Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 70 references

Intrinsic and Environmental Effects on the Distribution of Star Formation in TNG100 Galaxies

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using the TNG100 cosmological simulation, this paper argues that high-mass galaxies quench from the inside out through black-hole feedback, while low-mass galaxies quench from the outside in through their environments.

desk verdict A careful, useful TNG100 profile atlas that maps intrinsic and environmental drivers of radial star-formation structure; the causal language outruns the correlation-based evidence, but the descriptive core is solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13666 v1 pith:VERVJMI5 submitted 2024-11-20 astro-ph.GA

Bryanne McDonough , Olivia Curtis , Tereasa Brainerd This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxyquenchinginside-outoutside-inAGNfeedbacksatellitegalaxiesTNG100simulationradialstarformationprofilesstar-forminggasstripping
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper uses the TNG100 cosmological simulation to ask what sets where star formation stops inside a galaxy. It builds radial profiles of luminosity-weighted age and of the offset from the resolved star-forming main sequence for thousands of central and satellite galaxies, split at $M_* = 10^{10.5}\,M_\odot$ and $10^{10}\,M_\odot$. The central claim is that high-mass galaxies, whether centrals or satellites, are quenched from the inside out by energy injected by their supermassive black holes, while low-mass galaxies are quenched from the outside in by their environments. Environmental effects on averaged profiles show up only at extreme halo masses and overdensities, and the strongest low-mass satellite signal is tied to how much star-forming gas a satellite has lost since joining its host halo. A sympathetic reader would care because this connects black-hole feedback and environmental gas stripping to measurable radial signatures of where star formation dies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the population-averaged radial profile. The authors project stellar particles of each galaxy face-on, bin by $R/R_e$, and compute the luminosity-weighted age $\mathrm{age}_L$ from all particles in a bin and $\Delta\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$, the logarithmic offset of the star-formation surface density from the resolved star-forming main sequence, with unresolved bins assigned a fixed floor of $\mathrm{sSFR}=10^{-12}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$. The gradient $\nabla_{1R_e}$ measured from $0$ to $1\,R_e$ turns a profile into one number: negative $\mathrm{age}_L$ slopes and positive $\Delta\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$ slopes mean inside-out quenching, while flat or positive outer $\mathrm{age}_L$ slopes mean outside-in quenching. For satellites, the joining redshift $z_j$ and the change in bound star-forming gas mass $\Delta M_{\mathrm{SFG}}$ since joining serve as direct diagnostics of how much environmental exposure a galaxy has experienced.

What would settle it

Recompute the low-mass satellite $\Delta\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$ and $\mathrm{age}_L$ profiles after removing or lowering the fixed star-formation floor, or repeat the same profile construction in a higher-resolution run of the same simulation; if the positive outer $\mathrm{age}_L$ slopes and quenched outer bins weaken, the outside-in conclusion is driven by the resolution floor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is a division of labour between two quenching directions in the TNG100 universe. For high-mass galaxies ($M_*>10^{10.5}\,M_\odot$), the radial profiles steepen as black hole mass and cumulative quasar-mode feedback energy increase: gradients of $\mathrm{age}_L$ become more negative and gradients of $\Delta\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$ become more positive, signalling that star formation is being shut down first in the centre. Above roughly $M_{\mathrm{BH}}\sim10^{8.5}\,M_\odot$ and $\Sigma E_{\mathrm{QM}}\sim10^{17}$ these galaxies are entirely quenched, and further feedback only flattens the age profile. For low-mass galaxies ($M_*<10^{10}\,M_\odot$) black hole properties barely change the profiles; instead, low-mass centrals that are quenched tend to lack a seeded black hole, and low-mass satellites are quenched when they live in halos above $M_H\sim10^{13.5}{-}10^{14}\,M_\odot$, joined their hosts early, and have lost star-forming gas. The outskirts of such satellites are old and quenched while their centres can still form stars, which is the outside-in pattern. The overall conclusion is that intrinsic AGN feedback drives inside-out quenching at high mass, while environmental processes, primarily interactions with the host halo, drive outside-in quenching at low mass.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that low-mass galaxies quench from the outside in rests on the fixed star-formation floor of $10^{-12}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ assigned to spatial bins where TNG100 cannot resolve star formation, so the quenched outer regions could partly be a resolution effect rather than genuine environmental quenching.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • High-mass galaxies in TNG100 quench through the same channel whether they are centrals or satellites, so black-hole feedback, not environment, sets their radial star-formation structure.
  • Completely quenched high-mass systems have old, flat $\mathrm{age}_L$ profiles, so a flat profile should be read as the end stage of inside-out quenching rather than as a sign of environmental stripping.
  • Low-mass satellite quenching in TNG100 is controlled by the host halo: quenched systems cluster at $M_H>10^{13.5}\,M_\odot$ with early joining times and $\Delta M_{\mathrm{SFG}}<0$, even when local overdensity is modest.
  • Environmental quenching changes the outskirts first, so observations that measure beyond about one effective radius are needed to see it; inner gradients alone will miss the outside-in signal.
  • The spread within any environmental bin is large, meaning averages conceal a wide range of individual stripping histories.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One extension the authors leave implicit is to apply the same $\Delta M_{\mathrm{SFG}}$ accounting to high-redshift satellites, which would test whether outside-in quenching begins only after group infall or can precede it.
  • If the fixed star-formation floor were removed or refined, the outer quenched regions of low-mass satellites should be re-examined; a weaker outside-in signal in a higher-resolution version of the simulation would indicate that part of the pattern is a resolution artefact.
  • The comparison with observed galaxies would be sharper if the profile construction mimicked the spaxel-binning used by integral-field surveys, since the paper notes that unresolved bins depress $\Delta\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$ at intermediate radii.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses the TNG100 cosmological simulation to construct radial profiles of luminosity-weighted stellar age (age_L) and the resolved star-forming main-sequence offset (ΔΣ_SFR) for high-mass (M* > 10^10.5 Msun) and low-mass (M* < 10^10 Msun) central and satellite galaxies. For each population, the profiles are subdivided by intrinsic parameters (SMBH mass, cumulative AGN feedback energy, morphology) and environmental parameters (halo mass, local galaxy overdensity, satellite joining time, and change in star-forming gas mass). The central claim is that high-mass galaxies are quenched from the inside out by AGN feedback, while environmental processes, dominant for low-mass galaxies, quench galaxies from the outside in. In particular, low-mass satellite quenching is argued to occur primarily in massive host halos through gas depletion.

Significance. If confirmed, the paper provides a coherent and observationally relevant picture of quenching modes in a state-of-the-art cosmological simulation, linking AGN feedback to inside-out quenching at high mass and halo-driven processes to outside-in quenching at low mass. The analysis has notable strengths: bootstrap uncertainties, explicit and repeated caveats about simulation resolution and the unresolved-SFR floor, and an appendix (Appendix A) documenting inter-correlations among the parameters. The work is transparent and the claims are falsifiable. The main weaknesses are that the quantitative gradient metric is confined to R < 1Re and does not capture the outer-profile signatures on which the outside-in claim rests, the unresolved-SFR floor could contaminate the ΔΣ_SFR-based evidence, and the attribution to AGN feedback is partly degenerate with the tight stellar-mass–black-hole-mass correlation. These issues are addressable and do not, in my reading, invalidate the qualitative conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2 and Fig. 2] The fixed sSFR of 10^-12 yr^-1 assigned to bins with unresolved star formation is described in Section 2, and the text itself quotes McDonough et al. (2023) as noting that ΔΣ_SFR profiles are biased toward low values at intermediate radii. The abstract's claim that environmental processes drive quenching from the outside in is partly based on ΔΣ_SFR profiles at large radii (e.g., Fig. 8b for low-mass satellites in massive halos). The authors should demonstrate that this outer signal is not an artifact of the resolution floor, for instance by reporting the fraction of spatial bins at each radius that are assigned the fixed floor for each population, or by recomputing the profiles after excluding such bins.
  2. [Section 2 and Appendix B] The gradient ∇1Re is defined as the slope of a line fit over 0 ≤ r ≤ 1Re (Section 2), and all quantitative summaries in Appendix B report this quantity. However, the outside-in quenching evidence is described as a positive or flat slope at R ≳ 1Re (e.g., §4.1 for high-mass centrals with 10^13.5 < MH < 10^14, and §4.2 for δ5 > 10^1.5). Because the reported gradient excludes the region where the outside-in signal appears, the summary figures do not quantitatively support the central claim. Add an outer-radius gradient over, say, 1–1.5Re, or an outer-to-inner age contrast, and include it in the appendix summaries.
  3. [Section 3.1, §5.1, and Appendix A] The claim that AGN feedback drives inside-out quenching is based on the variation of profile shape and normalization with MBH and ΣEQM (Figs. 1–4). Appendix A (Fig. 17) demonstrates a tight correlation between stellar mass and MBH and ΣEQM for central galaxies, so the steepening gradients could be a mass effect. The text acknowledges these correlations but does not control for stellar mass. The authors should either show that the trends persist in narrow stellar-mass bins or perform a multivariate analysis (e.g., random forest or partial correlation) to separate the contributions of mass and BH properties. Without this, the assignment of the inside-out quenching to AGN feedback specifically remains underdetermined.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1 (Figs. 3 and 4 legends)] The word 'negligable' appears in the legends of Figures 3 and 4; it should be 'negligible'.
  2. [Section 5.1] The sentence 'This indicating that mass rather than morphology likely drives quenching in high-mass TNG100 galaxies.' should read 'This indicates that mass rather than morphology likely drives quenching...'
  3. [Section 2] The phrase 'a combination of stellar particles formed in the last 20 and 100 Myr' is ambiguous about whether the ΣSFR maps are constructed from two separate tracer populations that are combined or averaged; please clarify.
  4. [Figure 15] The grey points that mark all individual low-mass central galaxies are difficult to identify behind the magenta density contours; a separate panel or a higher-contrast plotting style would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all reported profiles are direct simulation measurements; the only self-references are prior methodological choices that do not force the conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's derived quantities (age_L and DeltaSigma_SFR radial profiles) are constructed directly from TNG100 stellar and gas particle data, not predicted from a fitted model. DeltaSigma_SFR is normalized to the resolved star-forming main sequence of McDonough et al. (2023), but that relation was established in prior work against observations and is not re-fit within this paper; using it as a reference frame does not make the reported profile shapes or their dependence on MBH, Sigma_EQM, halo mass, delta5, zj, or DeltaM_SFG circular. The high-/low-mass division is also taken from the same prior paper, but it is a sample-selection choice rather than a definition of the conclusion; the new subpopulations could have contradicted the earlier inside-out picture and therefore carry independent content. The fixed sSFR = 10^-12 yr^-1 floor for unresolved bins is a resolution limitation explicitly acknowledged in Section 2 and is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction; moreover, the outside-in quenching signal is also present in age_L profiles that do not depend on that floor. The MBH-Sigma_EQM degeneracy is acknowledged in Appendix A, and the paper benchmarks against external MaNGA results (Bluck et al. 2020b). No load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own input, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced. The analysis depends on calibration choices (sSFR floor, mass thresholds, quenched definition) inherited from the authors' earlier paper and on the fidelity of TNG100's subgrid models.

free parameters (3)
  • Unresolved sSFR floor = 10^-12 yr^-1
    Assigned to spatial bins where star formation is not resolved in TNG100, and used in constructing Σ_SFR and ΔΣ_SFR maps. The paper acknowledges that profiles of actively quenching galaxies are biased low at intermediate radii by this floor (Section 2, Section 3.1).
  • High/low stellar mass thresholds = 10^10.5 and 10^10 Msun
    Chosen from Figure 5 of McDonough et al. (2023) to split the sample; all conclusions are conditional on this split.
  • Quenched galaxy definition = >=1.1 dex below the star-forming main sequence
    Used to classify quenched vs green valley vs main sequence galaxies in Figures 15-19; taken from McDonough et al. (2023).
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption TNG100 subgrid models for AGN feedback and star formation are a faithful representation of galaxy evolution
    The entire analysis interprets simulation outputs as proxies for real galaxies. The paper states 'simulations are based on theoretical models, and may not represent reality' (end of Section 5.2).
  • domain assumption Luminosity-weighted age profiles trace quenching rather than only natural inside-out aging
    The paper acknowledges that negative age_L gradients can arise naturally from inside-out growth (Section 2), yet interprets gradients as evidence of quenching.
  • ad hoc to paper The resolved star-forming main sequence from McDonough et al. (2023) is a valid baseline for ΔΣ_SFR
    ΔΣ_SFR is defined as offset from this self-published sequence, so claims about quenching rely on a previously fitted baseline by the same authors (Section 2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Intrinsic and Environmental Effects on the Distribution of Star Formation in TNG100 Galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VERVJMI5

@misc{pith2026241113666,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Intrinsic and Environmental Effects on the Distribution of Star Formation in TNG100 Galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VERVJMI5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13666}
}
abstract

We present radial profiles of luminosity-weighted age, $age_L$, and $\Delta \Sigma_{SFR}$ for various populations of high- and low- mass central and satellite galaxies in the TNG100 cosmological simulation. Using these profiles, we investigate the impact of intrinsic and environmental factors on the radial distribution of star formation. For both central galaxies and satellites, we investigate the effects of black hole mass, cumulative AGN feedback energy, morphology, halo mass, and local galaxy overdensity on the profiles. In addition, we investigate the dependence of radial profiles of the satellite galaxies as a function of the redshifts at which they joined their hosts, as well as the net change in star-forming gas mass since the satellites joined their host. We find that high-mass ($M_*>10^{10.5} M_{\odot}$) central and satellite galaxies show evidence of inside-out quenching driven by AGN feedback. Effects from environmental processes only become apparent in averaged profiles at extreme halo masses and local overdensities. We find that the dominant quenching process for low-mass galaxies ($M_*<10^{10} M_{\odot}$) is environmental, generally occurring at low halo mass and high local galaxy overdensity for low-mass central galaxies and at high host halo masses for low-mass satellite galaxies. Overall, we find that environmental processes generally drive quenching from the outside-in.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13666 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Radial profiles of ageL, subdivided by SMBH mass. The legends indicate the profile gradients (∇1Re ) and the number of galaxies that contributed to the profile (N). Profiles were computed separately for populations of high-mass (top row) and low-mass (bottom row) central (left column) and satellite (right column) galaxies. Errors were computed using 2,000 bootstrap resamplings of the data. Error bounds that are wide… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Radial profiles of ∆ΣSFR, subdivided by SMBH mass. Here, the formatting is identical to that of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Radial profiles of ageL, subdivided by cumulative AGN feedback energy imparted in the quasar mode, ΣEQM = Σ(EQM/(M⊙kpc2Gyr−2 )), where EQM has units of M⊙kpc2Gyr−2 . Formatting is identical to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (30 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radial profiles of ∆ΣSFR, subdivided by cumulative AGN feedback energy imparted in the quasar mode, and corresponding to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Radial profiles of ageL subdivided by the strength of their bulge as measured by the Gini-M20 bulge statistic, F(G, M20). Positive values of F(G, M20) correspond to bulge-like morphology, with higher values indicating stronger bulges. Formatting is identical to [PITH_…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radial profiles of ∆ΣSFR, subdivided by the Gini-M20 bulge statistic, F(G, M20), and corresponding to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Radial profiles of ageL subdivided by halo mass, MH. Formatting is identical to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Radial profiles of ∆ΣSFR, subdivided by host halo mass, and corresponding to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Radial profiles of ageL subdivided by local galaxy overdensity (see text). Formatting is identical to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Radial profiles of ∆ΣSFR, subdivided by local galaxy overdensity measured at the fifth nearest neighbor, that correspond to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Radial profiles of ageL subdivided by the redshift at which the satellite entered within 3R200 of its z = 0 host, zj . Formatting is identical to the right column of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Radial profiles of ∆ΣSFR, subdivided by the redshift at which the satellite approached within 3R200 of its z = 0 host, zj , and corresponding to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Radial profiles of ageL subdivided by the change in star-forming gas since the satellite entered within 3R200 of its z = 0 host, ∆MSFG. Formatting is identical to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Radial profiles of ∆ΣSFR, subdivided by the change in star-forming gas since the satellite approached within 3R200 of its z = 0 host, and corresponding to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Comparison of the distribution of quenched low-mass central and satellite galaxies to the entire population of low-mass central and satellite galaxies. Magenta and orange contours indicate the density of the entire low-mass central and satellite population, respective…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The relationship between halo mass and change in mass of star forming gas since joining, for main sequence (blue), green valley (green), and quenched (red) low-mass satellites. Density contours are drawn for the separate populations, and individual galaxies are plotte…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Corner plot illustrating correlations among the parameters explored in this paper, for central galaxies only. The diagonal displays the total distribution of each parameter (black), and the distribution separated by galaxy star-formation type: main sequence (blue), gr…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Corner plot illustrating correlations among the parameters explored in this paper, for satellite galaxies only. Formatting, including parameter ranges, is identical to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Correlation between ∆MSFG and environmental parameters for low-mass (top) and high-mass (bottom) satellite galaxies: halo mass (left), local galaxy overdensity (middle), and joining redshift (right). Density contours for the main sequence (blue), green valley (green),…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: A summary of the median ageL and SFR, as well as the gradients measured for populations of TNG100 galaxies whose radial profiles are shown in Figures 1 and 2. From top to bottom, the panels are the median global ageL of each population subset, the ageL gradient report…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Formatting is identical to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Formatting is identical to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p047_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Formatting is identical to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p048_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Formatting is identical to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p049_24.png]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Formatting is identical to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p050_25.png]
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: Formatting is identical to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p051_26.png]
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: The total ageL for a galaxy and the galaxy’s logarithmic offset from the star-forming main sequence (∆SFR) is plotted against stellar mass in the top and bottom panels, respectively. Central and satellite galaxies are plotted separately in the left and right columns, …
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: Formatting is identical to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p053_28.png]
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: Formatting is identical to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p054_29.png]
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: Formatting is identical to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p055_30.png]
Figure 31
Figure 31. Figure 31: Formatting is identical to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p056_31.png]
Figure 32
Figure 32. Figure 32: Formatting is identical to the right column of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p057_32.png]
Figure 33
Figure 33. Figure 33: Formatting is identical to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p058_33.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    5R)x0ybޒ q(c`5\2 zjr k 'Aw 8\ ئ i O= -?ͣCy 歳w c BM->_s` aw B-D OxLX/L|5 b 8 w 3`r v#; `^1 fn

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    G., van den Bergh , S., & Nair , P

    Abraham , R. G., van den Bergh , S., & Nair , P. 2003, , 588, 218, 10.1086/373919

    doi:10.1086/373919 2003

  5. [5]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  6. [6]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  7. [7]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, apj, 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  8. [8]

    M., & Zhu, Y

    Beifiori, A., Courteau, S., Corsini, E. M., & Zhu, Y. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 419, 2497, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19903.x

    arXiv 2012

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    Bluck , A. F. L., Maiolino , R., S \'a nchez , S. F., et al. 3001 2020a, , 492, 96, 10.1093/mnras/stz3264

    doi

  2. [10]

    Bluck , A. F. L., Mendel , J. T., Ellison , S. L., et al. 2014, , 441, 599, 10.1093/mnras/stu594

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    Bluck , A. F. L., Piotrowska , J. M., & Maiolino , R. 2023, , 944, 108, 10.3847/1538-4357/acac7c

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Bluck , A. F. L., Mendel , J. T., Ellison , S. L., et al. 2016, , 462, 2559, 10.1093/mnras/stw1665

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    Bluck, A. F. L., Maiolino, R., Piotrowska, J. M., et al. 3002 2020b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 499, 230, 10.1093/mnras/staa2806

    doi

  6. [14]

    A., Law , D

    Bundy , K., Bershady , M. A., Law , D. R., et al. 2015, , 798, 7, 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/7

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    F., Zibetti , S., et al

    Cano-D \' az , M., S \'a nchez , S. F., Zibetti , S., et al. 2016, , 821, L26, 10.3847/2041-8205/821/2/L26

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    F., Bolatto , A

    Colombo , D., Sanchez , S. F., Bolatto , A. D., et al. 2020, , 644, A97, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039005

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    F., & L \'o pez-S \'a nchez , \'A

    Corcho-Caballero , P., Ascasibar , Y., S \'a nchez , S. F., & L \'o pez-S \'a nchez , \'A . R. 2023, , 520, 193, 10.1093/mnras/stad147

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 485, 4817, 10.1093/mnras/stz712

    Donnari, M., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 485, 4817, 10.1093/mnras/stz712

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    L., S \'a nchez , S

    Ellison , S. L., S \'a nchez , S. F., Ibarra-Medel , H., et al. 2018, , 474, 2039, 10.1093/mnras/stx2882

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    A., Desai , V., Rudnick , G., et al

    Finn , R. A., Desai , V., Rudnick , G., et al. 2018, , 862, 149, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac32a

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    F., et al

    Garc \' a-Benito , R., Zibetti , S., S \'a nchez , S. F., et al. 2015, , 576, A135, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425080

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    2018, , 474, 3976, 10.1093/mnras/stx3078

    Genel , S., Nelson , D., Pillepich , A., et al. 2018, , 474, 3976, 10.1093/mnras/stx3078

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    M., P \'e rez , E., Cid Fernandes , R., et al

    Gonz \'a lez Delgado , R. M., P \'e rez , E., Cid Fernandes , R., et al. 2014, , 562, A47, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322011

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    M., Cid Fernandes , R., P \'e rez , E., et al

    Gonz \'a lez Delgado , R. M., Cid Fernandes , R., P \'e rez , E., et al. 2016, , 590, A44, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628174

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    2019, , 872, 50, 10.3847/1538-4357/aafa84

    Lin , L., Hsieh , B.-C., Pan , H.-A., et al. 2019, , 872, 50, 10.3847/1538-4357/aafa84

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    M., Primack , J., & Madau , P

    Lotz , J. M., Primack , J., & Madau , P. 2004, , 128, 163, 10.1086/421849

    2004 doi

  19. [27]

    2022, , 941, 205, 10.3847/1538-4357/aca326

    Ma , W., Liu , K., Guo , H., et al. 2022, , 941, 205, 10.3847/1538-4357/aca326

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    M., Fritz, J., et al

    Marasco, A., Poggianti, B. M., Fritz, J., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 5359, 10.1093/mnras/stad2604

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    2018, , 480, 5113, 10.1093/mnras/sty2206

    Marinacci , F., Vogelsberger , M., Pakmor , R., et al. 2018, , 480, 5113, 10.1093/mnras/sty2206

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    2009, , 707, 250, 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/250

    Martig , M., Bournaud , F., Teyssier , R., & Dekel , A. 2009, , 707, 250, 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/250

    2009 doi

  23. [31]

    B., et al

    Matharu , J., Muzzin , A., Brammer , G. B., et al. 2021, , 923, 222, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac26c3

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    McDonough , B., Curtis , O., & Brainerd , T. G. 2023, , 958, 19, 10.3847/1538-4357/acfe0b

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    Naab , T., & Ostriker , J. P. 2017, , 55, 59, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040019

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

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

    Naiman , J. P., Pillepich , A., Springel , V., et al. 2018, , 477, 1206, 10.1093/mnras/sty618

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    2015, Astronomy and Computing, 13, 12, 10.1016/j.ascom.2015.09.003

    Nelson , D., Pillepich , A., Genel , S., et al. 2015, Astronomy and Computing, 13, 12, 10.1016/j.ascom.2015.09.003

    2015 doi

  28. [36]

    2018, , 475, 624, 10.1093/mnras/stx3040

    Nelson , D., Pillepich , A., Springel , V., et al. 2018, , 475, 624, 10.1093/mnras/stx3040

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    2019, Comput

    Nelson, D., Springel, V., Pillepich, A., et al. 2019, Comput. Astrophys., 6, 2

    2019

  30. [38]

    J., Tacchella, S., Diemer, B., et al

    Nelson, E. J., Tacchella, S., Diemer, B., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 219, 10.1093/mnras/stab2131

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    A., Bundy , K., Westfall , K

    Oyarz \'u n , G. A., Bundy , K., Westfall , K. B., et al. 2023, , 947, 13, 10.3847/1538-4357/acbbca

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    L., et al

    Pan , H.-A., Lin , L., Ellison , S. L., et al. 2024, , 964, 120, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad28c1

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    J., Renzini , A., & Carollo , M

    Peng , Y.-j., Lilly , S. J., Renzini , A., & Carollo , M. 2012, , 757, 4, 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/4

    2012 doi

  34. [42]

    J., Kova c , K., et al

    Peng , Y.-j., Lilly , S. J., Kova c , K., et al. 2010, , 721, 193, 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/193

    2010 doi

  35. [43]

    2018, , 475, 648, 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    Pillepich , A., Nelson , D., Hernquist , L., et al. 2018, , 475, 648, 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    2016, A&A, 594, A13

    Planck Collaboration . 2016, A&A, 594, A13

    2016

  37. [45]

    E., & Volonteri , M

    Reines , A. E., & Volonteri , M. 2015, , 813, 82, 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/82

    2015 doi

  38. [46]

    F., Lotz , J

    Rodriguez-Gomez , V., Snyder , G. F., Lotz , J. M., et al. 2019, , 483, 4140, 10.1093/mnras/sty3345

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    P., Opitsch , M., Erwin , P., et al

    Saglia , R. P., Opitsch , M., Erwin , P., et al. 2016, , 818, 47, 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/47

    2016 doi

  40. [48]

    S \'a nchez , S. F. 2020, , 58, 99, 10.1146/annurev-astro-012120-013326

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    F., Walcher , C

    S \'a nchez , S. F., Walcher , C. J., Lopez-Cob \'a , C., et al. 2021, , 57, 3, 10.22201/ia.01851101p.2021.57.01.01

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    F., Rosales-Ortega , F

    S \'a nchez , S. F., Rosales-Ortega , F. F., Jungwiert , B., et al. 2013, , 554, A58, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220669

    2013 doi

  43. [51]

    C., et al

    Sarzi , M., Rix , H.-W., Shields , J. C., et al. 2005, , 628, 169, 10.1086/428637

    2005 doi

  44. [52]

    S \'e rsic , J. L. 1963, Boletin de la Asociacion Argentina de Astronomia La Plata Argentina, 6, 41

    1963

  45. [53]

    Silk , J., & Mamon , G. A. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 917, 10.1088/1674-4527/12/8/004

    2012 doi

  46. [54]

    C., Peeples , M

    Simons , R. C., Peeples , M. S., Tumlinson , J., et al. 2020, , 905, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc5b8

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    F., Torrey, P., Lotz, J

    Snyder, G. F., Torrey, P., Lotz, J. M., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 454, 1886, 10.1093/mnras/stv2078

    2015 doi

  48. [56]

    2016, , 462, 2418, 10.1093/mnras/stw1793

    Sparre , M., & Springel , V. 2016, , 462, 2418, 10.1093/mnras/stw1793

    2016 doi

  49. [57]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 580, 10.1093/mnras/sty247

    Spindler, A., Wake, D., Belfiore, F., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 580, 10.1093/mnras/sty247

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    2018, , 475, 676, 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    Springel , V., Pakmor , R., Pillepich , A., et al. 2018, , 475, 676, 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    2018 doi

  51. [59]

    2020, , 494, 1114, 10.1093/mnras/staa775

    Steyrleithner , P., Hensler , G., & Boselli , A. 2020, , 494, 1114, 10.1093/mnras/staa775

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    Tonnesen , S., & Bryan , G. L. 2008, , 684, L9, 10.1086/592066

    2008 doi

  53. [61]

    L., & van Gorkom , J

    Tonnesen , S., Bryan , G. L., & van Gorkom , J. H. 2007, , 671, 1434, 10.1086/523034

    2007 doi

  54. [62]

    D., Vogel , S

    Villanueva , V., Bolatto , A. D., Vogel , S. N., et al. 2024, , 962, 88, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1387

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    2014, , 509, 177, 10.1038/nature13316

    Vogelsberger , M., Genel , S., Springel , V., et al. 2014, , 509, 177, 10.1038/nature13316

    2014 doi

  56. [64]

    H., & Tinker , J

    Wechsler , R. H., & Tinker , J. L. 2018, , 56, 435, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051756

    2018 doi

  57. [65]

    2017, , 465, 3291, 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    Weinberger , R., Springel , V., Hernquist , L., et al. 2017, , 465, 3291, 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    2017 doi

  58. [66]

    2018, , 479, 4056, 10.1093/mnras/sty1733

    Weinberger , R., Springel , V., Pakmor , R., et al. 2018, , 479, 4056, 10.1093/mnras/sty1733

    2018 doi

  59. [67]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 4533, 10.1093/mnras/stab965

    Wilkinson, A., Almaini, O., Wild, V., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 4533, 10.1093/mnras/stab965

    2021 doi

  60. [68]

    M., & Koo , D

    Woo , J., Dekel , A., Faber , S. M., & Koo , D. C. 2015, , 448, 237, 10.1093/mnras/stu2755

    2015 doi

  61. [69]

    M., Nelson , E

    Wuyts , S., F \"o rster Schreiber , N. M., Nelson , E. J., et al. 2013, , 779, 135, 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/135

    2013 doi

  62. [70]

    2017, , 465, 4572, 10.1093/mnras/stw3030

    Zheng , Z., Wang , H., Ge , J., et al. 2017, , 465, 4572, 10.1093/mnras/stw3030

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.