Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Effects of galactic environment on size and dark matter content in low-mass galaxies

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a cosmological simulation, low-mass galaxies in stronger tidal environments end up systematically larger and with less dark matter, making environment a driver on par with halo mass.

desk verdict Useful simulation trends, but the direct/indirect environmental claim is not established because PI is entangled with the target's own halo mass. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04084 v2 pith:WCCZKZJF submitted 2025-01-07 astro-ph.GA

Francisco J. Mercado , Jorge Moreno , Robert Feldmann , Marckie Zeender , Jose A. Benavides , Joanna M. Piotrowska , Courtney Klein , Coral Wheeler
show 3 more authors
Lina Necib James S. Bullock Philip F. Hopkins
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords dwarfgalaxiesscalingrelationsgalaxyenvironmentPerturbationIndextidalinteractionsdarkmattercontentcosmologicalsimulationRandomForest
topics Dark Matter
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 argues that a galaxy's local surroundings are a central ingredient in how small galaxies end up, not a secondary correction to halo mass. At fixed stellar mass in a cosmological volume simulation, galaxies experiencing stronger tidal perturbations are systematically more extended, live in lower-mass halos, and tend to be poorer in inner dark matter. A Random Forest regression shows that environment, quantified by the Perturbation Index, and halo mass are both significant predictors of how far a galaxy sits above or below the median size and dark-matter relations. Because halo mass itself is depressed by the environment at fixed stellar mass, the authors conclude that environment acts on galaxy structure both directly and indirectly. If correct, this places environment on par with halo mass as a fundamental driver of dwarf galaxy formation and evolution.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Perturbation Index, $\mathrm{PI} = \sum_c (M_c^{\rm halo}/M_p^{\rm halo})\,(r_p^{\rm halo}/D_{cp})^3$, the ratio of the tidal force a galaxy feels from its neighbours to its own binding force. It splits the sample into strongly perturbed ($\mathrm{PI}>1$) and weakly perturbed ($\mathrm{PI}<1$) galaxies and is used as one of three Random Forest features, together with halo mass $M_{\rm halo}$ and the stellar-to-halo mass ratio $M_\star/M_{\rm halo}$. The targets are residuals, $\Delta\log r_{50}$, $\Delta\log M_{\rm DM}^{50}$, and $\Delta\log M_{\rm halo}$, defined as logarithmic offsets from the median relations of central galaxies at fixed stellar mass. The machine-learning model provides feature importance scores that the paper uses to separate the direct environmental channel from the mass channel.

What would settle it

Replace the Perturbation Index with an environment measure that does not include the target galaxy's own halo mass or radius, such as the number of neighbours within a fixed 1 Mpc aperture or the distance to the nearest halo more massive than $10^{11.5}\,M_\odot$, and rerun the residual and Random Forest analyses; if the claimed direct environmental correlations disappear or shrink drastically, the paper's direct/indirect decomposition is an artifact of the PI normalization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using roughly 1,200 galaxies (886 centrals and 332 satellites) with stellar masses $10^6$–$10^9\,M_\odot$ from FIREbox, the paper shows that the residuals around the size–mass, inner dark matter mass–stellar mass, and halo mass–stellar mass relations of central galaxies correlate with the Perturbation Index. Galaxies with $\mathrm{PI} > 1$ sit, on average, above the median $r_{50}$–$M_\star$ relation (more extended) and below the median $M_{\rm halo}$–$M_\star$ relation (lower halo mass) compared with galaxies with $\mathrm{PI} < 1$; the inner dark matter mass relation is similar for the two populations except at the lowest stellar masses, where environment and feedback become more important. Random Forest models trained on $\log M_{\rm halo}$, $\log(M_\star/M_{\rm halo})$, and $\log(\mathrm{PI})$ achieve mean test $R^2 \approx 0.32$ for relative size and $R^2 \approx 0.41$ for relative inner dark matter content. In the model, all three features matter comparably for relative size, while halo mass is the dominant predictor of inner dark matter content. Since $M_{\rm halo}$ at fixed stellar mass is itself lowered by the environment, the paper's central claim is that environmental conditions shape galactic sizes and inner dark matter content directly and indirectly through halo mass.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Perturbation Index measures the surrounding environment independently of the target galaxy's own properties, but the index is defined with the target galaxy's halo mass and radius in the denominator, so at fixed stellar mass a galaxy with a smaller halo automatically has a larger PI even if its surrounding tidal field is unchanged.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At fixed stellar mass, low-mass galaxies with $\mathrm{PI}>1$ are systematically more extended and have lower halo masses than their $\mathrm{PI}<1$ counterparts.
  • Relative size scatter is set by a combination of halo mass, stellar-to-halo mass ratio, and environment, while relative inner dark matter content is dominated by halo mass.
  • Because environment suppresses halo mass at fixed stellar mass, environmental effects reach galaxy structure both directly and through the halo-mass channel.
  • More than half of satellite galaxies in the sample are dark-matter-poor and extended, consistent with tidal stripping during infall into a host.
  • At the lowest stellar masses ($M_\star < 10^7\,M_\odot$), shallow potential wells make inner dark matter content especially sensitive to environment and feedback.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable consequence the paper does not run: if the Perturbation Index is replaced by an environment metric that does not divide by the target galaxy's own halo mass and radius, such as fixed-aperture neighbour counts or distance to the nearest massive halo, a physical direct environmental channel should survive, while a pure normalisation artifact should weaken or vanish.
  • The paper's indirect channel implies that some of the scatter in low-mass galaxy rotation curves now attributed to baryonic feedback or halo concentration could instead record tidal histories, a prediction that could be checked with zoom-in simulations tracking halo mass loss separately from star formation.
  • Upcoming wide surveys of dwarf galaxies could look for field dwarfs near massive neighbours whose sizes and inner dark matter deficits match high-PI simulated systems, turning the simulation result into an observational test.
  • The same logic suggests that the most extended ultra-diffuse galaxies may preferentially be found in moderately perturbed, low-halo-mass systems rather than only in dense clusters, a sharper prediction than the paper states.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses the FIREbox cosmological volume simulation to study roughly 1,200 low-mass galaxies (M_star between 10^6 and 10^9 M_sun), analyzing the size–mass relation, the inner dark-matter–stellar-mass relation, and the halo-mass–stellar-mass relation at fixed stellar mass. The environment is quantified by the Perturbation Index (PI) defined in Eq. (5), and the analysis compares PI > 1 and PI < 1 subpopulations, then trains a Random Forest regressor on log M_halo, log M_star/M_halo, and log PI to predict residuals from the median central-galaxy scaling relations. The paper reports that galaxies with higher PI are larger and less massive in their halos at fixed stellar mass, that all three features contribute to predicting size residuals while M_halo dominates inner dark-matter residuals, and concludes that environment influences galaxy size and inner dark-matter content both directly and indirectly through its effect on halo mass.

Significance. If the claimed direct/indirect decomposition were established, the paper would provide a notable result: environment, not only halo mass, would be a fundamental driver of low-mass galaxy structure, with implications for dwarf galaxy diversity and future survey analyses. The manuscript has real strengths: it draws on a high-resolution cosmological volume simulation, uses a sizable low-mass sample, and the Random Forest importance scores are reported as stable across 500 train/test splits. However, the central decomposition is not established, because the PI as defined in Eq. (5) includes the target galaxy's own halo mass and radius, so the paper's environmental variable is partly a re-expression of the very quantity it claims to act alongside. This is a load-bearing issue for the abstract's main claim, and it requires a substantive revision rather than a local fix.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (5), Sec. 2.4] The Perturbation Index is not an independent environmental metric: PI = sum_c (M_c/M_p)(r_p/D)^3 contains the target galaxy's own halo mass M_p and halo radius r_p in the denominator. For satellites, M_p and r_p are the tidally truncated values defined in Sec. 2.2, so tidal stripping lowers both and inflates PI even if the surrounding neighbor distribution is unchanged. At fixed stellar mass, the paper itself shows (Fig. 7) that lower M_halo correlates with larger Delta log r50 and smaller Delta log M50_DM. Therefore the positive Delta log r50 versus PI trend in Fig. 5 and the lower M_halo sequence for PI > 1 in Fig. 4 are partly guaranteed by the construction of PI, not by a separately measured environment. The abstract's concluding statement that environment acts indirectly through its impact on halo mass is not supported, because the causal chain is entangled with a definitional link.
  2. [Sec. 3.4, Fig. 8] The control attempted in Fig. 8 does not solve the circularity. Even after binning by M_halo, the PI axis is still a function of M_halo through the M_p and r_p terms in Eq. (5). Within a halo-mass bin, galaxies at the lower-mass edge will have mechanically larger PI values, so the reported weak positive Delta log r50 versus PI correlation in the intermediate bins may simply reflect residual within-bin M_halo variation. To claim a direct environmental effect at fixed mass, the authors need an environmental measure that does not use the target's own M_halo or r_halo, or they need to demonstrate explicitly that within-bin M_halo variation cannot drive the trend.
  3. [Secs. 2.5 and 3.3, Fig. 6] The Random Forest analysis feeds both log PI and log M_halo as features even though the two are algebraically related through Eq. (5) at fixed stellar mass. With correlated features, tree-based importance scores can be split arbitrarily between the two, so Fig. 6 cannot identify a 'direct' environmental contribution separate from the halo-mass contribution. The moderate test-set R2 values (0.32 and 0.41) do not mitigate this issue, because the model can exploit the algebraic link rather than a physical environmental effect. A cleaner test would replace PI with an external tidal-field or neighbor-density metric that excludes the target-object properties, or use permutation importance with a deliberately constructed control feature.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Sec. 2.2] The text says halos are 'spherical systems with viral radii'; 'viral' should be 'virial.'
  2. [Table 1] The hyperparameter table is hard to read: the columns labeled 'max features' and 'min samples leaf' contain values 'sqrt' and '3,' but it is not stated which target each row's optimized values refer to; please state explicitly that 'sqrt' is the max_features setting and 3 is min_samples_leaf for both targets.
  3. [Abstract and Sec. 3.2] The phrase 'lower masses' in the abstract is ambiguous; the manuscript actually claims lower halo masses, while the inner dark-matter relation is reported as similar for PI > 1 and PI < 1 except at low stellar mass. Please specify which mass is meant.
  4. [Sec. 2.3] Four galaxies with M_star below 4 x 10^6 M_sun are excluded from Fig. 2 but included in the rest of the analysis; please state whether any reported median trends change if these four galaxies are excluded everywhere.
  5. [Sec. 3.4] The claim of a 'weak positive correlation' between Delta log r50 and PI in the two intermediate mass bins of Fig. 8 is not quantified; reporting a Spearman correlation coefficient and the associated uncertainty for each panel would make the visual claim testable.
  6. [Sec. 2.5.2] The text says GridSearchCV optimizes max_features and min_samples_leaf, then notes that setting max_features=None changes absolute importances but not rankings; please provide these alternative values or a figure version so the reader can assess the sensitivity quantitatively.
  7. [Sec. 4] There is a typo in the summary section: 'through it's effect' should be 'through its effect.'

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the Perturbation Index (Eq. 5) includes the target galaxy's own M_halo and r_halo, so the claimed direct/indirect environment-versus-halo-mass decomposition is partly true by construction.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.4, Eq. 5; Abstract; Section 3.3]
    "PI ≡ Σ F^c_tidal/F^p_bind ≃ Σ_{c=0}^{k(<rmax)} (M^c_halo/M^p_halo)(r^p_halo/D_cp)^3, where M^p_halo and r^p_halo are the halo mass and radius of the primary galaxy... We use halo masses and radii in our formulation, rather than the stellar mass and galactic sizes (r50)... because M_halo is also strongly affected by the environment, our findings indicate that environmental conditions not only influence galactic sizes and relative inner dark matter content directly, but also indirectly through their impact on halo mass."

    Eq. 5 puts the primary's own M_halo and r_halo into the definition of PI. The analysis then feeds log PI and log M_halo to the random forest as separate features and concludes that environment acts indirectly through M_halo. At fixed M_star and fixed neighbors, PI ∝ r_halo^3/M_halo, so PI and M_halo are algebraically linked: changing M_halo changes PI even when the surrounding galaxy distribution is identical. The PI>1 vs PI<1 splits (Figs. 4-5) and the RF importance of log PI therefore partly re-express this built-in dependence, and the M_halo binning in Fig. 8 cannot remove the M_halo inside PI. The effect is partial: for centrals, Eq. 1 gives r_vir^3/M_vir constant, so the forced component is strongest for satellites (Eq.

full rationale

The FIREbox scaling relations in Figs. 2-4 are self-contained empirical measurements, and the random-forest fits are not relabeled physical predictions; no load-bearing self-citation chain is used. The circularity is localized to the interpretive decomposition: Eq. 5 defines PI with the primary's M_halo and r_halo, while the abstract's central claim treats PI as an environmental driver that operates indirectly through M_halo. Feeding log PI and log M_halo as separate features therefore cannot cleanly separate mass from environment, and the PI splits in Figs. 4-5 partly encode the algebraic PI-r_halo^3/M_halo relation. Because centrals have r_vir^3/M_vir constant, the forced component is partial (strongest for satellites and for RF feature overlap), so the paper retains independent empirical content but its headline direct/indirect conclusion is partly true by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced; the Perturbation Index is taken from earlier literature (Dahari 1984; Verley et al. 2007). The free parameters are limited to Random Forest hyperparameters found by cross-validation. The central claim rests on domain assumptions about simulation fidelity, halo-mass comparability, and the interpretability of feature importance, all of which are plausible but not independently verified.

free parameters (1)
  • Random Forest hyperparameters (max_features, min_samples_leaf, n_estimators) = max_features='sqrt', min_samples_leaf=3, n_estimators=600
    Optimized via GridSearchCV with 5-fold cross-validation to maximize R2; the paper shows the relative feature importance ranking is insensitive to max_features, so these settings do not drive the qualitative conclusions.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The FIRE-2 feedback model in FIREbox accurately reproduces the relevant gas and stellar physics for low-mass galaxies.
    Section 2.1: the simulation is run with the FIRE-2 implementation. If feedback is mis-modeled, the scaling relations and environmental responses could be unrealistic.
  • domain assumption Halo masses defined via virial radius for centrals and truncated radius for satellites are comparable in the scaling relations and RF features.
    Section 2.2, Equations 2 and 3: the paper uses M_vir for centrals and M_tot within r_t for satellites, treating them as the same 'M_halo' variable. This operational difference may bias satellite offsets.
  • domain assumption Random Forest feature importances can be interpreted as a measure of predictive influence for these correlated features.
    Section 2.5.3: feature importance scores are used to rank drivers, but RF importance is not a causal quantity and can be biased when features are correlated, as M_halo, M_star/M_halo, and PI are here.
  • domain assumption The Perturbation Index is a valid and complete summary of relevant environmental effects.
    Section 2.4: PI is adopted from prior work; it captures tidal fields but excludes ram-pressure stripping and other environmental mechanisms that may also matter for low-mass galaxies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effects of galactic environment on size and dark matter content in low-mass galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WCCZKZJF

@misc{pith2026250104084,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effects of galactic environment on size and dark matter content in low-mass galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WCCZKZJF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04084}
}
abstract

We utilize the cosmological volume simulation, FIREbox, to investigate how a galaxy's environment influences its size and dark matter content. Our study focuses on approximately 1,200 galaxies (886 central and 332 satellite halos) in the low-mass regime, with stellar masses between $10^6$ to $10^9$ $M_{\odot}$. We analyze the size-mass relation ($r_{50} - M_{\star}$), inner dark matter mass-stellar mass ($M^{50}_{\rm DM} - M_{\star}$) relation, and the halo mass-stellar mass ($M_{\rm halo} - M_{\star}$) relation. At fixed stellar mass, we find the galaxies experiencing stronger tidal influences, indicated by higher Perturbation Indices (PI $>$ 1) are generally larger and have lower masses relative to their counterparts with lower Perturbation Indices (PI $<$ 1). Applying a Random Forest regression model, we show that both the environment (PI) and halo mass ($M_{rm halo}$) are significant predictors of a galaxy's relative size and dark matter content. Notably, because $M_{\rm halo}$ is also strongly affected by the environment, our findings indicate that environmental conditions not only influence galactic sizes and relative inner dark matter content directly, but also indirectly through their impact on halo mass. Our results highlight a critical interplay between environmental factors and halo mass in shaping galaxy properties, affirming the environment as a fundamental driver in galaxy formation and evolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04084 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Stellar surface density maps of six representative galaxies. We chose 3 different representative stellar masses (left column: M⋆ ∼ 107 M⊙, middle column: M⋆ ∼ 108 M⊙, right column: M⋆ ∼ 109 M⊙). The red circles represent the 3D stellar half mass radius, r50, for each galaxy. The galaxies displayed in the top row represent the galaxies with the largest r50 in its given mass bin, while the bottom row shows the galaxie… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The r50 - M⋆ M50 DM - M⋆ and Mhalo - M⋆ relations. The stellar half mass radius (r50; top panel), the dark matter mass within r50 (M50 DM; middle panel), and the total halo mass (Mhalo; bottom panel) versus the stellar mass, M⋆, for our FIREbox galaxy sample with M⋆ ≤ 109 M⊙. Filled-in circles represent centrals, while the satellites appear as filled-in triangles. The gray, shaded region represents one standard devi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A 2D kernel density estimate of galaxy relative extent versus relative inner dark matter content. ∆ log r50 versus ∆ log M50 DM for centrals (blue) and satellites (red) in our sample. The space is divided into four quadrants that separate our sample into four subpopulations: DM rich and extended (Quadrant I), DM poor and extended (Quadrant II), DM poor and compact (Quadrant III), and DM rich and compact (Quadrant IV… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Environmental effect on the scaling relations. The median behavior of the same three scaling relations introduced in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Environmental dependence on scaling relation residuals. The relative extent (∆ log r50; left panel), relative DM content (∆ log M50 DM; middle panel), and relative halo massiveness (∆ log Mhalo; right panel) as a function of PI. The blue, dashed lines track the median …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: RF model feature importance. The rela￾tive parameter importance in predicting relative extent (∆ log r50; blue bars) and relative inner dark matter content (∆ log M50 DM; green bars). Bar heights represent the median importance for each parameter, while the error bars …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Relative extent and inner DM content versus Mvir. ∆ log r50 (left panels) and ∆ log M50 DM (right panels) as a function of halo mass. The top and bottom panels illustrate the same relationship. However, in the top panels, we split our sample into centrals (blue, dashed…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Environmental impact on relative extent at fixed Mhalo. Relative extent (∆ log r50) as a function of galactic environment (PI) for galaxies divided into four separate halo mass bins, with halo mass increasing from the top-left to the bottom-right panel. As in previous …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Relative effects of environment and mass. Halo mass, Mhalo, as a function of stellar mass, M⋆, color-coded by the logarithm of each galaxy’s PI. We scale marker sizes to ∆ log r50 to illustrate the relative size of each galaxy compared to others with similar stellar ma…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 2 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. 2D light distributions of dwarf galaxies -- key tests of the implementation of physical processes in simulations

    astro-ph.GA 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    NewHorizon simulated dwarf galaxies are systematically more extended, lower surface brightness, and bluer than Fornax cluster dwarfs of the same stellar mass, even when measured with the same 2D photometric pipeline.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  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]

    ￋ? 5j( OP K D.P_kC - A

    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...

    2021

  4. [4]

    W., Treu , T., Gavazzi , R., et al

    Auger , M. W., Treu , T., Gavazzi , R., et al. 2010, , 721, L163, 10.1088/2041-8205/721/2/L163

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/721/2/l163 2010

  5. [5]

    A., Sales , L

    Benavides , J. A., Sales , L. V., Abadi , M. G., et al. 2023, , 522, 1033, 10.1093/mnras/stad1053

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1053 2023

  6. [6]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.15938, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.15938

    ---. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.15938, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.15938

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.15938 2024

  7. [7]

    2015, py-sphviewer: Py-SPHViewer v1.0.0, 10.5281/zenodo.21703

    Benitez-Llambay, A. 2015, py-sphviewer: Py-SPHViewer v1.0.0, 10.5281/zenodo.21703

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.21703 2015

  8. [9]

    2011 b , , 412, L6, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00982.x

    ---. 2011 b , , 412, L6, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00982.x

    arXiv 2011

Show all 99 references
  1. [10]

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

    2016 doi

  2. [11]

    2006, , 369, 1081, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10379.x

    Boylan-Kolchin , M., Ma , C.-P., & Quataert , E. 2006, , 369, 1081, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10379.x

    2006

  3. [12]

    2001, Machine Learning, 45, 5, 10.1023/A:1010933404324

    Breiman , L. 2001, Machine Learning, 45, 5, 10.1023/A:1010933404324

    2001 doi

  4. [13]

    L., & Norman , M

    Bryan , G. L., & Norman , M. L. 1998, , 495, 80, 10.1086/305262

    1998 doi

  5. [14]

    2013, , 778, L2, 10.1088/2041-8205/778/1/L2

    Cappellari , M. 2013, , 778, L2, 10.1088/2041-8205/778/1/L2

    2013 doi

  6. [15]

    G., Greene , J

    Carlsten , S. G., Greene , J. E., Greco , J. P., Beaton , R. L., & Kado-Fong , E. 2021, , 922, 267, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2581

    2021 doi

  7. [16]

    1985, , 298, 80, 10.1086/163589

    Casertano , S., & Hut , P. 1985, , 298, 80, 10.1086/163589

    1985 doi

  8. [17]

    2014, , 444, 682, 10.1093/mnras/stu1375

    Cebri \'a n , M., & Trujillo , I. 2014, , 444, 682, 10.1093/mnras/stu1375

    2014 doi

  9. [18]

    K., Kere s , D., O \ n orbe , J., et al

    Chan , T. K., Kere s , D., O \ n orbe , J., et al. 2015, , 454, 2981, 10.1093/mnras/stv2165

    2015 doi

  10. [19]

    K., Dubois , Y., et al

    Choi , H., Yi , S. K., Dubois , Y., et al. 2018, , 856, 114, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab08f

    2018 doi

  11. [20]

    R., Brooks , A

    Christensen , C. R., Brooks , A. M., Munshi , F., et al. 2024, , 961, 236, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0c5a

    2024 doi

  12. [21]

    R., Dav \'e , R., Governato , F., et al

    Christensen , C. R., Dav \'e , R., Governato , F., et al. 2016, , 824, 57, 10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/57

    2016 doi

  13. [23]

    A., Schaye , J., Bower , R

    Crain , R. A., Schaye , J., Bower , R. G., et al. 2015, , 450, 1937, 10.1093/mnras/stv725

    2015 doi

  14. [24]

    1984, , 89, 966, 10.1086/113591

    Dahari , O. 1984, , 89, 966, 10.1086/113591

    1984 doi

  15. [25]

    2014, , 441, 203, 10.1093/mnras/stu496

    Delaye , L., Huertas-Company , M., Mei , S., et al. 2014, , 441, 203, 10.1093/mnras/stu496

    2014 doi

  16. [27]

    B., Macci \`o , A

    Di Cintio , A., Brook , C. B., Macci \`o , A. V., et al. 2014, , 437, 415, 10.1093/mnras/stt1891

    2014 doi

  17. [28]

    J., & Hernquist , L

    D'Onghia , E., Besla , G., Cox , T. J., & Hernquist , L. 2009, , 460, 605, 10.1038/nature08215

    2009 doi

  18. [29]

    2010, , 725, 353, 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/353

    D'Onghia , E., Vogelsberger , M., Faucher-Giguere , C.-A., & Hernquist , L. 2010, , 725, 353, 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/353

    2010 doi

  19. [30]

    A., Conroy , C., van den Bosch , F

    Dutton , A. A., Conroy , C., van den Bosch , F. C., Prada , F., & More , S. 2010, , 407, 2, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16911.x

    2010

  20. [31]

    2016, , 820, 131, 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/131

    El-Badry , K., Wetzel , A., Geha , M., et al. 2016, , 820, 131, 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/131

    2016 doi

  21. [32]

    N., Prochaska , J

    Elek , O., Burchett , J. N., Prochaska , J. X., & Forbes , A. G. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2204.01256, 10.48550/arXiv.2204.01256

    2022 doi arXiv

  22. [33]

    F., Frenk , C

    Fattahi , A., Navarro , J. F., Frenk , C. S., et al. 2018, , 476, 3816, 10.1093/mnras/sty408

    2018 doi

  23. [34]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2205.15325

    Feldmann , R., Quataert , E., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2205.15325. 2205.15325

    2022 arXiv

  24. [35]

    2017, , 472, 3378, 10.1093/mnras/stx2171

    Frings , J., Macci \`o , A., Buck , T., et al. 2017, , 472, 3378, 10.1093/mnras/stx2171

    2017 doi

  25. [36]

    M., Powell , M

    Ghosh , A., Urry , C. M., Powell , M. C., et al. 2024, , 971, 142, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad596f

    2024 doi

  26. [39]

    Ho, T. K. 1995, in Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition, Vol. 1, 278--282 vol.1, 10.1109/ICDAR.1995.598994

    1995

  27. [40]

    Hopkins , P. F. 2015, , 450, 53, 10.1093/mnras/stv195

    2015 doi

  28. [41]

    F., Kere s , D., O \ n orbe , J., et al

    Hopkins , P. F., Kere s , D., O \ n orbe , J., et al. 2014, , 445, 581, 10.1093/mnras/stu1738

    2014 doi

  29. [42]

    F., Wetzel , A., Kere s , D., et al

    Hopkins , P. F., Wetzel , A., Kere s , D., et al. 2018, , 480, 800, 10.1093/mnras/sty1690

    2018 doi

  30. [43]

    F., Wetzel , A., Wheeler , C., et al

    Hopkins , P. F., Wetzel , A., Wheeler , C., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2203.00040. 2203.00040

    2022 arXiv

  31. [44]

    M., Ferguson , H

    Huang , K.-H., Fall , S. M., Ferguson , H. C., et al. 2017, , 838, 6, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa62a6

    2017 doi

  32. [45]

    Hunter , J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  33. [47]

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

    Jackson , R. A., Martin , G., Kaviraj , S., et al. 2021, , 502, 4262, 10.1093/mnras/stab077

    2021 doi

  34. [48]

    D., & Makarov , D

    Karachentsev , I. D., & Makarov , D. I. 1999, in Galaxy Interactions at Low and High Redshift, ed. J. E. Barnes & D. B. Sanders , Vol. 186, 109

    1999

  35. [49]

    D., Makarov , D

    Karachentsev , I. D., Makarov , D. I., & Kaisina , E. I. 2013, , 145, 101, 10.1088/0004-6256/145/4/101

    2013 doi

  36. [52]

    D., Ding , X., et al

    Kawinwanichakij , L., Silverman , J. D., Ding , X., et al. 2021, , 921, 38, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1f21

    2021 doi

  37. [53]

    L., Callegari , S., Mayer , L., & Moustakas , L

    Kazantzidis , S., okas , E. L., Callegari , S., Mayer , L., & Moustakas , L. A. 2011, , 726, 98, 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/98

    2011 doi

  38. [54]

    E., et al

    Kelkar , K., Arag \'o n-Salamanca , A., Gray , M. E., et al. 2015, , 450, 1246, 10.1093/mnras/stv670

    2015 doi

  39. [55]

    S., Moreno , J., et al

    Klein , C., Bullock , J. S., Moreno , J., et al. 2024, , 532, 538, 10.1093/mnras/stae1505

    2024 doi

  40. [56]

    R., & Knebe , A

    Knollmann , S. R., & Knebe , A. 2009, , 182, 608, 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/608

    2009 doi

  41. [57]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.13732, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.13732

    Kravtsov , A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.13732, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.13732

    2024 doi arXiv

  42. [58]

    V., Gnedin , O

    Kravtsov , A. V., Gnedin , O. Y., & Klypin , A. A. 2004, , 609, 482, 10.1086/421322

    2004 doi

  43. [59]

    P., Robotham , A

    Lange , R., Driver , S. P., Robotham , A. S. G., et al. 2015, , 447, 2603, 10.1093/mnras/stu2467

    2015 doi

  44. [60]

    G., et al

    Lani , C., Almaini , O., Hartley , W. G., et al. 2013, , 435, 207, 10.1093/mnras/stt1275

    2013 doi

  45. [61]

    S., Boylan-Kolchin , M., et al

    Lazar , A., Bullock , J. S., Boylan-Kolchin , M., et al. 2020, , 497, 2393, 10.1093/mnras/staa2101

    2020 doi

  46. [62]

    2011, , 2011, 018, 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/03/018

    Lewis , A., Challinor , A., & Hanson , D. 2011, , 2011, 018, 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/03/018

    2011 doi

  47. [63]

    2000, , 538, 473, 10.1086/309179

    Lewis , A., Challinor , A., & Lasenby , A. 2000, , 538, 473, 10.1086/309179

    2000 doi

  48. [64]

    2019, , 485, 796, 10.1093/mnras/stz356

    Martin , G., Kaviraj , S., Laigle , C., et al. 2019, , 485, 796, 10.1093/mnras/stz356

    2019 doi

  49. [65]

    2004, , 349, 1251, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07573.x

    Mateus , A., & Sodr \'e , L. 2004, , 349, 1251, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07573.x

    2004

  50. [66]

    2001, , 547, L123, 10.1086/318898

    Mayer , L., Governato , F., Colpi , M., et al. 2001, , 547, L123, 10.1086/318898

    2001 doi

  51. [67]

    J., Bullock , J

    Mercado , F. J., Bullock , J. S., Moreno , J., et al. 2024, , 530, 1349, 10.1093/mnras/stae819

    2024 doi

  52. [68]

    1999, , 524, L19, 10.1086/312287

    Moore , B., Ghigna , S., Governato , F., et al. 1999, , 524, L19, 10.1086/312287

    1999 doi

  53. [69]

    S., et al

    Moreno , J., Danieli , S., Bullock , J. S., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 496, 10.1038/s41550-021-01598-4

    2022 doi

  54. [70]

    J., & Franx , M

    Mosleh , M., Williams , R. J., & Franx , M. 2013, , 777, 117, 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/117

    2013 doi

  55. [71]

    2018, , 479, 2147, 10.1093/mnras/sty1543

    Moutard , T., Sawicki , M., Arnouts , S., et al. 2018, , 479, 2147, 10.1093/mnras/sty1543

    2018 doi

  56. [72]

    Mowla , L., van der Wel , A., van Dokkum , P., & Miller , T. B. 2019, , 872, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0379

    2019 doi

  57. [74]

    L., Kere s , D., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., et al

    Muratov , A. L., Kere s , D., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., et al. 2015, , 454, 2691, 10.1093/mnras/stv2126

    2015 doi

  58. [75]

    J., Crnojevi \'c , D., et al

    Mutlu-Pakdil , B., Sand , D. J., Crnojevi \'c , D., et al. 2024, , 966, 188, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad36c4

    2024 doi

  59. [76]

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

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

    2018 doi

  60. [77]

    S., et al

    O \ n orbe , J., Boylan-Kolchin , M., Bullock , J. S., et al. 2015, , 454, 2092, 10.1093/mnras/stv2072

    2015 doi

  61. [78]

    H., et al

    O \ n orbe , J., Garrison-Kimmel , S., Maller , A. H., et al. 2014, , 437, 1894, 10.1093/mnras/stt2020

    2014 doi

  62. [79]

    2011, , 736, L2, 10.1088/2041-8205/736/1/L2

    Ogiya , G., & Mori , M. 2011, , 736, L2, 10.1088/2041-8205/736/1/L2

    2011 doi

  63. [80]

    A., Navarro , J

    Oman , K. A., Navarro , J. F., Fattahi , A., et al. 2015, , 452, 3650, 10.1093/mnras/stv1504

    2015 doi

  64. [81]

    F., & McConnachie , A

    Pe \ n arrubia , J., Navarro , J. F., & McConnachie , A. W. 2008, , 673, 226, 10.1086/523686

    2008 doi

  65. [82]

    2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825. http://jmlr.org/papers/v12/pedregosa11a.html

    2011

  66. [83]

    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

  67. [84]

    Perez , F., & Granger , B. E. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 21, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53

    2007 doi

  68. [85]

    2018, , 473, 4077, 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    Pillepich , A., Springel , V., Nelson , D., et al. 2018, , 473, 4077, 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    2018 doi

  69. [86]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2016, , 594, A13, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    2016 doi

  70. [87]

    2012, , 421, 3464, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20571.x

    Pontzen , A., & Governato , F. 2012, , 421, 3464, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20571.x

    2012

  71. [88]

    D., Angulo , R

    Rodriguez , F., Montero-Dorta , A. D., Angulo , R. E., Artale , M. C., & Merch \'a n , M. 2021, , 505, 3192, 10.1093/mnras/stab1571

    2021 doi

  72. [89]

    S., et al

    Rohr , E., Feldmann , R., Bullock , J. S., et al. 2022, , 510, 3967, 10.1093/mnras/stab3625

    2022 doi

  73. [90]

    2007, , 382, 2, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12190.x

    Romano-D \' az , E., & van de Weygaert , R. 2007, , 382, 2, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12190.x

    2007

  74. [91]

    B., Agertz , O., & Renaud , F

    Romeo , A. B., Agertz , O., & Renaud , F. 2020, , 499, 5656, 10.1093/mnras/staa3245

    2020 doi

  75. [92]

    A., Bower , R

    Schaye , J., Crain , R. A., Bower , R. G., et al. 2015, , 446, 521, 10.1093/mnras/stu2058

    2015 doi

  76. [93]

    2014, , 439, 3189, 10.1093/mnras/stt2470

    Shankar , F., Mei , S., Huertas-Company , M., et al. 2014, , 439, 3189, 10.1093/mnras/stt2470

    2014 doi

  77. [94]

    J., White , S

    Shen , S., Mo , H. J., White , S. D. M., et al. 2003, , 343, 978, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06740.x

    2003

  78. [95]

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

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

    2018 doi

  79. [96]

    S., Dalcanton , J

    Stinson , G. S., Dalcanton , J. J., Quinn , T., et al. 2009, , 395, 1455, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14555.x

    2009

  80. [97]

    2016, , 818, 193, 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/193

    Tomozeiu , M., Mayer , L., & Quinn , T. 2016, , 818, 193, 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/193

    2016 doi

  81. [98]

    Trujillo , I., Ferreras , I., & de La Rosa , I. G. 2011, , 415, 3903, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19017.x

    2011

  82. [99]

    C., & Varoquaux, G

    Van Der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science & Engineering, 13, 22

    2011

  83. [100]

    G., et al

    van der Wel , A., Franx , M., van Dokkum , P. G., et al. 2014, , 788, 28, 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/28

    2014 doi

  84. [101]

    2007, , 472, 121, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077481

    Verley , S., Leon , S., Verdes-Montenegro , L., et al. 2007, , 472, 121, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077481

    2007 doi

  85. [102]

    E., et al

    Virtanen , P., Gommers , R., Oliphant , T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  86. [103]

    Waskom, M. L. 2021, Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3021, 10.21105/joss.03021

    2021 doi

  87. [104]

    R., Tinker , J

    Wetzel , A. R., Tinker , J. L., Conroy , C., & van den Bosch , F. C. 2013, , 432, 336, 10.1093/mnras/stt469

    2013 doi

  88. [105]

    2017, , 834, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/73

    Yoon , Y., Im , M., & Kim , J.-W. 2017, , 834, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/73

    2017 doi

  89. [106]

    2023, , 957, 59, 10.3847/1538-4357/acfed5

    Yoon , Y., Kim , J.-W., & Ko , J. 2023, , 957, 59, 10.3847/1538-4357/acfed5

    2023 doi

  90. [107]

    2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 006, 10.1088/1674-4527/19/1/6

    Zhang , Y.-C., & Yang , X.-H. 2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 006, 10.1088/1674-4527/19/1/6

    2019 doi

  91. [108]

    L., & Zehavi , I

    Zheng , Z., Coil , A. L., & Zehavi , I. 2007, , 667, 760, 10.1086/521074

    2007 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.