pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.19461 · v1 · pith:S35D5QLVnew · submitted 2026-06-17 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Characterizing the Formation and Evolution of S0-galaxies (CaFES-0): Their formation pathways around Galaxy Clusters

Diego Pallero , Yara L. Jaff\'e , Amelia Fraser-McKelvie , Lodovico Coccato , Facundo A. G\'omez , Yannick Bah\'e , Evelyn J. Johnston , Ciria Lima-Dias
show 2 more authors
Arianna Cortesi Maria Emilia De Rossi
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 20:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords S0 galaxieslenticular galaxiesgalaxy clusterscosmological simulationsenvironmental effectsmerger historygalaxy morphologypre-processing
0
0 comments X

The pith

S0 galaxies mostly form from faded or stripped spirals in clusters, not mergers.

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

The paper tracks the formation of lenticular S0 galaxies by following quenched disk galaxies in the Hydrangea cosmological simulations. It finds that more than 85 percent of these objects sit as satellites inside massive dark-matter halos and show almost no major mergers after redshift 2. This pattern points to environmental gas stripping and fading of spiral progenitors as the dominant route. A smaller share appear as centrals in lower-mass halos where mergers contribute more. The results indicate that cluster and group environments drive the morphological shift from spirals to S0s through pre-processing and stripping.

Core claim

Our results strongly suggest that S0 galaxies predominantly form from faded/stripped spirals in clusters, with a minority forming via mergers in smaller haloes. Satellite S0s exhibit a highly quiescent merging history, with about 60 percent experiencing no significant mergers since z=2, while pre-processing effects in groups influence both quenching and morphological transformation.

What carries the argument

Hydrangea cosmological zoom-in simulation suite used to reconstruct environmental histories of central and satellite quenched disk galaxies classified as S0s.

If this is right

  • More than 85 percent of S0s reside as satellites inside halos more massive than 10^13 solar masses.
  • Roughly 60 percent of satellite S0s have no significant mergers after redshift 2.
  • Pre-processing inside groups drives both the loss of star formation and the change in galaxy shape.
  • Mergers that do involve S0 or spiral galaxies occur mainly in low-density regions and tend to be gas-rich.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the pathway holds, many observed S0s in clusters should retain thin-disk structures inherited from spiral ancestors.
  • Surveys targeting recently infalling galaxies could search for the transitional stripped-spiral population predicted here.
  • Repeating the analysis in independent simulation suites would test whether the dominance of the stripping channel depends on the specific model of gas removal.

Load-bearing premise

The simulations accurately capture real gas-stripping and morphological transformation in clusters and correctly label quenched disks as S0 galaxies.

What would settle it

Direct observations showing that a large fraction of cluster S0 galaxies experienced major mergers after z=1, or simulations with different physics yielding mostly merger-built S0s, would falsify the main pathway.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.19461 by Amelia Fraser-McKelvie, Arianna Cortesi, Ciria Lima-Dias, Diego Pallero, Evelyn J. Johnston, Facundo A. G\'omez, Lodovico Coccato, Maria Emilia De Rossi, Yannick Bah\'e, Yara L. Jaff\'e.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Stellar mass distribution of galaxies split by morphological type as spirals (blue), lenticular (orange), and elliptical (red) galaxies. As shown in this Figure, different morphologies exhibit distinct stellar mass distributions. For this reason, we decided to use a stellar-mass control sample to conduct our study. 4. Results 4.1. Environment of S0s As the local environment of a galaxy is known to play a k… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Distribution of Spirals (blue), Lenticular (orange), and Ellipti￾cal (red) galaxies as a function of the halo mass M200 in which they reside at z=0, for Hydrangea (dashed) and TNG100 (solid). In the Hy￾drangea simulation, spiral galaxies reside preferentially in low-density environments, contrary to early-type galaxies (lenticular and ellipti￾cal) that show a strong preference to reside within dense enviro… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of Spirals (top, blue colours), Lenticular (centre, or￾ange colours), and Elliptical (bottom, red colours) galaxies as a function of the mass of the halo M200 in which they reside at z=0. Galaxies are split by the number of significant mergers that they experienced (Merger ratio = M⋆,sat/M⋆,host > 0.1) at z < 2, as Nmerg ≥ 2 (dashed); Nmergers = 1 (dotted) and Nmergers = 0 (solid). Still, they… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of Spirals (blue), Lenticular (orange), and Elliptical (red) galaxies as a function of the mass of the halo M200 in which they reside at z=0. Galaxies are categorised as satellites (solid) or central (dashed). S, S0, and E galaxies by halo mass but this time separately for centrals (dashed lines) and satellites (solid lines). For all three morphological types, satellites occupy systemati￾cally… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fraction of galaxies that experienced mergers as a function of stellar mass. Blue, red, and orange lines represent spiral, elliptical, and lenticular galaxies, respectively. Solid lines indicate the fraction of galaxies that experienced at least one merger, while dashed lines correspond to those with at least two mergers. Contrary to expectations, spiral galaxies show a relatively high merger fraction, esp… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Merger ratio distribution for galaxies residing in massive (log10M200/M⊙ ≥ 13; right panels) and low-mass (log10M200/M⊙ < 13; left panels) environments. The top and bottom panels split the sample by the environment in which galaxies reside at z = 0 (top panels) and at z = zmerger (bottom panels). Spiral (blue), lenticular (orange), and elliptical (red) galaxies are shown, with the median of each distributi… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Redshift distribution split by high-density (log10M200/M⊙ ≥ 13; right panels) and low-density (log10M200/M⊙ < 13; left panels) environ￾ment. Upper and lower panels split the sample by the environment in which galaxies reside at z = 0 (upper panels) and at z = zmerger, the time of merger (lower panels). Spirals, elliptical, and lenticular galaxies are shown in solid (blue), dotted (red), and dashed (orange)… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Environmental distribution of lenticular galaxies. Blue and red bars show the distribution of faded spirals and merged-formed lentic￾ular galaxies from the observations of Coccato et al. (2022). Squares (blue), triangles(red), and circles (gray) show lenticular galaxies formed with Nmergers = 0, 1, ≥ 2 mergers, respectively. Error bars correspond to binomial errors from the sample. As can be seen, there is… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The formation pathways of lenticular galaxies (S0s), which lie morphologically between elliptical and spiral galaxies, remain a topic of active research. Environmental effects, merging histories, and pre-processing mechanisms are often proposed as key factors influencing their transformation. However, the relative importance of these processes remains unclear, particularly when compared with other galaxy types. We use the Hydrangea cosmological zoom-in simulation suite to analyse the environmental histories of S0 galaxies, defined here as central and satellite quenched disk galaxies. We find that the vast majority (>85\%) of our sample of S0s are satellites in massive haloes (log$_{10}$M$_{200}/$M$_\odot$ > 13), while only $\sim10\%$ are centrals in low-mass haloes. Satellite S0s exhibit a highly quiescent merging history, with $\sim60\%$ experiencing no significant mergers since $z=2$. Centrals show more varied merging histories, although our results may be affected by limited sample size. Contrary to expectations, no clear trends in merger ratios with morphology are observed. However, mergers involving lenticular and spiral galaxies tend to occur in low-density environments and are likely gas-rich, enabling disk reformation. Pre-processing effects in groups are critical, influencing both quenching and morphological transformation.} Our results strongly suggest that S0 galaxies predominantly form from faded/stripped spirals in clusters, with a minority forming via mergers in smaller haloes. These results are in agreement with previous observations of lenticular galaxies around galaxy clusters.

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

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses the Hydrangea cosmological zoom-in simulation suite to examine the environmental and merger histories of S0 galaxies, defined as quenched disk galaxies (both centrals and satellites). It reports that >85% of the sample are satellites in haloes with log10(M200/M⊙)>13, ~60% of satellite S0s have no significant mergers since z=2, and concludes that S0s predominantly form via fading/stripping of spirals in clusters, with a minority forming via mergers in smaller haloes; results are stated to agree with prior observations.

Significance. If the kinematic definition of S0s aligns with morphological observations and the simulation accurately captures gas-stripping and morphological transformation, the work supplies quantitative fractions on satellite fractions, merger quiescence, and environmental dependencies that strengthen the case for environmental pathways dominating S0 formation around clusters. The use of a zoom-in suite enables tracking of individual galaxy histories across cosmic time.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that >85% of S0s form from faded/stripped spirals rests on classifying 'quenched disk galaxies' as S0s. No cross-check is described against observed morphological criteria (prominent bulge, smooth disk without arms, specific surface-brightness profiles), so the satellite fraction and pathway inference may include galaxies that would be typed differently in observations.
  2. [Methods] Methods (sample definition and merger identification): The abstract states numerical results on merger histories and satellite fractions but provides no thresholds for quenching, kinematic decomposition parameters (e.g., V/σ), merger mass-ratio or timing criteria, or completeness corrections. Without these, the ~60% no-merger statistic and the distinction between cluster vs group pathways cannot be evaluated for robustness.
  3. [Results] Results (merger statistics): The statement that satellite S0s exhibit 'highly quiescent merging history' with ~60% experiencing no significant mergers since z=2 is load-bearing for the 'minority via mergers' conclusion, yet no error bars, sensitivity to merger definition, or comparison to control samples of non-S0 galaxies are mentioned.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract contains a stray closing brace ('transformation.} Our results') that should be removed for clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and robustness of the manuscript. We address each major comment point-by-point below. We have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional details, thresholds, and robustness checks where feasible.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that >85% of S0s form from faded/stripped spirals rests on classifying 'quenched disk galaxies' as S0s. No cross-check is described against observed morphological criteria (prominent bulge, smooth disk without arms, specific surface-brightness profiles), so the satellite fraction and pathway inference may include galaxies that would be typed differently in observations.

    Authors: We acknowledge the distinction between our kinematic definition (quenched disks with V/σ above a threshold) and visual morphological classifications used in observations. This definition is standard in simulation analyses to enable direct tracking of evolutionary pathways. In the revised manuscript we will expand the methods and discussion sections to explicitly compare our selection to observational S0 criteria, citing relevant literature on kinematic-morphological correspondence, and note the potential for some contamination. We cannot perform a full visual morphology classification within the current simulation data without additional post-processing, but the environmental trends remain the primary result. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods (sample definition and merger identification): The abstract states numerical results on merger histories and satellite fractions but provides no thresholds for quenching, kinematic decomposition parameters (e.g., V/σ), merger mass-ratio or timing criteria, or completeness corrections. Without these, the ~60% no-merger statistic and the distinction between cluster vs group pathways cannot be evaluated for robustness.

    Authors: The full methods section of the manuscript does contain the specific thresholds (quenching via sSFR < 10^{-11} yr^{-1}, V/σ > 0.5 for disks, mergers with mass ratio >1:10 after z=2). However, we agree these should be more prominent. We will revise the abstract and add a dedicated paragraph in methods summarizing all selection criteria, merger definitions, and any completeness considerations for the satellite/central samples. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results] Results (merger statistics): The statement that satellite S0s exhibit 'highly quiescent merging history' with ~60% experiencing no significant mergers since z=2 is load-bearing for the 'minority via mergers' conclusion, yet no error bars, sensitivity to merger definition, or comparison to control samples of non-S0 galaxies are mentioned.

    Authors: We agree that adding these elements will strengthen the result. In the revised manuscript we will include Poisson uncertainties on the ~60% fraction, test sensitivity by varying the merger mass-ratio threshold (1:4 and 1:10), and add a control comparison of merger histories for star-forming disks in the same halo mass bins. These additions can be made from the existing simulation outputs. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in Hydrangea simulation statistics on S0 pathways

full rationale

The paper defines S0s explicitly as quenched disk galaxies in the Hydrangea simulations and reports direct statistical counts (satellite fractions, merger histories) extracted from those simulation outputs. No parameters are fitted to the target results, no equations reduce claims to inputs by construction, and no self-citations serve as load-bearing uniqueness theorems. The analysis is a straightforward post-processing of external simulation data with interpretive conclusions; the derivation chain is self-contained against the simulation snapshots.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests entirely on the pre-existing Hydrangea cosmological zoom-in simulations and standard definitions of galaxy types and mergers; no new free parameters, invented entities, or ad-hoc axioms are introduced by the authors.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard Lambda-CDM cosmology and sub-grid galaxy formation physics implemented in the Hydrangea suite
    All environmental histories and morphological classifications derive from the simulation's built-in physics models.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5868 in / 1297 out tokens · 32535 ms · 2026-06-26T20:05:11.150290+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Characterizing the Formation and Evolution of S0-galaxies (CaFES-0): Revealing the origin of the mass-size relation for S0 galaxies

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    S0 galaxies exhibit a V-shaped mass-size relation arising from two formation channels: faded low-mass disks and merger-built high-mass systems.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    M., Barnes, D

    Bahé, Y . M., Barnes, D. J., Dalla Vecchia, C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4186 Bahé, Y . M., Crain, R. A., Kauffmann, G., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 1115 Bahé, Y . M., McCarthy, I. G., Balogh, M. L., & Font, A. S. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 3017 Bahé, Y . M., Schaye, J., Barnes, D. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 2287

    2017

  2. [2]

    S., McDermid, R

    Barsanti, S., Owers, M. S., McDermid, R. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 906, 100

    2021

  3. [3]

    & Couch, W

    Bekki, K. & Couch, W. J. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 1783

    2011

  4. [4]

    Blanton, M. R. & Moustakas, J. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 159

    2009

  5. [5]

    S., et al

    Brough, S., van de Sande, J., Owers, M. S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 844, 59

    2017

  6. [6]

    J., Owers, M

    Bryant, J. J., Owers, M. S., Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 2857

    2015

  7. [7]

    A., Law, D

    Bundy, K., Bershady, M. A., Law, D. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, 7

    2015

  8. [8]

    & Baes, M

    Camps, P. & Baes, M. 2015, Astronomy and Computing, 9, 20

    2015

  9. [9]

    N., Smith, R., Jaffé, Y ., & Cortesi, A

    Candlish, G. N., Smith, R., Jaffé, Y ., & Cortesi, A. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5362

    2018

  10. [10]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.02746

    Cappellari, M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.02746

    arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    2011, MNRAS, 416, 1680

    Cappellari, M., Emsellem, E., Krajnovi´c, D., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 1680

    2011

  12. [12]

    A., et al

    Cava, A., Biviano, A., Mamon, G. A., et al. 2017, A&A, 606, A108

    2017

  13. [13]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763

    2003

  14. [14]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.04067

    Chaikin, E., Schaye, J., Schaller, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.04067

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Clauwens, B., Schaye, J., Franx, M., & Bower, R. G. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 3994

    2018

  16. [16]

    L., et al

    Coccato, L., Fraser-McKelvie, A., Jaffé, Y . L., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 201

    2022

  17. [17]

    L., Cortesi, A., et al

    Coccato, L., Jaffé, Y . L., Cortesi, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 2955

    2020

  18. [18]

    A., Bahé, Y

    Crain, R. A., Bahé, Y . M., Lagos, C. d. P., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 4204

    2017

  19. [19]

    A., Schaye, J., Bower, R

    Crain, R. A., Schaye, J., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1937 Dalla Vecchia, C. & Schaye, J. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 140 Davé, R., Anglés-Alcázar, D., Narayanan, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2827 De Lucia, G., Weinmann, S., Poggianti, B. M., Aragón-Salamanca, A., & Zarit- sky, D. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 1277 de Vaucouleurs, G. 1959, Handbuch der Physik, 53, 275

    2015

  20. [20]

    J., Sweet, S

    Deeley, S., Drinkwater, M. J., Sweet, S. M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 895

    2021

  21. [21]

    J., Sweet, S

    Deeley, S., Drinkwater, M. J., Sweet, S. M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 2372

    2020

  22. [22]

    2009, MNRAS, 399, 497 Domínguez Sánchez, H., Bernardi, M., Nikakhtar, F., Margalef-Bentabol, B., &

    Dolag, K., Borgani, S., Murante, G., & Springel, V . 2009, MNRAS, 399, 497 Domínguez Sánchez, H., Bernardi, M., Nikakhtar, F., Margalef-Bentabol, B., &

    2009

  23. [23]

    Sheth, R. K. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 2894

    2020

  24. [24]

    1980, ApJ, 236, 351

    Dressler, A. 1980, ApJ, 236, 351

    1980

  25. [25]

    2011, MNRAS, 414, 888

    Emsellem, E., Cappellari, M., Krajnovi´c, D., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 888

    2011

  26. [26]

    2007, MNRAS, 379, 401

    Emsellem, E., Cappellari, M., Krajnovi´c, D., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 401

    2007

  27. [27]

    M., Bettoni, D., et al

    Fasano, G., Poggianti, B. M., Bettoni, D., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 3927

    2015

  28. [28]

    2018, MN- RAS, 481, 5580

    Fraser-McKelvie, A., Aragón-Salamanca, A., Merrifield, M., et al. 2018, MN- RAS, 481, 5580

    2018

  29. [29]

    2021, MNRAS, 503, 4992

    Fraser-McKelvie, A., Cortese, L., van de Sande, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 4992

    2021

  30. [30]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 3976 Article number, page 11 of 13 A&A proofs:manuscript no

    Genel, S., Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 3976 Article number, page 11 of 13 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aanda Gómez, P. L., Nichol, R. C., Miller, C. J., et al. 2003, ApJ, 584, 210

    2018

  31. [31]

    L., & Solanes, J

    Gort, M., Tous, J. L., & Solanes, J. M. 2025, A&A, 697, A163

    2025

  32. [32]

    P., Pereira, M

    Haines, C. P., Pereira, M. J., Smith, G. P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 101

    2015

  33. [33]

    Hubble, E. P. 1926, ApJ, 64, 321

    1926

  34. [34]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 1859 Jaffé, Y

    Huertas-Company, M., Rodriguez-Gomez, V ., Nelson, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 1859 Jaffé, Y . L., Aragón-Salamanca, A., De Lucia, G., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 280

    2019

  35. [35]

    J., Aragón-Salamanca, A., Fraser-McKelvie, A., et al

    Johnston, E. J., Aragón-Salamanca, A., Fraser-McKelvie, A., et al. 2021, MN- RAS, 500, 4193

    2021

  36. [36]

    J., Aragón-Salamanca, A., & Merrifield, M

    Johnston, E. J., Aragón-Salamanca, A., & Merrifield, M. R. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 333

    2014

  37. [37]

    Kauffmann, G., White, S. D. M., Heckman, T. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 713

    2004

  38. [38]

    M., de Carvalho, R

    Kolesnikov, I., Sampaio, V . M., de Carvalho, R. R., & Conselice, C. 2025, MN- RAS, 539, 2765

    2025

  39. [39]

    Lagos, C. d. P., Theuns, T., Stevens, A. R. H., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3850

    2017

  40. [40]

    2019, ApJ, 878, 69

    Liu, C., Hao, L., Wang, H., & Yang, X. 2019, ApJ, 878, 69

    2019

  41. [41]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113 Mendes de Oliveira, C., Ribeiro, T., Schoenell, W., et al

    Marinacci, F., V ogelsberger, M., Pakmor, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113 Mendes de Oliveira, C., Ribeiro, T., Schoenell, W., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 241 Méndez-Hernández, H., Lima-Dias, C., Monachesi, A., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, A34

    2018

  42. [42]

    M., Ellis, R

    Moran, S. M., Ellis, R. S., Treu, T., et al. 2007, ApJ, 671, 1503

    2007

  43. [43]

    Muzzin, A., van der Burg, R. F. J., McGee, S. L., et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, 65

    2014

  44. [44]

    Muzzin, A., Wilson, G., Yee, H. K. C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 746, 188

    2012

  45. [45]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 3357

    Naab, T., Oser, L., Emsellem, E., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3357

    2014

  46. [46]

    P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., et al

    Naiman, J. P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1206

    2018

  47. [47]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 624

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 624

    2018

  48. [48]

    H., et al

    Oh, S., Kim, K., Lee, J. H., et al. 2018, ApJS, 237, 14

    2018

  49. [49]

    H., Oh, S., et al

    Pak, M., Lee, J. H., Oh, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 921, 49

    2021

  50. [50]

    B., et al

    Pallero, D., Galaz, G., Tissera, P. B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.00141

    arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    A., Padilla, N

    Pallero, D., Gómez, F. A., Padilla, N. D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3210

    2022

  52. [52]

    A., Padilla, N

    Pallero, D., Gómez, F. A., Padilla, N. D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 847

    2019

  53. [53]

    2015, Nature, 521, 192

    Peng, Y ., Maiolino, R., & Cochrane, R. 2015, Nature, 521, 192

    2015

  54. [54]

    J., Kovaˇc, K., et al

    Peng, Y .-j., Lilly, S. J., Kovaˇc, K., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 193

    2010

  55. [55]

    2018b, MNRAS, 473, 4077 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., Nelson, D., et al. 2018b, MNRAS, 473, 4077 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2014, A&A, 566, A54

    2016

  56. [56]

    M., Lyubenova, M., et al

    Poci, A., McDermid, R. M., Lyubenova, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A145

    2021

  57. [57]

    M., Aragón-Salamanca, A., Zaritsky, D., et al

    Poggianti, B. M., Aragón-Salamanca, A., Zaritsky, D., et al. 2009, ApJ, 693, 112

    2009

  58. [58]

    M., von der Linden, A., De Lucia, G., et al

    Poggianti, B. M., von der Linden, A., De Lucia, G., et al. 2006, ApJ, 642, 188

    2006

  59. [59]

    M., Bower, R

    Rosas-Guevara, Y . M., Bower, R. G., Schaye, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 1038

    2015

  60. [60]

    M., Kolesnikov, I., de Carvalho, R

    Sampaio, V . M., Kolesnikov, I., de Carvalho, R. R., Ferreras, I., & Silk, J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.12205

    arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    2015, MNRAS, 454, 2277

    Schaller, M., Dalla Vecchia, C., Schaye, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2277

    2015

  62. [62]

    2004, ApJ, 609, 667

    Schaye, J. 2004, ApJ, 609, 667

    2004

  63. [63]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.21126

    Schaye, J., Chaikin, E., Schaller, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.21126

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    A., Bower, R

    Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 521

    2015

  65. [65]

    & Dalla Vecchia, C

    Schaye, J. & Dalla Vecchia, C. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 1210 Sérsic, J. L. 1963, Boletin de la Asociacion Argentina de Astronomia La Plata Argentina, 6, 41 Sifón, C., Finoguenov, A., Haines, C. P., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A92

    2008

  66. [66]

    2009, A&A, 508, 1141

    Simard, L., Clowe, D., Desai, V ., et al. 2009, A&A, 508, 1141

    2009

  67. [67]

    2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105

    Springel, V . 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105

    2005

  68. [68]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 791

    Springel, V . 2010, MNRAS, 401, 791

    2010

  69. [69]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 676

    Springel, V ., Pakmor, R., Pillepich, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 676

    2018

  70. [70]

    Springel, V ., White, S. D. M., Tormen, G., & Kauffmann, G. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 726

    2001

  71. [71]

    C., Aceves, H., et al

    Tapia, T., Eliche-Moral, M. C., Aceves, H., et al. 2017, A&A, 604, A105

    2017

  72. [72]

    2018, MNRAS, 477, L16

    Torrey, P., V ogelsberger, M., Hernquist, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, L16

    2018

  73. [73]

    L., Solanes, J

    Tous, J. L., Solanes, J. M., & Perea, J. D. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 1459 van de Sande, J., Croom, S. M., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 2307 V ogelsberger, M., Marinacci, F., Torrey, P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2073

    2025

  74. [74]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 4768

    Walmsley, M., Géron, T., Kruk, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 4768

    2023

  75. [75]

    R., Tinker, J

    Wetzel, A. R., Tinker, J. L., & Conroy, C. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 232

    2012

  76. [76]

    R., Tinker, J

    Wetzel, A. R., Tinker, J. L., Conroy, C., & van den Bosch, F. C. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 336

    2013

  77. [77]

    R., Tollerud, E

    Wetzel, A. R., Tollerud, E. J., & Weisz, D. R. 2015, ApJ, 808, L27

    2015