Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 60 references

A new asphericity parameter turns halo inflow maps into two numbers that separately track filamentary anisotropy and outflow coverage.

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

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-11 06:48 UTC pith:RWDQKNOS

load-bearing objection Solid methods paper: dual linear/log multipole asphericity is cleanly defined, toy-model validated, and already usable for simulation work on accretion geometry. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.05498 v1 pith:RWDQKNOS submitted 2026-07-06 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Non-spherical Cows: Introducing the Asphericity Parameter as a Measure of Accretion Geometry

Benjamin A. Seidel , Rhea-Silvia Remus , Lucas C. Kimmig , Lucas M. Valenzuela , Klaus Dolag This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO
keywords asphericity parameteraccretion geometryspherical harmonicscosmic webinflows and outflowscircumgalactic mediumgalaxy clustershalo gas flows
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Galaxies and clusters sit at the interface between cold gas streaming in from the cosmic web and hot gas pushed out by stars and black holes. This paper introduces a single geometric measure of that interface: the inflow asphericity, built from a spherical-harmonics decomposition of the mass-flow field measured on a sphere at the virial radius. The same decomposition can be run on the linear flow map or on its logarithm. The linear version is dominated by the strongest filaments and therefore reports overall anisotropy; the logarithmic version compresses the dynamic range and becomes highly sensitive to patches of zero inflow, which are the regions where outflows win. Idealized maps with controlled numbers of filaments and outflow cones, plus real maps from cosmological simulations, show that the two numbers are largely orthogonal and together place a halo into one of four morphological regimes (focused inflow with or without outflows, isotropic inflow with or without outflows). The result is a practical diagnostic that lets simulators quantify how a halo is coupled to its large-scale environment without having to invent ad-hoc filament finders for every object.

Core claim

Linear asphericity ζ_lin measures the total power in non-spherical multipoles of the inflow field and therefore tracks anisotropy and filamentary strength, while logarithmic asphericity ζ_log tracks the covering fraction of zero-inflow (outflow-dominated) regions; together the pair cleanly separates the geometry of cosmological accretion from the geometry of feedback-driven outflows.

What carries the argument

The asphericity parameter ζ = (1/C_0) ∑_{l=1 to 9} (2l+1) C_l, the multipole excess of a spherical-harmonics decomposition of the radial mass-flow map evaluated at the virial surface, computed once on the linear map and once on the logarithmic map.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on truncating the multipole sum at degree l=9, a cut justified by a characteristic angular scale of about 20 degrees and by a dip in the mean power spectrum of the same simulation suite later used for validation.

What would settle it

If, on an independent set of hydrodynamical simulations with different feedback physics, ζ_log fails to rise systematically with measured outflow covering fraction while ζ_lin stays high for single-filament maps, the separation of roles claimed for the two flavours would be falsified.

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

If this is right

  • Simulators can classify every halo into one of four inflow/outflow geometry classes without visual inspection of maps.
  • The pair (ζ_lin, ζ_log) supplies a quantitative link between internal feedback efficiency and the large-scale flow field at the virial boundary.
  • Temporal tracks of the two asphericities can be used to date the onset of hot-halo shielding or AGN-driven disruption of isotropic accretion.
  • Comparisons of asphericity distributions across simulation codes become a clean test of how different sub-grid outflow models shape the circumgalactic medium.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the logarithmic flavour is so sensitive to zero-inflow patches, it may serve as a cheap proxy for the solid angle of multiphase outflows even when the full velocity field is not stored.
  • The same surface-harmonic machinery could be applied to observed maps of circumgalactic absorption or emission once enough sightlines exist, turning the parameter into an observational diagnostic.
  • The four-regime sketch suggests a natural evolutionary sequence from high-redshift isotropic accretion to late-time filament-plus-outflow configurations that could be tested with light-cone catalogues.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the inflow asphericity parameter ζ, defined from a spherical-harmonics multipole expansion of the mass-inflow field measured on a spherical surface at the virial radius (Eqs. 1–3). Two complementary variants are defined: linear asphericity ζ_lin, which is sensitive to the power in non-spherical (filamentary) modes, and logarithmic asphericity ζ_log, which is sensitive to the covering fraction of zero-inflow (outflow-dominated) regions. The authors validate the dual-parameter interpretation with a controlled three-component toy model (Gaussian filaments + isotropic base + conical outflow holes) that cleanly separates N_fil, j_fil and f_outflow (Figs. 3–5 and schematic Fig. 6), and then apply the statistic to Magneticum Pathfinder haloes, showing that the same morphological distinctions appear in realistic flow maps (Figs. 7–9). Appendices supply Parseval checks, spectral motivation for the l=9 cutoff, and polyhedral test geometries.

Significance. If the dual-parameter reading holds, the community gains a compact, reproducible geometric diagnostic that simultaneously quantifies filamentary accretion anisotropy and the surface coverage of feedback-driven outflows—precisely the intermediate-scale bridge between internal galaxy physics and the cosmic web that is otherwise hard to summarize. The work is methodologically careful: the definition is standard multipole power, the toy-model grids are orthogonal and falsifiable, kernel-weighted SPH mapping (SMAC) is used to avoid spurious zero-inflow pixels, and Parseval identities (Appendix F) confirm numerical orthonormality. The parameter is already being used in companion analyses of shapes and star-formation histories, so a clean published definition is timely.

major comments (2)
  1. Eq. (3) and Appendix B: the multipole sum is truncated at l=9, motivated by a ~20° angular scale and by a transition dip in the mean power spectrum of 2000 Magneticum haloes. Because the same simulation suite is later used for validation (Figs. 7–9), a short robustness check is needed: recompute ζ_lin and ζ_log for a few representative maps with l_max = 6, 9 and 12 (or with a pure physical angular-scale cut) and show that the four-regime classification of Fig. 6 is stable. Without this, the claim that the cutoff cleanly isolates large-scale filamentary modes remains only partially tested.
  2. Section 3 and Figs. 3–5: the toy-model filaments are assigned a fixed Gaussian FWHM = 0.2 rad and a fixed total filamentary power ∫ j_fil^{2}. While Appendix A varies geometry (platonic solids) and Fig. A.2 varies width, the main grids that establish the orthogonal ζ_lin/ζ_log behaviour do not. A brief demonstration that the qualitative trends (especially the strong f_outflow scaling of ζ_log) survive a factor-of-two change in FWHM would remove residual concern that the reported sensitivities are tuned to the default width.
minor comments (5)
  1. Section 2.2: the phrase “aspherical excess on the sphere” is slightly ambiguous; a one-sentence clarification that ζ is simply the multipole power above the monopole (normalized by C0) would help non-specialists.
  2. Figure 1 caption and surrounding text: the correspondence between sectoral harmonics and the planar test maps is useful, but the red frames are hard to see in greyscale; consider thicker borders or an explicit (l,m) label on each inset.
  3. Section 4.2: the statement that dynamical state is “not directly connected” to the instantaneous accretion field at z=0.25 is based on only two clusters; a short caveat that a larger temporal sample is required (already promised for future work) would avoid over-interpretation.
  4. Appendix F, Fig. F.1: the Parseval curves are reassuring, but the y-axis label “Σcl / ∫ f^{2}” is typeset inconsistently; a uniform notation matching Eq. (F.1) would improve readability.
  5. References: a few recent observational works on CGM kinematics and filament connectivity could be added for context, but this is optional.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity: asphericity is an explicit multipole definition characterized on independent toy models; only mild self-reference in the l=9 cutoff.

specific steps
  1. other [Eq. (3); §2.2; Appendix B]
    "In principle the choice of cut-off is arbitrary, we arrive at l=9 for the following reasons: For l=9 a typical angular scale of fluctuations is π/9 or 20°. ... Additionally, using the combined power spectra of 2000 haloes from the Magneticum simulations ... we found that this harmonic degree marks a transition point between the large-scale power spectrum and the smaller scale features of a typical simulated inflow map (see Section B)."

    The multipole sum that defines ζ is truncated at l=9 partly by inspecting the mean spectrum of the same Magneticum suite later used for application. This is a methodological filter choice, not a prediction forced by construction, and the primary physical-scale argument is independent; it does not make the toy-model characterizations of ζ_lin/ζ_log circular.

full rationale

The paper defines ζ (Eq. 3) as normalized excess multipole power of an input inflow map (linear or log), then independently varies filament number, filament strength, and outflow covering fraction in synthetic maps (Figs. 3–5) to show that ζ_lin responds to concentrated high-power anisotropy while ζ_log responds to zero-inflow covering fraction. Those toy-model grids and the four-regime schematic (Fig. 6) are self-contained and do not reduce to Magneticum data or to prior self-citations. Application to Magneticum (Figs. 7–9) is demonstration, not a forced prediction. The sole mild self-reference is the secondary justification of the l=9 truncation from the mean power spectrum of 2000 Magneticum haloes (Appendix B); the primary justification is an independent physical angular-scale argument (~20° / ~0.35 Mpc). That choice does not make the central dual-tracer claim true by construction. Prior SH literature and the authors’ own exploratory papers are cited for context, not as uniqueness theorems that force the result. Score 1 reflects only that non-load-bearing cutoff tuning on the same suite later used for illustration.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim is a characterization of a newly defined statistic. Load-bearing choices are the multipole cutoff, the log transform, the morphological toy-model basis, and the identification of zero-inflow pixels with outflows. No new physical entities are postulated; the free parameters are analysis choices, not fitted cosmological constants.

free parameters (3)
  • multipole truncation l_max = 9
    Defines which angular scales enter ζ (Eq. 3); chosen for ~20° physical scale and a dip in the mean Magneticum power spectrum (Appendix B), not derived from first principles.
  • default filament FWHM = 0.2 rad
    Sets the Gaussian hotspot width in the toy models (~0.2 r_vir); varied in Appendix A but default is hand-chosen.
  • toy-model power normalization (fixed ∫ j_fil²)
    Keeps total filamentary power constant while varying N_fil; a modeling convention that shapes the reported ζ trends.
axioms (4)
  • standard math Spherical harmonics form a complete orthonormal basis on the sphere so multipole power is well-defined and Parseval holds for the maps used.
    Invoked throughout §2.1 and checked numerically in Appendix F.
  • domain assumption Surface flux of peculiar mass flow at ~1 r_vir is a meaningful diagnostic of accretion geometry (Gaussian theorem / SPH kernel projection).
    §2.3 and §4.2; standard in the field but a modeling choice of boundary and velocity definition.
  • domain assumption Pixels with near-zero radial inflow after kernel interpolation are dominated by outflow rather than pure tangential flow or residual density holes.
    Underpins the physical reading of ζ_log (§2.3, §3, Figs. 4–5).
  • ad hoc to paper A three-component toy model (Gaussian filaments + isotropic base + conical zero regions) is morphologically sufficient to interpret real Magneticum inflow maps.
    §3 setup and transfer claim in §4; supported by visual similarity but not proven complete.
invented entities (1)
  • inflow asphericity parameter ζ (linear and logarithmic variants) no independent evidence
    purpose: Scalar summary of non-monopole multipole power of the virial-surface inflow map, intended to quantify filamentary anisotropy and outflow covering fraction.
    Defined in Eq. 3 and dualized in §2.3; the paper’s primary contribution. Independent evidence is the toy-model and simulation behavior shown here; no external observational handle yet.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 20440 in / 3007 out tokens · 32716 ms · 2026-07-11T06:48:49.794004+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The outer regions of galactic halos represent the bridge connecting internal processes within the galaxy to the larger surrounding cosmic web. The gas in this bridge region is shaped by the competing processes of cold inflows from the web and hot ejecta from feedback of supernovae or an active galactic nucleus. Similarly, the gas around galaxy clusters characterizes the balance between inflows and outflows. To study this connection, we introduce a new parameter for quantifying the geometrical configuration of the flow field connecting structures to the cosmic web, the asphericity parameter. This inflow asphericity is based on a spherical harmonics decomposition of the inflow at the virial boundary of the halo. It can be computed using both the linear and the logarithmic inflow field. To validate this parameter we apply it to both an extensive toy model set and to simulated haloes from the Magneticum simulations. We find the linear asphericity to be a tracer of the total power of the non-spherical inflow and the total anisotropy. On the other hand, the logarithmic asphericity traces the covering fraction of inflows at the surface and is highly sensitive to regions with zero inflow (regions that are dominated by outflow). Thus the asphericity of the flow field is a powerful tool to simultaneously study the geometry of in- and outflows in numerical simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05498 by Benjamin A. Seidel, Klaus Dolag, Lucas C. Kimmig, Lucas M. Valenzuela, Rhea-Silvia Remus.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Spherical harmonics as surface maps. The row corresponds to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: visualizes these three components. We adapted a Gaussian profile for the intensity distribution within each fila￾ment (the cross-section corresponds to the full width at half max￾imum (FWHM) here). As the default FWHM we chose 0.2 rad, which corresponds to a physical filament width of ≈ 0.2rvir as￾suming the flow field is measured at the virial radius. The goal of this idealized study is then to demonstrat… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Linear (left panel) and logarithmic (right panel) aspheric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Linear (left panel) and logarithmic (right panel) aspheric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Direct dependence of the logarithmic asphericity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Schematic presentation of four limiting cases with high and low [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization of the effect of the spherical harmonics de￾composition using the inflow field of two simulated haloes from Magneticum. The top row shows the full linear inflow field nor￾malized by the mean inflow across the map. The dynamically active cluster ID 20 is shown in the left column, while the more relaxed ID 5 is shown in the right column. The bottom row shows the same map expressed only with sph… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distribution in the asphericity-space of the 29 most mas [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A7

    Akrami, Y ., Ashdown, M., Aumont, J., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A7

    2020

  2. [2]

    M., et al

    Alpaslan, M., Grootes, M., Marcum, P. M., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 457, 2287

    2016

  3. [3]

    E., et al

    Arora, A., Garavito-Camargo, N., Sanderson, R. E., et al. 2025, The Astrophys- ical Journal, 988, 190

    2025

  4. [4]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 5391

    Ayromlou, M., Nelson, D., & Pillepich, A. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 5391

    2023

  5. [5]

    M., Dolag, K., & Donnert, J

    Beck, A. M., Dolag, K., & Donnert, J. M. F. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 458, 2080

    2016

  6. [6]

    F., McIntosh, D

    Bell, E. F., McIntosh, D. H., Katz, N., & Weinberg, M. D. 2003, The Astrophys- ical Journal Supplement Series, 149, 289 Bogdán, Á., Schellenberger, G., Li, Q., & Conselice, C. J. 2026, Nature, 649, 1134

    2003

  7. [7]

    R., Kofman, L., & Pogosyan, D

    Bond, J. R., Kofman, L., & Pogosyan, D. 1996, Nature, 380, 603 Bouché, N., Dekel, A., Genzel, R., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 718, 1001

    1996

  8. [8]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society, 529, 2595

    Bulichi, T.-E., Davé, R., & Kraljic, K. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society, 529, 2595

    2024

  9. [9]

    Cautun, M., van de Weygaert, R., & Jones, B. J. T. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 429, 1286

    2013

  10. [10]

    Cautun, M., van de Weygaert, R., Jones, B. J. T., & Frenk, C. S. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 441, 2923

    2014

  11. [11]

    I., Dolag, K., Lyskova, N., & Sunyaev, R

    Churazov, E., Khabibullin, I. I., Dolag, K., Lyskova, N., & Sunyaev, R. A. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 1209

    2023

  12. [12]

    J., Springel, V ., White, S

    Croton, D. J., Springel, V ., White, S. D. M., et al. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 365, 11 Davé, R., Anglés-Alcázar, D., Narayanan, D., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 2827 Davé, R., Finlator, K., & Oppenheimer, B. D. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 421, 98

    2006

  13. [13]

    2009, Nature, 457, 451

    Dekel, A., Birnboim, Y ., Engel, G., et al. 2009, Nature, 457, 451

    2009

  14. [14]

    2004, The Astro- physical Journal, 606, L97

    Dolag, K., Jubelgas, M., Springel, V ., Borgani, S., & Rasia, E. 2004, The Astro- physical Journal, 606, L97

    2004

  15. [15]

    M., et al

    Dolag, K., Remus, R.-S., Valenzuela, L. M., et al. 2025 [arXiv:2504.01061]

    arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    2005b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 364, 753 Euclid Collaboration, Laigle, C., Gouin, C., et al

    Dolag, K., Vazza, F., Brunetti, G., & Tormen, G. 2005b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 364, 753 Euclid Collaboration, Laigle, C., Gouin, C., et al. 2025 [arXiv:2503.15333]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 401, 1670 Fortuné, S., Remus, R.-S., Kimmig, L

    Fabjan, D., Borgani, S., Tornatore, L., et al. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 401, 1670 Fortuné, S., Remus, R.-S., Kimmig, L. C., Burkert, A., & Dolag, K. 2025, As- tronomy & Astrophysics, 704, A185

    2010

  18. [18]

    M., Hivon, E., Banday, A

    Gorski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., et al. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 622, 759

    2005

  19. [19]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 651, A56

    Gouin, C., Bonnaire, T., & Aghanim, N. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 651, A56

    2021

  20. [20]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 664, A198

    Gouin, C., Gallo, S., & Aghanim, N. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 664, A198

    2022

  21. [21]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 532, 1031

    Haggar, R., De Luca, F., De Petris, M., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 532, 1031

    2024

  22. [22]

    N., Hellinger, D., et al

    Hasan, F., Burchett, J. N., Hellinger, D., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 970, 177

    2024

  23. [23]

    F., & van de Weygaert, R

    Hidding, J., Shandarin, S. F., & van de Weygaert, R. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 437, 3442

    2014

  24. [24]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 442, 2304

    Hirschmann, M., Dolag, K., Saro, A., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 442, 2304

    2014

  25. [25]

    N., Brüggen, M., Zhang, X., et al

    Hoang, D. N., Brüggen, M., Zhang, X., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 6320

    2023

  26. [26]

    E., et al

    Hoosain, M., Blyth, S.-L., Skelton, R. E., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 4139

    2024

  27. [27]

    C., Remus, R.-S., Dolag, K., & Biffi, V

    Kimmig, L. C., Remus, R.-S., Dolag, K., & Biffi, V . 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 949, 92

    2023

  28. [28]

    C., Remus, R.-S., Seidel, B., et al

    Kimmig, L. C., Remus, R.-S., Seidel, B., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 979, 15

    2025

  29. [29]

    M., Dunkley, J., et al

    Komatsu, E., Smith, K. M., Dunkley, J., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 192, 18

    2011

  30. [30]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 547

    Kraljic, K., Arnouts, S., Pichon, C., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 547

    2018

  31. [31]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 503, 2065

    Kuchner, U., Aragón-Salamanca, A., Rost, A., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 503, 2065

    2021

  32. [32]

    & White, S

    Li, C. & White, S. D. M. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 398, 2177

    2009

  33. [33]

    I., Knebe, A., Hoffman, Y ., et al

    Libeskind, N. I., Knebe, A., Hoffman, Y ., et al. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 411, 1525

    2011

  34. [34]

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

    Libeskind, N. I., van de Weygaert, R., Cautun, M., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 1195

    2018

  35. [35]

    J., Carollo, C

    Lilly, S. J., Carollo, C. M., Pipino, A., Renzini, A., & Peng, Y . 2013, The Astro- physical Journal, 772, 119

    2013

  36. [36]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 506, 4516

    Lotz, M., Dolag, K., Remus, R.-S., & Burkert, A. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 506, 4516

    2021

  37. [37]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488, 5370

    Lotz, M., Remus, R.-S., Dolag, K., Biviano, A., & Burkert, A. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488, 5370

    2019

  38. [38]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 465, 3817

    Malavasi, N., Arnouts, S., Vibert, D., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 465, 3817

    2017

  39. [39]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 4877

    Musso, M., Cadiou, C., Pichon, C., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 4877

    2018

  40. [40]

    2021 [arXiv:1812.05609]

    Nelson, D., Springel, V ., Pillepich, A., et al. 2021 [arXiv:1812.05609]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    A., Falck, B., Szalay, A

    Neyrinck, M., Aragon-Calvo, M. A., Falck, B., Szalay, A. S., & Wang, J. 2020, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 3, 3

    2020

  42. [42]

    2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society, 332, 325

    Porciani, C., Dekel, A., & Hoffman, Y . 2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society, 332, 325

    2002

  43. [43]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 666, A22

    Ragagnin, A., Andreon, S., & Puddu, E. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 666, A22

    2022

  44. [44]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 950, 191

    Remus, R.-S., Dolag, K., & Dannerbauer, H. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 950, 191

    2023

  45. [45]

    Roberts-Borsani, G. W. & Saintonge, A. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 482, 4111

    2019

  46. [46]

    2026, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 548, stag375

    Schaye, J., Chaikin, E., Schaller, M., et al. 2026, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 548, stag375

    2026

  47. [47]

    A., Bower, R

    Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 446, 521

    2015

  48. [48]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, 4978

    Schaye, J., Kugel, R., Schaller, M., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, 4978

    2023

  49. [49]

    A., Remus, R.-S., Valenzuela, L

    Seidel, B. A., Remus, R.-S., Valenzuela, L. M., Kimmig, L. C., & Dolag, K. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 701, A192

    2025

  50. [50]

    2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 414, 350 Article number, page 8 of 12 Benjamin A

    Sousbie, T. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 414, 350 Article number, page 8 of 12 Benjamin A. Seidel et al.: Inflow asphericity

    2011

  51. [51]

    2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 364, 1105

    Springel, V . 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 364, 1105

    2005

  52. [52]

    2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 361, 776

    Springel, V ., di Matteo, T., & Hernquist, L. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 361, 776

    2005

  53. [53]

    & Hernquist, L

    Springel, V . & Hernquist, L. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 339, 289

    2003

  54. [54]

    2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 694, A141

    Tessore, N., Joachimi, B., Loureiro, A., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 694, A141

    2025

  55. [55]

    2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 382, 1050

    Tornatore, L., Borgani, S., Dolag, K., & Matteucci, F. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 382, 1050

    2007

  56. [56]

    2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 342, 1025

    Tornatore, L., Borgani, S., Springel, V ., et al. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 342, 1025

    2003

  57. [57]

    M., Remus, R.-S., Dolag, K., & Seidel, B

    Valenzuela, L. M., Remus, R.-S., Dolag, K., & Seidel, B. A. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 690, A206 Vallés-Pérez, D., Planelles, S., & Quilis, V . 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 499, 2303

    2024

  58. [58]

    Whittaker, E. T. & Watson, G. N. 2021, A Course of Modern Analysis, 5th edn., ed. V . H. Moll (Cambridge University Press)

    2021

  59. [59]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 989, 187 Zel’dovich, Ya

    Yang, Q.-R., Zhu, W., Yu, G.-Y ., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 989, 187 Zel’dovich, Ya. B. 1970, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 5, 84

    2025

  60. [60]

    2019, The Journal of Open Source Soft- ware, 4, 1298 Article number, page 9 of 12 A&A proofs:manuscript no

    Zonca, A., Singer, L., Lenz, D., et al. 2019, The Journal of Open Source Soft- ware, 4, 1298 Article number, page 9 of 12 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aanda Appendix A: Special Cases Fig. A.1: Reconstruction of the Icosahedron setup with the spherical harmonics froml=3 tol=6. The tests in Section 3 are setup with the simplest geometry: A planar configuration...

    2019