  85. [97]

    D., Ellison S

    Thorp M. D., Ellison S. L., Simard L., S \'a nchez S. F., Antonio B., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly185 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482L..55T 482, L55

    2019 doi

  86. [98]

    D., Ellison S

    Thorp M. D., Ellison S. L., Pan H.-A., Lin L., Patton D. R., Bluck A. F. L., Walters D., Scudder J. M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2288 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.1462T 516, 1462

    2022 doi

  87. [99]

    D., Ellison S

    Thorp M. D., Ellison S. L., Galicia A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451662 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690L...4T 690, L4

    2024 doi

  88. [100]

    J., Kewley L., Hernquist L., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...746..108T 746, 108

    Torrey P., Cox T. J., Kewley L., Hernquist L., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...746..108T 746, 108

    2012 doi

  89. [101]

    Torrey P., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz243 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.5587T 484, 5587

    2019 doi

  90. [102]

    Utomo D., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa88c0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...849...26U 849, 26

    2017 doi

  91. [103]

    W., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4fbc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...926..203V 926, 203

    Vasiliev E., Belokurov V., Evans N. W., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4fbc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...926..203V 926, 203

    2022 doi

  92. [104]

    L., Sargent M., Coppin K

    Violino G., Ellison S. L., Sargent M., Coppin K. E. K., Scudder J. M., Mendel T. J., Saintonge A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty345 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.2591V 476, 2591

    2018 doi

  93. [105]

    Vogelsberger M., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1536 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.1518V 444, 1518

    2014 doi

  94. [106]

    F., Geller M

    Woods D. F., Geller M. J., Barton E. J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/504834 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....132..197W 132, 197

    2006 doi

  95. [107]

    F., Geller M

    Woods D. F., Geller M. J., Kurtz M. J., Westra E., Fabricant D. G., Dell'Antonio I., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/139/5/1857 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....139.1857W 139, 1857

    2010 doi

  96. [108]

    S., Allen L., Kenney J

    Young J. S., Allen L., Kenney J. D. P., Lesser A., Rownd B., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/118152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996AJ....112.1903Y 112, 1903

    1996 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.