Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 101 references

The AGORA High-Resolution Galaxy Simulations Comparison Project VII: Satellite quenching in zoom-in simulation of a Milky Way-mass halo

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that in a Milky Way-mass halo, strangulation and ram pressure stripping are the dominant satellite quenching mechanisms across five independent simulation codes, with the efficiency set by each satellite's…

desk verdict The quantitative quenching comparison across five codes is the real contribution; the ram-pressure-dominance claim is a plausible interpretation, not a measured result. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05844 v2 pith:V6U6GQC7 submitted 2025-05-09 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

R.Rodríguez-Cardoso , S.Roca-Fàbrega , Minyong Jung , Thinh H. Nguyen , Ji-hoon Kim , Joel Primack , Oscar Agertz , Kirk S. S. Barrow
show 14 more authors
Jesus Gallego Kentaro Nagamine Johnny W. Powell Yves Revaz Hector Velázquez Anna Genina Hyeonyong Kim Alessandro Lupi Tom Abel Renyue Cen Daniel Ceverino Avishai Dekel Boon Kiat Oh Thomas R. Quinn (for The AGORA Collaboration)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords satellitequenchingrampressurestrippingstrangulationMilkyWay-masshaloszoom-insimulationssupernovafeedbackdwarfgalaxiescodecomparison
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

The paper attempts to establish that the qualitative physics of satellite quenching in a Milky Way-mass halo is robust across five major galaxy-formation codes that simulate the same halo from identical initial conditions. It finds that all codes reproduce the observed trend that less massive satellites quench faster and that their quenched fractions fall within the host-to-host scatter of the SAGA survey. The central claim is that strangulation, which stops cold gas from accreting onto the satellite, combined with ram pressure stripping, which removes the gas, are the dominant quenching mechanisms in every model. The paper also argues that differences among models in how efficiently satellites quench are driven mainly by the satellites' own gas content and restoring pressure, which are set by each code's supernova feedback recipe, rather than by differences in the host circumgalactic medium.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the AGORA CosmoRun comparison: five zoom-in simulations of the same ~$10^{12}\,M_\odot$ halo at $z=0$, sharing initial conditions, cooling, ultraviolet background, and star-formation criteria, but differing in hydrodynamic method (ART-I and ENZO on adaptive grids, GADGET-3 and GEAR as particle codes, AREPO-T on a moving mesh) and in supernova feedback. The argument runs on per-satellite diagnostics: the Gunn & Gott criterion $P_{\rm ram}=\rho_{\rm CGM}v_{\rm sat}^2$ against the restoring force $P_{\rm rest}$; the ram-pressure radius $r_{\rm ram}$ and tidal radius $r_{\rm tidal}$ compared with the half-gas radius; the harassment energy ratio $E_s/E_{\rm int}$; and tracked cold-gas inflow rates for strangulation. A particle-tracking subhalo pipeline keeps satellites alive through pericenters where standard halo finders lose them, which is what makes the mechanism comparison possible.

What would settle it

A survey of many Milky Way analogs that found most satellites above $\sim10^8\,M_\odot$ quenched, or a repeat of the same mechanism classification over many simulated hosts that found harassment or tidal stripping to be the leading gas-removal mechanism, would contradict the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a convergence: when five codes — two grid-based, two particle-based, and one moving-mesh — simulate the same Milky Way-mass halo at high resolution, they agree on why satellites quench. Quenched fractions match the latest SAGA survey data within 1σ host-to-host scatter across all models, and the quenching-delay times follow the observed mass trend: the less massive the satellite, the faster it quenches. The shared mechanism is strangulation cutting off cold inflows for every satellite inside the virial-shocked halo, with ram pressure stripping as the main agent of gas removal, most effective below $M_* \sim 10^8\,M_\odot$. The models diverge in how quickly this happens, and the paper attributes that divergence to the satellites' restoring pressure — set by gas content and concentration, which supernova feedback controls — rather than to differences in the ram pressure the host exerts. A corollary is that the historical SPH-versus-grid differences do not appear to play a decisive role in this regime.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the fixed numerical thresholds and visual inspection used to decide when a mechanism counts as the cause of gas removal, and on the assumption that this single simulated halo represents Milky Way-mass halos in general.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, the dominant quenching mechanisms for Milky Way-mass hosts are not sensitive to hydrodynamic method: strangulation plus ram pressure stripping operate across grid, particle, and moving-mesh codes.
  • Quenched fractions within the SAGA host-to-host 1σ scatter mean the observed spread among Milky Way analogs can plausibly arise from different feedback implementations rather than different assembly histories alone.
  • The mass ladder of quenching timescales is robust: satellites below $\sim10^6\,M_\odot$ quench before infall, $10^6$–$10^7\,M_\odot$ quench rapidly by ram pressure, $10^7$–$10^8\,M_\odot$ need a full orbit with combined ram-pressure and tidal stripping, and satellites above $\sim10^8\,M_\odot$ resist stripping and quench only after depleting their gas.
  • Since stripping efficiency is set mainly by the satellite's own gas content, supernova feedback in low-mass halos effectively controls how long a satellite survives before quenching.
  • The convergence across hydro methods implies that the old grid-SPH discrepancy over fluid instabilities no longer dominates satellite quenching in this mass range.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the restoring-pressure picture is right, resolved gas observations of dwarf satellites around Milky Way analogs — their atomic gas fractions and radial gas distributions — become a direct probe of how efficiently supernova feedback expels gas from low-mass halos.
  • Beyond the paper: the fixed thresholds used to classify mechanisms (imported from cluster studies) could be calibrated within these simulations by tracking individual gas parcels; the fractions of satellites assigned to each mechanism are testable predictions of that classification pipeline.
  • Beyond the paper: applying the same pipeline to many simulated hosts would convert the predicted rise in quenched fraction as the host crosses $\sim5\times10^{11}\,M_\odot$ into a host-to-host scatter prediction that SAGA-style surveys could measure directly.
  • Beyond the paper: the models disagree most for satellites above $\sim10^8\,M_\odot$ (one model quenches them, four do not), so this mass range is the most informative place for future surveys to discriminate between feedback implementations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes satellite quenching in a single Milky Way-mass halo simulated with five cosmological zoom-in codes from the AGORA CosmoRun suite: ART-I, ENZO, GADGET-3, GEAR, and AREPO-T. The authors develop a particle-tracking extension of ROCKSTAR/Consistent-Trees to follow subhalos after the halo finder loses them, correct subhalo gas masses for CGM contamination in grid-based codes, and cross-validate these procedures against bound-particle measurements in Appendix A. They then compare quenched fractions and quenching delay times with the SAGA, ELVES, and Local Group data, and classify the contributions of ram pressure stripping, tidal stripping, harassment, and strangulation. The main claims are that quenched fractions are consistent with SAGA within its 1-sigma host-to-host scatter, that all models reproduce the observed trend that less massive satellites quench faster, and that strangulation plus ram pressure stripping are the dominant quenching mechanisms in all five codes, with quantitative differences driven mainly by satellite restoring pressures set by supernova feedback.

Significance. If the mechanism claim is accepted, this is a valuable contribution to galaxy-formation numerics: it shows qualitative convergence across five independent hydro codes and feedback implementations for a common initial condition, while tracing quantitative divergence to satellite gas content and restoring pressure. The methodological care is a genuine strength: particle-tracking versus ROCKSTAR comparisons, CGM-subtracted gas masses, inflow-rate cross-checks between particle and grid approaches, and alternative quenching definitions all support the robustness of the main trends. The single-halo limitation is real but explicitly acknowledged. The main risk is that the central mechanism attribution rests on threshold criteria and visual inspection rather than a quantitative gas-loss budget, as detailed below.

major comments (2)
  1. [3.4.3, Fig. 11; Eqs. (3)-(4)] The central claim that ram pressure stripping is the main gas-removal mechanism in all models is not supported by a quantitative accounting of gas-loss channels. A satellite is classified as ram-pressure-affected when P_ram > P_rest or r_ram < r_half,gas, and the timing is assessed by visual inspection of per-satellite evolution plots. Pericentric gas declines, however, can also be produced by star formation consumption, SN-driven outflows, or tidal stripping, and the models in this paper and Paper VI are known to differ strongly in outflow efficiency. The case study in Section 3.4.2 shows plausible ram pressure signatures but does not quantify how much gas each process removes. I recommend adding a gas budget (for example, tracked bound gas loss versus SFR consumption and SN ejection) or, failing that, softening the abstract and Section 4 item 5 to say that ram pressure stripping is consistent with being the dominant gas-removal mechanism rather than asserting this as established.
  2. [3.4.3, Fig. 13] The Venn-diagram fractions and the per-satellite classifications in Figure 13 carry no uncertainties and no sensitivity analysis. The underlying criteria are order-of-magnitude estimates, and the feedback-parameter α in Eq. (4) is imported from cluster studies without recalibration for Milky Way-mass hosts. Since the quantitative fractions are used to argue for cross-code convergence on the dominant mechanism, I would like to see a test of how the Venn-diagram percentages change when the thresholds are varied (for example, α between 0.5 and 2, and the harassment threshold around log(Es/Eint) = -1.5), or an explicit statement that only the qualitative ranking, not the exact fractions, is robust.
minor comments (5)
  1. [2.3] The quiescence condition (ii) is written as M_SF,gas < m_gas,IC = 3.39e5 M_sun, while Section 2.2 defines the galaxy mass threshold as six times the approximate particle mass resolution and quotes the same numerical value; please clarify whether the factor of six also applies to the star-forming gas threshold, since this matters for satellites near the resolution limit.
  2. [3.4.1] There is a typo in 'apporach' (should be 'approach'); please proofread.
  3. [3.2, Fig. 7] The comparison with z=0 observational surveys is made using f_q measured at z~0.3, which the authors correctly identify as a lower limit. It would strengthen the paper to also quote the expected upward evolution of f_q between z~0.3 and z=0, for example by extrapolating the trends in Figure 6, rather than only stating the direction of the bias.
  4. [References] Some references appear twice (Brown et al. 2014 and Greene et al. 2023); please unify the bibliography.
  5. [Fig. 12] The color coding in the bottom row of Figure 12 is not self-explanatory; a legend or explicit mapping between colors and mechanisms would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: quenching fractions, timescales, and mechanism attributions are simulation outputs compared against external surveys and literature thresholds, not fitted inputs or self-citation-derived predictions.

full rationale

I walked the paper's derivation chain from the CosmoRun initial conditions and code-specific feedback implementations through satellite identification, quenching definitions, timescale measurements, and mechanism classification. The central results — quenched fractions, quenching delay times, and the dominance of strangulation plus ram pressure stripping — are outputs of the simulations, not parameters fitted to the SAGA or ELVES data they are compared against. The observational comparisons are external benchmarks with stated caveats (e.g., the f_q computed between z=1 and z~0.3 is interpreted as a lower limit relative to z=0 data), so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction pattern. The mechanism thresholds (P_ram > P_rest, r_ram < r_half,gas, r_tidal < r_half,gas, log(Es/Eint) > -1.5) are adopted from prior literature (Gunn & Gott 1972; McCarthy et al. 2007; Marasco et al. 2016) and applied uniformly across all codes; there is no indication they were adjusted to produce the paper's conclusions. The paper explicitly notes that threshold-based classification is supplemented by visual inspection of per-satellite evolution plots, and while this is a methodological correctness risk if the thresholds misattribute gas loss, it is not a circular reduction: the classification criteria are not defined in terms of the quenching outcomes they are used to explain. Self-citations to AGORA Papers III–VI provide the simulation setup, calibration history, satellite population context, and CGM properties, but the load-bearing claim that ram pressure stripping is the dominant gas-removal mechanism is established by the present paper's own measured quantities (ram pressure, restoring pressure, tidal radius, inflow rates, gas mass evolution). The discussion of restoring-pressure differences being aligned with Paper VI's outflow-efficiency results is interpretive linkage, not the derivation of the main claim. The acknowledged single-halo limitation and the absence of a quantitative gas-loss budget are validity caveats, not evidence of circularity. I therefore find no step where a prediction reduces by construction to its inputs, and no load-bearing self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The analysis depends on chosen thresholds for quiescence and for mechanism effectiveness, which are standard or borrowed from prior work, plus domain assumptions about tracking and CGM subtraction. No parameter was fitted to the SAGA or ELVES data being compared; the comparisons are post hoc.

free parameters (6)
  • Quiescence lookback window = 200 Myr
    Section 2.3 defines quenched as no star formation within the last 200 Myr plus low star-forming gas mass; the exact window is a modeling choice, though an alternative sSFR definition gave consistent results.
  • Star-forming gas threshold = T < 10^4 K and n_H > 1 cm^-3
    Section 2.3 defines the star-forming gas component; standard but arbitrary values.
  • Ram pressure stripping criterion = P_ram > P_rest or r_ram < r_half,gas
    Section 3.4.3 sets this threshold for classifying ram pressure stripping as contributing to quenching; a hand-set criterion.
  • Tidal stripping criterion = r_tidal < r_half,gas
    Section 3.4.3 sets this threshold for tidal stripping effectiveness.
  • Harassment energy threshold = log(Es/Eint) > -1.5
    Section 3.4.3 adopts the Marasco et al. (2016) threshold; a choice imported from cluster studies.
  • Minimum galaxy stellar mass = 3.39e5 Msun (6 times gas particle mass)
    Section 2.2 sets the galaxy resolution threshold; directly tied to numerical resolution, not physical.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The particle-tracking method assumes no new particles are accreted by a subhalo during its infall into the host halo.
    Section 2.5.3 imposes this condition to track subhalos; could fail for satellites that accrete material during infall, but the authors argue the accreted mass is small relative to initial mass.
  • domain assumption The spherically averaged CGM density profile correctly represents the host gas that contaminates a subhalo's virial sphere.
    Section 2.4 subtracts rho_CGM(r)*(4/3)pi Rvir^3 to estimate bound gas in grid codes; local CGM perturbations such as winds and stripped gas are neglected, which could bias gas mass estimates despite median filtering.
  • domain assumption The single simulated halo is representative of Milky Way-mass halos for satellite quenching trends.
    Section 5 acknowledges the lack of host statistics; the paper compares its single halo to SAGA host-to-host scatter but cannot fully cover that scatter.
  • domain assumption The five codes share a common physical core, including GRACKLE cooling, UV background, and star formation criteria, so differences reflect feedback and hydro method choices.
    Section 2.1 describes the common physics package and code-dependent freedom; if the common-core assumption breaks, the attribution of differences to SN feedback weakens.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The AGORA High-Resolution Galaxy Simulations Comparison Project VII: Satellite quenching in zoom-in simulation of a Milky Way-mass halo." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V6U6GQC7

@misc{pith2026250505844,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The AGORA High-Resolution Galaxy Simulations Comparison Project VII: Satellite quenching in zoom-in simulation of a Milky Way-mass halo},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V6U6GQC7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05844}
}
abstract

Context: Satellite galaxies experience multiple physical processes when interacting with their host halos, often leading to the quenching of star formation. In the Local Group (LG), satellite quenching has been shown to be highly efficient, affecting nearly all satellites except the most massive ones. While recent surveys are studying Milky Way (MW) analogs to assess how representative our LG is, the dominant physical mechanisms behind satellite quenching in MW-mass halos remain under debate. Aims: We analyze satellite quenching within the same MW-mass halo, simulated using various widely-used astrophysical codes, each using different hydrodynamic methods and implementing different supernovae feedback recipes. The goal is to determine whether quenched fractions, quenching timescales and the dominant quenching mechanisms are consistent across codes or if they show sensitivity to the specific hydrodynamic method and supernovae (SNe) feedback physics employed. Methods: We use a subset of high-resolution cosmological zoom-in simulations of a MW-mass halo from the multiple-code AGORA CosmoRun suite. Results: We find that the quenched fraction is consistent with the latest SAGA survey results within its 1$\sigma$ host-to-host scatter across all the models. Regarding quenching timescales, all the models reproduce the trend observed in the ELVES survey, LG observations, and previous simulations: the less massive the satellite, the shorter its quenching timescale. All our models converge on the dominant quenching mechanisms: strangulation halts cold gas accretion and ram pressure stripping is the predominant mechanism for gas removal, particularly effective in satellites with $M_* < 10^8\, M_\odot$. Nevertheless, the efficiency of the stripping mechanisms differs among the codes, showing a strong sensitivity to the different SNe feedback implementations and/or hydrodynamic methods employed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.05844 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic illustrating the process used to determine the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Evolution of the same subhalo over time for all the models, as measured by both RCT (ROCKSTAR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Stellar surface density at z ∼ 0.3 for all the models. The host virial radius is indicated by the green dashed circle. "Reliable" satellite galaxies (see Section 2.5 for reliability definition) and field galaxies are marked with colored solid circles representing 0.5Rsub vir . Blue circles denote galaxies identified by both RCT and our particle-tracking method, while red circles indicate those identified as "reliabl… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of the satellites’ number count across cosmic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows the stellar-to-halo mass relation (SHMR) at z ∼ 0.3 for the five CosmoRun models analyzed through this pa￾per. One may notice that halos in some models produce consid￾erably higher stellar mass than in others, highlighting the impact of the different feedback mod…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of the fraction of quenched satellite galaxies ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Quenched fractions of satellite galaxies of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Quenching delay time of satellite galaxies as a function of their stellar mass. Quenched satellites are represented by red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Gas density of the same subhalo across the di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Evolution of the same satellite as in Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Flowchart illustrating the decision-making process for determining which mechanisms contribute to satellite quenching. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Venn diagram for each CosmoRun model analyzed in this paper showing the fraction of satellite galaxies affected by each of the mechanisms considered responsible for the stripping of the satellites’ gas. All satellites shown in Figures 8 and 12 are included. Please not…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of intercode differences in the ram pressure experienced by satellites and their restoring pressure. Left: Ram pressure felt by satellites during their first pericenter as a function of pericenter distance. Right: Maximum restoring pressure of each satellit…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., Moore, B., & Bower, R

    Abadi, M. G., Moore, B., & Bower, R. G. 1999, MNRAS, 308, 947

    1999

  2. [2]

    2007, MNRAS, 380, 963

    Agertz, O., Moore, B., Stadel, J., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 963

    2007

  3. [3]

    B., Christensen, C

    Akins, H. B., Christensen, C. R., Brooks, A. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 139

    2021

  4. [4]

    R., et al

    Behroozi, P., Knebe, A., Pearce, F. R., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3020

    2015

  5. [5]

    S., Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., Wu, H.-Y ., et al. 2012b, ApJ, 763, 18 Benítez-Llambay, A., Navarro, J. F., Abadi, M. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 4207

    2015

  6. [6]

    & Tremaine, S

    Binney, J. & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    2008

  7. [7]

    & Dekel, A

    Birnboim, Y . & Dekel, A. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 349

    2003

  8. [9]

    M., Tumlinson, J., Geha, M., et al

    Brown, T. M., Tumlinson, J., Geha, M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, 91

    2014

Show all 101 references
  1. [10]

    2019, JOSS, 4, 1636

    Brummel-Smith, C., Bryan, G., Butsky, I., et al. 2019, JOSS, 4, 1636

    2019

  2. [11]

    Bryan, G. L. & Norman, M. L. 1998, ApJ, 495, 80

    1998

  3. [12]

    L., Norman, M

    Bryan, G. L., Norman, M. L., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 2014, ApJS, 211, 19

    2014

  4. [13]

    S., Kravtsov, A

    Bullock, J. S., Kravtsov, A. V ., & Weinberg, D. H. 2000, ApJ, 539, 517

    2000

  5. [14]

    G., Greco, J

    Carlsten, S. G., Greco, J. P., Beaton, R. L., & Greene, J. E. 2020, ApJ, 891, 144

    2020

  6. [15]

    G., Greene, J

    Carlsten, S. G., Greene, J. E., Beaton, R. L., Danieli, S., & Greco, J. P. 2022, ApJ, 933, 47

    2022

  7. [16]

    & McDonald, P

    Cen, R. & McDonald, P. 2002, ApJ, 570, 457

    2002

  8. [17]

    J., Noble, A

    Cramer, W. J., Noble, A. G., Rudnick, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 144

    2024

  9. [18]

    & Birnboim, Y

    Dekel, A. & Birnboim, Y . 2006, MNRAS, 368, 2

    2006

  10. [19]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1904.08431

    Dekel, A., Lapiner, S., & Dubois, Y . 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1904.08431

    2019 arXiv

  11. [20]

    & Silk, J

    Dekel, A. & Silk, J. 1986, ApJ, 303, 39

    1986

  12. [21]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 112

    Diemer, B. 2021, ApJ, 909, 112

    2021

  13. [22]

    2024, MNRAS, 533, 3811

    Diemer, B., Behroozi, P., & Mansfield, P. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 3811

    2024

  14. [23]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 4760

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

    2021

  15. [24]

    P., Cooper, M

    Fillingham, S. P., Cooper, M. C., Pace, A. B., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 1916

    2016

  16. [25]

    P., Cooper, M

    Fillingham, S. P., Cooper, M. C., Wheeler, C., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2039

    2015

  17. [26]

    S., McCarthy, I

    Font, A. S., McCarthy, I. G., Belokurov, V ., Brown, S. T., & Stafford, S. G. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 1544

    2022

  18. [27]

    Gabor, J. M. & Davé, R. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 374

    2015

  19. [28]

    H., et al

    Geha, M., Mao, Y .-Y ., Wechsler, R. H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 118

    2024

  20. [29]

    H., Mao, Y .-Y ., et al

    Geha, M., Wechsler, R. H., Mao, Y .-Y ., et al. 2017, ApJ, 847, 4

    2017

  21. [30]

    2020, A&A, 634, A135

    Girelli, G., Pozzetti, L., Bolzonella, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A135

    2020

  22. [31]

    Grand, R. J. J., Marinacci, F., Pakmor, R., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 4953

    2021

  23. [32]

    B., van den Bosch, F

    Green, S. B., van den Bosch, F. C., & Jiang, F. 2021, MNRAS, 509, 2624

    2021

  24. [34]

    E., Danieli, S., Carlsten, S., et al

    Greene, J. E., Danieli, S., Carlsten, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 94

    2023

  25. [35]

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

    1972

  26. [36]

    & Madau, P

    Haardt, F. & Madau, P. 2012, ApJ, 746, 125

    2012

  27. [37]

    S., Benitez-Llambay, A., & Helly, J

    Han, J., Cole, S., Frenk, C. S., Benitez-Llambay, A., & Helly, J. 2017, MNRAS, 474, 604

    2017

  28. [38]

    P., Wang, H., & Wang, W

    Han, J., Jing, Y . P., Wang, H., & Wang, W. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 2437

    2012

  29. [39]

    2019, A&A, 624, A11

    Hausammann, L., Revaz, Y ., & Jablonka, P. 2019, A&A, 624, A11

    2019

  30. [40]

    Henriques, B. M. B. & Thomas, P. A. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 768

    2010

  31. [41]

    F., Wetzel, A., Kereš, D., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Kereš, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 800

    2018

  32. [42]

    Jiang, L., Cole, S., Sawala, T., & Frenk, C. S. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 1674

    2015

  33. [43]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 123

    Jung, M., Roca-Fàbrega, S., Kim, J.-H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 123

    2024

  34. [44]

    P., Besla, G., Anderson, J., & Alcock, C

    Kallivayalil, N., van der Marel, R. P., Besla, G., Anderson, J., & Alcock, C. 2013, ApJ, 764, 161

    2013

  35. [45]

    A., et al

    Karunakaran, A., Spekkens, K., Oman, K. A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 916, L19

    2021

  36. [46]

    2020, MNRAS, 494, 2200

    Katz, H., Ramsoy, M., Rosdahl, J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 2200

    2020

  37. [47]

    M., White, S

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 33 Kereš, D., Katz, N., Weinberg, D. H., & Davé, R. 2005, MNRAS, 363, 2

    2003

  38. [48]

    2014, ApJS, 210, 14

    Kim, J.-h., Abel, T., Agertz, O., et al. 2014, ApJS, 210, 14

    2014

  39. [49]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 202

    Kim, J.-h., Agertz, O., Teyssier, R., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 202

    2016

  40. [50]

    N., Cohen, J

    Kirby, E. N., Cohen, J. G., Guhathakurta, P., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 102

    2013

  41. [51]

    R., Muldrew, S

    Knebe, A., Knollmann, S. R., Muldrew, S. I., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 2293

    2011

  42. [52]

    I., Pearce, F., et al

    Knebe, A., Libeskind, N. I., Pearce, F., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 428, 2039

    2012

  43. [53]

    V ., Klypin, A

    Kravtsov, A. V ., Klypin, A. A., & Khokhlov, A. M. 1997, ApJS, 111, 73

    1997

  44. [54]

    J., Davidzon, I., et al

    Legrand, L., McCracken, H. J., Davidzon, I., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 5468

    2019

  45. [55]

    K., Walter, F., Brinks, E., et al

    Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., Brinks, E., et al. 2008, ApJ, 136, 2782

    2008

  46. [56]

    C., Wilkins, S

    Lovell, C. C., Wilkins, S. M., Thomas, P. A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 509, 5046

    2021

  47. [57]

    2024, ApJ, 970, 178

    Mansfield, P., Darragh-Ford, E., Wang, Y ., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 178

    2024

  48. [58]

    H., et al

    Mao, Y .-Y ., Geha, M., Wechsler, R. H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 117

    2024

  49. [59]

    H., et al

    Mao, Y .-Y ., Geha, M., Wechsler, R. H., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 85

    2021

  50. [60]

    A., Schaye, J., et al

    Marasco, A., Crain, R. A., Schaye, J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 2630–2649

    2016

  51. [61]

    2001, ApJ, 559, 754

    Mayer, L., Governato, F., Colpi, M., et al. 2001, ApJ, 559, 754

    2001

  52. [62]

    2006, MNRAS, 369, 1021

    Mayer, L., Mastropietro, C., Wadsley, J., Stadel, J., & Moore, B. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 1021

    2006

  53. [63]

    G., Frenk, C

    McCarthy, I. G., Frenk, C. S., Font, A. S., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 383, 593

    2007

  54. [64]

    McConnachie, A. W. 2012, ApJ, 144, 4

    2012

  55. [65]

    A., et al

    Merluzzi, P., Busarello, G., Dopita, M. A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 3345

    2016

  56. [66]

    1996, Nature, 379, 613

    Moore, B., Katz, N., Lake, G., Dressler, A., & Oemler, A. 1996, Nature, 379, 613

    1996

  57. [67]

    I., Pearce, F

    Muldrew, S. I., Pearce, F. R., & Power, C. 2010, MNRAS, 410, 2617

    2010

  58. [68]

    M., Applebaum, E., et al

    Munshi, F., Brooks, A. M., Applebaum, E., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 35

    2021

  59. [69]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 624

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

    2018

  60. [70]

    Nulsen, P. E. J. 1982, MNRAS, 198, 1007

    1982

  61. [71]

    R., et al

    Onions, J., Knebe, A., Pearce, F. R., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 1200

    2012

  62. [72]

    2015, Nature, 521, 192

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

    2015

  63. [73]

    J., Kovaˇc, K., et al

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

    2010

  64. [74]

    Price, D. J. 2008, JCP, 227, 10040

    2008

  65. [75]

    E., Zheng, Y ., Price-Whelan, A

    Putman, M. E., Zheng, Y ., Price-Whelan, A. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 53

    2021

  66. [76]

    2000, Science, 288, 1617

    Quilis, V ., Moore, B., & Bower, R. 2000, Science, 288, 1617

    2000

  67. [77]

    I., Hayfield, T., & Agertz, O

    Read, J. I., Hayfield, T., & Agertz, O. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 1513

    2010

  68. [78]

    I., Wilkinson, M

    Read, J. I., Wilkinson, M. I., Evans, N. W., Gilmore, G., & Kleyna, J. T. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 429

    2006

  69. [79]

    & Jablonka, P

    Revaz, Y . & Jablonka, P. 2012, A&A, 538, A82 Roca-Fàbrega, S., Kim, J.-H., Hausammann, L., et al. 2021, ApJ, 917, 64 Roca-Fàbrega, S., Kim, J.-H., Primack, J. R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 125 Rodriguez Wimberly, M. K., Cooper, M. C., Fillingham, S. P., et al. 2019, MN- RAS, 483, 4031

    2012

  70. [80]

    & Hensler, G

    Roediger, E. & Hensler, G. 2005, A&A, 433, 875

    2005

  71. [81]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 3849

    Samuel, J., Pardasani, B., Wetzel, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 3849

    2023

  72. [82]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 5276–5295

    Samuel, J., Wetzel, A., Santistevan, I., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 5276–5295

    2022

  73. [83]

    S., Bower, R

    Schaller, M., Frenk, C. S., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 1247

    2015

  74. [84]

    M., et al

    Schaye, J., Dalla Vecchia, C., Booth, C. M., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 1536

    2010

  75. [85]

    & Struck, C

    Schulz, S. & Struck, C. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 185

    2001

  76. [86]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.08290

    Shuntov, M., Ilbert, O., Toft, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.08290

    2024 arXiv

  77. [87]

    M., Grand, R

    Simpson, C. M., Grand, R. J. J., Gómez, F. A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 548

    2018

  78. [88]

    D., Bryan, G

    Smith, B. D., Bryan, G. L., Glover, S. C. O., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 466, 2217

    2016

  79. [89]

    S., Willman, B., & Aguirre, J

    Spekkens, K., Urbancic, N., Mason, B. S., Willman, B., & Aguirre, J. E. 2014, ApJ, 795, L5

    2014

  80. [90]

    2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105

    Springel, V . 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105

    2005

  81. [91]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 791

    Springel, V . 2010, MNRAS, 401, 791

    2010

  82. [92]

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

    2001

  83. [93]

    R., et al

    Strawn, C., Roca-Fàbrega, S., Primack, J. R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 29

    2024

  84. [94]

    W., Veeravalli, G., & Couchman, H

    Wadsley, J. W., Veeravalli, G., & Couchman, H. M. P. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 427

    2008

  85. [95]

    O., Mao, Y .-Y ., et al

    Wang, Y ., Nadler, E. O., Mao, Y .-Y ., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 119

    2024

  86. [96]

    R., Dolphin, A

    Weisz, D. R., Dolphin, A. E., Skillman, E. D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 789, 148

    2014

  87. [97]

    R., Tinker, J

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

    2013

  88. [98]

    I., Cooper, M

    Wheeler, C., Phillips, J. I., Cooper, M. C., Boylan-Kolchin, M., & Bullock, J. S. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 1396

    2014

  89. [99]

    White, S. D. M. & Frenk, C. S. 1991, ApJ, 379, 52

    1991

  90. [100]

    J., Lagos, C

    Wright, R. J., Lagos, C. d. P., Power, C., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 2891

    2022

  91. [101]

    Zaritsky, D., Smith, R., Frenk, C., & White, S. D. M. 1993, ApJ, 405, 464

    1993

  92. [102]

    Zaritsky, D., Smith, R., Frenk, C., & White, S. D. M. 1997, ApJ, 478, 39

    1997

  93. [103]

    L., & Putman, M

    Zhu, J., Tonnesen, S., Bryan, G. L., & Putman, M. E. 2024, ApJ, 974, 142 1 Departamento de Física de la Tierra y Astrofísica, Fac. de C.C. Físi- cas, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, E-28040 Madrid, Spain e-mail: ramorodr@ucm.es 2 GMV , Space and Avionics Equipment, Isaac Ne...

    2024

Pith tools

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