The formation and evolution of Supermassive disks in IllustrisTNG

Antonela Monachesi; Brian Tapia-Contreras; Cristobal Sif\'on; Diego Pallero; Facundo A. G\'omez; Gaspar Galaz; Patricia B. Tissera

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The formation and evolution of Supermassive disks in IllustrisTNG

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Supermassive disk galaxies are long-lived: roughly 60% of those present at z=0.5 still have disks at z=0, and the number of mergers, not stellar mass or environment, sets morphology.

desk verdict Useful TNG-based counterpoint to the Horizon-AGN rejuvenation scenario, but the merger mass-ratio definition needs tightening before the headline 48% figure can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00141 v1 pith:VNPWIAPK submitted 2025-06-30 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Diego Pallero , Gaspar Galaz , Patricia B. Tissera , Facundo A. Gómez , Antonela Monachesi , Cristobal Sifón , Brian Tapia-Contreras This is my paper

classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO

keywords supermassivediskgalaxiesgalaxymorphologymergersevolutionkinematicclassificationIllustrisTNGstarformationAGNfeedback

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 asks whether the most massive disk galaxies in the universe — supermassive disks with stellar masses above $10^{11}\,M_\odot$ — are short-lived accidents or durable structures, and what builds them. Using the IllustrisTNG-100 cosmological magnetohydrodynamic simulation, it classifies such galaxies as disks when the kinematic shape parameter $\lambda_R/\sqrt{\varepsilon}$ exceeds 0.31 or 0.71. It reports that these galaxies typically have quiet merger histories, with 48% of the stricter-threshold sample experiencing no significant merger since $z=1$, and that their stellar mass grows mainly by star formation rather than accretion. Following supermassive disks selected at $z=0.5$ forward, it finds roughly 60% still qualify as disks at $z=0$. The paper's conclusion is that the number of mergers defines a galaxy's morphology and kinematical support at any stellar mass, so supermassive disks are long-lived objects rather than transitional phases.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing instrument is the morpho-kinematic classifier: the spin parameter $\lambda_R$, measured within three stellar half-mass radii, divided by the square root of the galaxy's ellipticity $\varepsilon$, with thresholds 0.31 and 0.71 taken from earlier fast/slow rotator work. This decides which massive galaxies count as disks. The second piece is the merger-impact parameter $\sum f_i/(1+z_i)^2$ (following Fragkoudi et al. 2020), where $f_i$ is the stellar mass ratio of each merger since $z=1$; it quantifies how much merging contributed to building a galaxy. A control sample of massive spheroids matched in stellar mass isolates the effect of morphology from the effect of mass.

What would settle it

Recompute the central fractions with an independent merger definition — for instance, defining merger time as the moment the stellar components fully coalesce, or using a higher-resolution run such as TNG50 — and check whether the 48% of strict-threshold disks with no significant merger since $z=1$ survives. If the fraction drops well below half under a different but valid tree, the claim that supermassive disks form with quiescent, gas-rich histories would be an artifact of the subhalo tracking.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that supermassive disks are not a transient stage on the way to becoming spheroids. Of the 694 galaxies in TNG-100 with $\log_{10} M_\star/M_\odot \ge 11$, 220 satisfy the loose disk threshold ($\lambda_R/\sqrt{\varepsilon}\ge 0.31$) and 50 the strict one ($\ge 0.71$). The strict disks are remarkably quiet: 48% have had no significant merger ($f_i\ge 1:10$) since $z=1$, and the mergers that do occur are almost always gas-rich, whether minor or major. When supermassive disks are selected at $z=0.5$ and followed to $z=0$, between 58% and 63% survive as disks, depending on threshold; most of the rest transform into spheroids without merging, and only 7–14% merge into a more massive galaxy. The paper concludes that the number of mergers determines morphology and kinematical support at any stellar mass, and that AGN feedback, while regulating star formation, does not directly reshape disks into spheroids.

Load-bearing premise

The merger histories come from the simulation's bookkeeping of which galaxies are bound together; a merger is recorded only at the last moment when two galaxies can still be recognized as independent objects, and if that recognition fails for large satellites or in dense clusters, the quiet histories it finds would be artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The observed scarcity of supermassive disks (fewer than 200 known) may be partly a selection effect: the simulated population spans the full range of star formation rates, and flux-limited surveys miss the quiescent and low-surface-brightness members.
Because roughly 60% of supermassive disks selected at $z=0.5$ survive to $z=0$, upcoming wide surveys such as LSST and Euclid should find that these objects are not transitional phases but a persistent population.
The finding that one gas-rich merger can spin a spheroid into a disk means galaxy morphology at the high-mass end is regulated by merger count and gas content, not by stellar mass alone.
Supermassive disks can be found from isolation to clusters, so surveys targeting only low-density environments would miss roughly a quarter of the population that resides in massive groups and clusters.

Reading between the lines

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

A stricter definition of gas-rich than the paper's $f_{\rm gas}>0.1$ would likely reduce the fraction of disk mergers counted as wet, so the claim that disks accrete almost only gas-rich satellites is partly a definitional result.
The paper's disk fraction drops smoothly with stellar mass (Figure 2), so 'supermassive disk' is a selected tail of a continuum, not a distinct class; the formation mechanisms it isolates may apply to less extreme disks too.
A direct test of the merger-count rule would be to artificially suppress mergers in a simulation while holding feedback fixed; if disks then survive even in massive haloes, the merger-count claim would be confirmed as causal rather than correlational.
Because the statistics at the strict threshold rest on 50 galaxies, the reported 48% quiescent fraction carries a wide binomial uncertainty; a larger-volume run such as TNG300 could tighten it.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a useful, mostly sound simulation study that gives a different answer from Jackson et al. (2020) on how supermassive disks form. In TNG100, quiescent gas-rich assembly dominates rather than rejuvenation after a major merger, and ~60% of disks selected at z=0.5 still look like disks at z=0. Those are real results worth knowing. The paper is honest about its limitations (small volume, limited cluster sample) and uses publicly available TNG data, which makes the analysis reproducible in principle.

The main soft spot is the merger mass-ratio definition. Section 3.3 first says the parameter uses the stellar mass ratio at the time of the merger, then defines fi as the ratio of the maximum stellar masses. Those are not the same thing for a satellite that gets tidally stripped before it disappears from subfind, which is exactly the situation for massive satellites in groups and clusters. The headline 48% quiescent fraction (strict threshold, no mergers with fi>0.1 since z=1) can shift depending on which reading you adopt. The authors do not test this sensitivity, and the stress-test note is right that this is load-bearing: the same merger histories support both the longevity claim and the morphological dichotomy. This needs to be fixed before publication.

There are also smaller issues. The strict-threshold sample is 50 disks at z=0 and 26 at z=0.5, so survival fractions have sizable Poisson errors; several cumulative distributions in Figures 6 and 7 lack error bars. Section 4.1 has an internal inconsistency: it reports 24 (14%) and 2 (7%) of z=0.5 disks merge with a more massive galaxy, then says 'between 20%-35% of supermassive disks... merged with a less massive galaxy' in the text right below. Those numbers don't match. The abstract's 48% no-merger figure is actually the strict-threshold (lambda/epsilon>0.71) value; for the looser threshold it's lower, so the abstract over-generalizes. None of these are fatal. The central argument, that in TNG the dominant pathway is quiescent and gas-rich rather than merger-driven rejuvenation, holds up in broad strokes, even with the ambiguity, because the control-sample comparison is stark and the merger parameter is an order of magnitude lower for disks.

Bottom line: this deserves a serious referee. The comparison to Jackson et al. is legitimate, the survival fractions are new, and the environment split (~60% in low-mass groups) is a useful prediction for LSST/Euclid. I'd send it to review, with the clear expectation that the authors resolve the merger definition and the Section 4.1 inconsistency. It's a solid contribution once those are addressed.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses IllustrisTNG-100 to identify supermassive disk galaxies (M* > 10^11 Msun, λ/√ε ≥ 0.31 or 0.71) and compares them with mass-matched spheroidal control samples. It analyzes their colors, merger histories since z=1, AGN feedback histories, host environments, and the evolution of disks selected at z=0.5 down to z=0. The central claims are that supermassive disks have quiescent and gas-rich merger histories, that 48% of the strict-threshold disks experience no significant merger since z=1, that about 60% of disks selected at z=0.5 survive to z=0, and that 'the number of mergers defines galaxies' morphology and/or kinematical support at any stellar mass.'

Significance. If the merger-quiescence and longevity results are robust, the paper provides a useful simulation-based counterpart to observational studies of superluminous spirals and massive low-surface-brightness disks. The analysis is reproducible from public TNG data, and the use of two kinematic thresholds, a mass-matched control sample, and visual verification of disk morphologies are genuine strengths. However, the headline statistics rest on small samples (N=50 and N=26 for the strict threshold) and, more importantly, on an ambiguous definition of the merger mass ratio in Section 3.3, so the evidence is currently suggestive rather than definitive. With the ambiguity resolved, sensitivity tests added, and uncertainties reported, the paper would be a solid contribution.

major comments (5)

[Sec. 3.3, Eq. (8)] The definition of f_i is internally inconsistent. The text first says the parameter uses 'the stellar mass ratio of galaxies at the time of the merger,' but the equation and following sentence define f_i as 'the ratio between the maximum stellar mass reached by the two merging galaxies.' These two definitions differ when a satellite is tidally stripped before subfind ceases to recognize it, which is precisely the regime relevant to the significance threshold f_i > 0.1. Because the headline 48% quiescent fraction and the gas-rich merger fractions are computed from this threshold, the authors must state which definition is actually used and test the sensitivity of the 48% statistic to the alternative reading. The same ambiguity affects the gas-rich ratio f_gas in the same section, described both as a maximum and as evaluated 'at their merging time.' This is not a cosmetic point; it changes which mergers are counted as significant.
[Abstract; Sec. 4.4] The abstract reports that '48% experiencing no significant mergers at z≤1' without specifying that this number is specific to the stricter λ/√ε=0.71 selection. Section 4.4 derives it from 24 of 50 galaxies in that subsample, while the λ/√ε=0.31 sample yields a lower quiescent fraction (Section 3.3 only quotes 'more than 30%'). The reader cannot tell from the abstract whether 48% is a population statement or a threshold-specific one. Please qualify the statement and give a binomial uncertainty; for N=50 the 1σ error on a 48% fraction is about 7 percentage points.
[Sec. 4.1, Fig. 9] The strict-threshold sample selected at z=0.5 contains only 26 galaxies, and the claim of '~60% survival regardless of threshold' rests on 15/26 (58%) versus 102/164 (63%). The 58% value carries a binomial uncertainty of roughly 10 percentage points, so the two thresholds are statistically indistinguishable and the 'regardless of threshold' claim needs supporting uncertainty estimates. The fractions of disks classified as surviving spheroids and merged spheroids for the N=26 sample are similarly uncertain; raw counts should be accompanied by confidence intervals.
[Sec. 5] The concluding statement that 'the number of mergers defines galaxies' morphology and/or kinematical support at any stellar mass' is stronger than the evidence presented. The study establishes an association between merger counts and morphology for M*>10^11 galaxies in TNG100, but it does not demonstrate a causal direction, does not control for gas content and environment jointly, and does not cover other stellar masses. I recommend rephrasing to 'is strongly associated with' and restricting the claim to the mass range and simulation studied.
[Figs. 6 and 7] The cumulative distributions in Figures 6 and 7 are central to the disk-spheroid dichotomy, but they are plotted without error bars or statistical tests. With 50 disks and 250 control spheroids in the strict-threshold case, the apparent separation between the populations should be quantified with, for example, a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test or bootstrap confidence bands before the text states that disks have a 'significantly more quiescent' merger history. This is particularly important because the paper quotes specific percentages directly from these distributions.

minor comments (5)

[Throughout] The notation is inconsistent: several places write λ/ε instead of λ/√ε (e.g., Sections 4.1 and 4.3, and Figure 13 axes). Please standardize.
[Fig. 1] The caption is incomplete: 'The dashed line shows the limit log' should specify that the limit is log10 M*/M⊙ = 11.
[Section 3.3] The quoted quiescent fractions differ across the text: 'more than 30%' in Figure 6, '46%' in Section 3.3, and '48%' in Section 4.4. Please reconcile these numbers and state exactly which merger criterion and redshift range each refers to.
[Section 2.1] There is a typo in 'V oronoi tessellation'; it should read 'Voronoi tessellation.'
[Title page] The received date 'September 15, 1996' is clearly incorrect and should be updated to the actual submission date.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central derivation is self-contained and benchmarks against external data.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—that supermassive disks have quiescent merger histories, that ~48% experience no significant merger since z=1, and that ~60% of disks selected at z=0.5 survive to z=0—are derived from quantities measured independently of the disk definition. The kinematic thresholds (lambda/sqrt(eps)=0.31 and 0.71) are adopted from Emsellem et al. (2011), an external reference, not fitted to the conclusions, and the stellar-mass cut at log10 M*>11 is presented as a description of an observed drop in disk fraction (Figure 2) rather than as a fitted parameter. Merger histories come from IllustrisTNG subhalo merger trees (Section 3.3) and are combined with the disk classification only afterward, so the reported merger statistics are not forced by construction. The longevity analysis at z=0.5 restates the same kinematic threshold at two epochs, but this is a measurement of survival under a fixed definition, not a circular derivation. The paper also benchmarks against external observational samples (Ogle et al. 2019; O'Neil et al. 2004) and against an independent simulation study (Jackson et al. 2020). The only overlapping-author citation identified is Rosas-Guevara et al. (2019), which includes author P. B. Tissera, but it supports a peripheral statement about AGN thermal feedback affecting star formation rather than a load-bearing step in the morphology or merger argument. The noted inconsistency in the definition of f_i ('at the time of the merger' vs. 'maximum stellar mass reached') is a potential correctness or robustness issue, not a circularity, because both readings trace to simulation data independent of the classification. Overall, the derivation chain does not reduce any prediction to its own inputs.

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

The analysis rests on the TNG simulation's subgrid physics and on the reliability of the morpho-kinematic and merger tree methods. Thresholds are adopted from the literature or chosen by hand; none is fitted to the conclusions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

Kinematic threshold lambda/sqrt(eps) = 0.31 and 0.71
Chosen from Emsellem et al. (2011) thresholds for fast and slow rotators; not fitted to the data but affects sample size (220 vs 50 disks) and some fractions.
Stellar mass threshold = log10 M*/Msun > 11
Selected because the disk fraction drops noticeably at this mass (Figure 2); the choice defines the sample and is partly data-motivated.
Gas-rich merger ratio threshold = fgas > 0.1
Chosen to define 'gas-rich' mergers; no sensitivity analysis is provided for this value.
Significant merger ratio threshold = mass ratio > 1:10
Standard threshold from the literature to define significant mergers; influences the quiescent history statistics.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption IllustrisTNG-100's subgrid models (star formation, feedback, AGN) produce realistic massive galaxy populations.
The entire analysis is a simulation-based characterization; if subgrid physics is wrong, the formation channels and survival rates may not apply to the real universe. The paper compares with observed SFR-mass relations but cannot validate the morphology-AGN connection observationally.
domain assumption The morpho-kinematic parameter lambda_R measured within three stellar half-mass radii (Lagos et al. 2017) correctly classifies simulated massive galaxies.
Used to split disks and spheroids; the paper adds visual inspection as a check, but the quantitative fractions depend on this measurement and on the adopted aperture.
domain assumption The merger tree definitions and subfind-based merger times are reliable.
The central claim of quiescent merger histories relies on the last-snapshot definition of mergers and on gas mass ratios at that time; errors here would change the fractions directly.
standard math Standard definitions of galactic kinematics (specific angular momentum, velocity dispersion, ellipticity) as in Lagos et al. (2017).
Equations (1)-(7) are standard formulas and are not new contributions of the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The formation and evolution of Supermassive disks in IllustrisTNG." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VNPWIAPK

@misc{pith2026250700141,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The formation and evolution of Supermassive disks in IllustrisTNG},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VNPWIAPK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00141}
}

abstract

Supermassive disks are outstanding galaxies whose formation and evolution are still poorly understood. They comprise a large variety of objects, ranging from large, low-surface-brightness galaxies, such as Malin 1, to the most spectacular superluminous spirals. However, we still do not know the physical mechanisms behind its formation, and whether they will be long-lived objects or whether their mass could destroy them in time. We aim to investigate the formation and evolution of these galaxies using the magnetohydrodynamical state-of-the-art simulation IllustrisTNG-100. We defined supermassive disks as galaxies with $\lambda / \sqrt{\varepsilon} \geq 0.31$ or 0.71, and with stellar mass log$_{10}M_\star/M_\odot > 10^{11}$. We studied the color, merging history, AGN history, and environment in which these galaxies reside. Supermassive disk galaxies typically experience a quiescent merging history, with $48\%$ experiencing no significant mergers at $z \leq 1$. Their stellar mass growth is driven mainly by star formation, unlike spheroidal galaxies, which require a significant number of mergers to form. Moreover, the mergers experienced by disk galaxies are generally rich in gas content, irrespective of whether they are minor or major events. Supermassive disks exist across various environments, from isolation to clusters, with $\sim 60\%$ inhabiting in isolation or low-mass groups, $\sim 25\%$ residing in massive groups, and $\sim15\%$ residing within galaxy clusters. When studying the evolution of supermassive disks selected at $z=0.5$, we show that when they gain sufficient mass, the probability of them maintaining their disk-like structure up to $z=0$ is relatively high ($\sim 60\%$). Lastly, while AGN significantly influences the regulation of star formation in galaxies, it does not directly alter their morphological structure.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00141 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Left: Stellar-mass distribution for all galaxies in TNG100. The dashed line shows the limit log for which we consider galaxies as “massive”. The orange bars comprise the core of our study sample. Right: Satellite (yellow)—central (purple) separation for galaxies with log10M⋆/M⊙ > 1011 . Massive galaxies are predominantly central, even though a non-negligible fraction are satellites. spheroidal galaxies are expected … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Disk fraction for the IllustrisTNG simulation, measured with three different threshold criteria, λ/ √ ε = 0.31; 0.71; 0.8 in red, green and blue, respectively. As we move towards larger stellar mass, the fraction of disks decreases smoothly, with a significant decrease at log10M⋆ ≥ 11[M⊙], reaching values ∼ 0 for log10M⋆ ≥ 12[M⊙] regardless of the selected criterion. The results for λ/ √ ε = 0.71 and 0.81 show litt… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Blended stellar and gas density of three massive disks in face-on (top row) and edge-on (bottom-row) views, selected using a λ/ √ ε > 0.71 threshold. All galaxies have a stellar mass log10M⋆ ≳ 11.3[M⊙]. for all galaxies in the simulation. We used three different threshold criteria (λ/ √ ε = 0.31; 0.71; 0.81 represented in red, green, and blue bars, respectively) to select disks. These thresholds correspond to the … view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (9 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Fraction of satellites in our sample of supermassive galaxies. Disks and spheroids are shown in squares (blue) and filled circles (red). The black dashed line shows the mean fraction of satellites within the massive regime. Errors correspond to one sigma binomial error…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Left: Colour (U-r) stellar mass diagram for all galaxies in the simulation. Blue and red dots show disk and spheroidal galaxies, with stars highlighting galaxies with log10M⋆ ≥ 11. On this panel, we choose a threshold λ/ √ ϵ ≥ 0.31 to split between disks and spheroids.…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Relative merger importance for the growth in stellar mass of massive galaxies. Continuous (dash-dot) and dashed (dotted) blue (red) lines correspond to disks (spheroids; control sample) selected with λ/ √ ε > 0.31 and 0.71, respectively. Disks exhibit a quiescent mergi…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Number of mergers experienced by supermassive galaxies. Continuous and dashed (blue) lines show the number of all and only gas-rich mergers experienced by disks. In contrast, dash-dot and dotted (red) lines correspond to all and only gas-rich mergers experienced by our…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: shows the AGN’s mean energy injected into the galaxy in quasar (thermal, left panels) and radio (kinetic, right panels) modes for our disks (starred blue bars) and our CS (red hashed bars). The energy feedback distribution for each of our selected thresholds is shown f…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Fate of supermassive disks (log10M⋆ 1011[M⊙]) selected at z = 0.5. The fraction of surviving disks (SD), the fraction of disks that merge with a more massive galaxy (MS), and the fraction of disks that transform to spheroidal throughout their history (SS) are shown her…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Star formation rate (SFR) as a function of stellar mass (left) and absolute magnitude (right) for our simulated supermassive disk galaxies compared with observational samples. In the left panel, our galaxies are compared with the supermassive galaxy sample from Ogle e…

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Fraction of satellites in our sample of supermassive disks, compared to the whole sample of massive spheroids. We can see that the fraction of supermassive disks as satellites is similar to their spheroidal counterpart. 4.3. Environmental distribution Previous studie…

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Examples of galaxies experiencing different formation pathways: A quiescent merging history (cyan), a disk that experienced mergers (red), a spheroidal galaxy with high rotational support (purple), and a spheroidal galaxy that rapidly transformed into disks after a …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Characterizing the Formation and Evolution of S0-galaxies (CaFES-0): Their formation pathways around Galaxy Clusters
astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

Hydrangea simulations show over 85% of S0 galaxies are cluster satellites formed primarily by environmental stripping of spirals rather than mergers.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

N., Adelman-McCarthy, J

Abazajian, K. N., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Agüeros, M. A., et al. 2009, ApJS, 182, 543

2009
[2]

2011, ApJS, 193, 29

Aihara, H., Allende Prieto, C., An, D., et al. 2011, ApJS, 193, 29

2011
[3]

Barnes, J. E. 1992, ApJ, 393, 484

work page 1992
[4]

K., Annis, J., et al

Bernardi, M., Sheth, R. K., Annis, J., et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 1817

work page 2003
[5]

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

2009
[6]

J., & Combes, F

Bournaud, F., Jog, C. J., & Combes, F. 2007, A&A, 476, 1179

work page 2007
[7]

2011, PASA, 28, 128

Cameron, E. 2011, PASA, 28, 128

2011
[8]

2016, ARA&A, 54, 597

Cappellari, M. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 597

2016

Show all 61 references

[9]

A., Warnick, K., & Knebe, A

Cattaneo, A., Mamon, G. A., Warnick, K., & Knebe, A. 2011, A&A, 533, A5

2011
[10]

2003, PASP, 115, 763

Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763

2003
[11]

Choi, Y .-Y ., Han, D.-H., & Kim, S.-S. S. 2010, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 43, 191

2010
[12]

E., & White, M

Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 486

2009
[13]

J., Bluck, A

Conselice, C. J., Bluck, A. F. L., Mortlock, A., Palamara, D., & Benson, A. J. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 1125 de Lapparent, V ., Baillard, A., & Bertin, E. 2011, A&A, 532, A75

2014
[14]

2009, MNRAS, 399, 497

Dolag, K., Borgani, S., Murante, G., & Springel, V . 2009, MNRAS, 399, 497

2009
[15]

2013, MNRAS, 433, 3297

Dubois, Y ., Gavazzi, R., Peirani, S., & Silk, J. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 3297

2013
[16]

2011, MNRAS, 414, 888

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

2011
[17]

2007, MNRAS, 379, 401

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

2007
[18]

M., Willmer, C

Faber, S. M., Willmer, C. N. A., Wolf, C., et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 265

2007
[19]

Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455

2012
[20]

Fragkoudi, F., Grand, R. J. J., Pakmor, R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 5936

2020
[21]

2018, MNRAS, 474, 3976

Genel, S., Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 3976

2018
[22]

2014, MNRAS, 445, 175 Gómez, P

Genel, S., V ogelsberger, M., Springel, V ., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 175 Gómez, P. L., Nichol, R. C., Miller, C. J., et al. 2003, ApJ, 584, 210

2014
[23]

Hubble, E. P. 1926, ApJ, 64, 321 Article number, page 12 of 13 Diego Pallero et al.: The formation and evolution of Supermassive disks in IllustrisTNG Ivezi´c, Ž., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111

1926
[24]

A., Kaviraj, S., Martin, G., et al

Jackson, R. A., Kaviraj, S., Martin, G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 607

2022
[25]

A., Martin, G., Kaviraj, S., et al

Jackson, R. A., Martin, G., Kaviraj, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 5568

2020
[26]

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

2004
[27]

2017, MNRAS, 467, 4739

Kaviraj, S., Laigle, C., Kimm, T., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 4739

2017
[28]

M., de Carvalho, R

Kolesnikov, I., Sampaio, V . M., de Carvalho, R. R., & Conselice, C. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.03778

2024 arXiv
[29]

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

2017
[30]

2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1110.3193

Laureijs, R., Amiaux, J., Arduini, S., et al. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1110.3193

2011 arXiv
[31]

2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113

Marinacci, F., V ogelsberger, M., Pakmor, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113

2018
[32]

C., Wyder, T

Martin, D. C., Wyder, T. K., Schiminovich, D., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 342

2007
[33]

Martin, G., Kaviraj, S., Devriendt, J. E. G., Dubois, Y ., & Pichon, C. 2018, MN- RAS, 480, 2266

2018
[34]

H., Guo, Y ., Hertzberg, J., et al

McIntosh, D. H., Guo, Y ., Hertzberg, J., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 1537

2008
[35]

P., Monachesi, A., Torres-Flores, S., et al

Montaguth, G. P., Monachesi, A., Torres-Flores, S., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A240

2025
[36]

P., Torres-Flores, S., Monachesi, A., et al

Montaguth, G. P., Torres-Flores, S., Monachesi, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 5340

2023
[37]

Morgan, W. W. & Mayall, N. U. 1957, PASP, 69, 291

1957
[38]

2014, MNRAS, 444, 3357

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

2014
[39]

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

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

2018
[40]

2015, Astronomy and Computing, 13, 12

Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Genel, S., et al. 2015, Astronomy and Computing, 13, 12

2015
[41]

2018, MNRAS, 475, 624

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

2018
[42]

M., Lanz, L., Appleton, P

Ogle, P. M., Lanz, L., Appleton, P. N., Helou, G., & Mazzarella, J. 2019, ApJS, 243, 14 O’Neil, K., Bothun, G., van Driel, W., & Monnier Ragaigne, D. 2004, A&A, 428, 823

2019
[43]

2011, MNRAS, 418, 1392

Pakmor, R., Bauer, A., & Springel, V . 2011, MNRAS, 418, 1392

2011
[44]

A., Padilla, N

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

2022
[45]

2009, MNRAS, 397, 748 Pérez-Montaño, L

Perez, J., Tissera, P., & Blaizot, J. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 748 Pérez-Montaño, L. E. & Cervantes Sodi, B. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3772 Pérez-Montaño, L. E., Cervantes Sodi, B., Rodriguez-Gomez, V ., Zhu, Q., &

2009
[46]

2024, MNRAS, 533, 93 Pérez-Montaño, L

Ogiya, G. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 93 Pérez-Montaño, L. E., Rodriguez-Gomez, V ., Cervantes Sodi, B., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 5840

2024
[47]

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

2016
[48]

& de Lapparent, V

Quilley, L. & de Lapparent, V . 2022, A&A, 666, A170

2022
[49]

M., Bower, R

Rosas-Guevara, Y . M., Bower, R. G., McAlpine, S., Bonoli, S., & Tissera, P. B. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 2712

2019
[50]

K., Martin, D

Schiminovich, D., Wyder, T. K., Martin, D. C., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 315

2007
[51]

2015, ApJS, 219, 15

Shibuya, T., Ouchi, M., & Harikane, Y . 2015, ApJS, 219, 15

2015
[52]

2015, MNRAS, 452, 575

Sijacki, D., V ogelsberger, M., Genel, S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 575

2015
[53]

2010, MNRAS, 401, 791

Springel, V . 2010, MNRAS, 401, 791

2010
[54]

2018, MNRAS, 475, 676

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

2018
[55]

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

2001
[56]

& Toomre, J

Toomre, A. & Toomre, J. 1972, in BAAS, V ol. 4, Bulletin of the American As- tronomical Society, 214

1972
[57]

2018, MNRAS, 477, L16 V ogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Springel, V ., et al

Torrey, P., V ogelsberger, M., Hernquist, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, L16 V ogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Springel, V ., et al. 2014a, Nature, 509, 177 V ogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Springel, V ., et al. 2014b, MNRAS, 444, 1518 V ogelsberger, M., Marinacci, F., Torrey, P., et a...

2018
[58]

White, S. D. M. & Rees, M. J. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 341

1978
[59]

M., van der Wel, A., et al

Wuyts, S., Förster Schreiber, N. M., van der Wel, A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, 96

2011
[60]

K., Martin, D

Wyder, T. K., Martin, D. C., Schiminovich, D., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 293

2007
[61]

E., Rodriguez-Gomez, V ., et al

Zhu, Q., Pérez-Montaño, L. E., Rodriguez-Gomez, V ., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3991 Article number, page 13 of 13

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

N., Adelman-McCarthy, J

Abazajian, K. N., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Agüeros, M. A., et al. 2009, ApJS, 182, 543

2009

[2] [2]

2011, ApJS, 193, 29

Aihara, H., Allende Prieto, C., An, D., et al. 2011, ApJS, 193, 29

2011

[3] [3]

Barnes, J. E. 1992, ApJ, 393, 484

work page 1992

[4] [4]

K., Annis, J., et al

Bernardi, M., Sheth, R. K., Annis, J., et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 1817

work page 2003

[5] [5]

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

2009

[6] [6]

J., & Combes, F

Bournaud, F., Jog, C. J., & Combes, F. 2007, A&A, 476, 1179

work page 2007

[7] [7]

2011, PASA, 28, 128

Cameron, E. 2011, PASA, 28, 128

2011

[8] [8]

2016, ARA&A, 54, 597

Cappellari, M. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 597

2016