Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 35 references

N-body simulations of galaxy bars generated by satellite collisions: effects of the impact geometry

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports N-body simulations showing that satellite collisions can form galaxy bars, and that bar formation favors moderate impact speed, steep inclination, off-center impact, and intruder masses above about $3\times10^9$ solar…

desk verdict Useful parameter sweep of an under-explored bar-formation channel, but the headline mass floor rests on a table/text inconsistency and one near-threshold run. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05745 v1 pith:WMAXPDKM submitted 2025-07-08 astro-ph.GA

Yufan Fane Zhou , Zhiyuan Li , Hui Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords GalaxycollisionsevolutionN-bodysimulationsBarredspiralgalaxiesbarformationsatellitecollisionMilkyWayAndromeda(M31)
open problems 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 small satellite galaxy crashing through the disk of a Milky Way-like galaxy can, under the right geometry, trigger the formation of a stellar bar, and it maps which geometries work. Using a suite of N-body simulations that vary the intruder's velocity, inclination angle, collision position, and mass, the authors find that bars form most readily when the collision is moderately fast, steeply inclined, off-center, and delivered by a heavier intruder. They further claim that the intruder must be at least about $3\times10^9$ solar masses for the mechanism to operate, and that the resulting bar's pattern speed and length do not depend on the collision parameters. If correct, this gives an extrinsic route to bar formation that could apply to the Milky Way and M31, whose satellite populations include objects above that mass floor.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by controlled N-body realizations: a target galaxy built from a standard dark-matter halo profile, an exponential stellar disk, and a compact bulge, initialized with a Toomre parameter of $Q=2$ so that it does not spontaneously form a bar during isolated evolution, plus a small intruder placed 50 kpc away. The diagnostic is the Fourier $m=2$ amplitude $A_2(R)$ of the face-on stellar surface density; the maximum value $A_2,\mathrm{max}$ serves as bar strength, with $A_2\ge0.2$ counting as a bar and $A_2\ge0.3$ counting as a strong bar. Varying one interaction parameter at a time across 50 main simulations isolates which conditions produce and grow the bar.

What would settle it

Rerun the parameter suite, especially the near-threshold cases A4, Fb, and Fc, with several different random seeds and extend the runs to 10 Gyr: if those configurations form bars in some seeds and not others, or if longer runs push their $A_2$ above 0.2, the claimed parameter preferences and mass floor are not stable as stated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that satellite collisions are a viable extrinsic bar-formation channel for MW/M31-like galaxies, with a specific parameter preference: moderate impact velocity, large inclination angle, off-center impact location, and larger intruder mass all favor bar formation, while the bar's pattern speed and length are insensitive to these parameters. The paper also claims a mass threshold: for a target with virial mass $1.5\times10^{12}$ solar masses, the intruder needs to be at least about $3\times10^9$ solar masses (tested in the extreme edge-on case) for a bar to appear within 5 Gyr. The discovery is an extension: it fills the unexplored extreme-mass-ratio regime below one-tenth of the host mass, complementing previous flyby and merger studies.

Load-bearing premise

Each parameter setting was run once, with bar presence judged by the $A_2\ge0.2$ criterion at the fixed 5 Gyr endpoint, so the reported preferences and the $3\times10^9$ solar mass floor could move if run time, threshold, or initial random seed were changed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A satellite with at least about $3\times10^9$ solar masses that hits the disk off-center at a steep inclination can create a bar in a Milky Way-like galaxy even though it is far lighter than the host.
  • The bar's pattern speed and length are set by the internal dynamics of the target, not by the collision geometry, so bars made this way look similar to intrinsically formed bars.
  • Gas in the target disk suppresses collision-induced bar formation, mirroring the usual isolated-disk result.
  • The Milky Way and M31, which host several satellites above the inferred mass floor, could plausibly have bars partially caused by past satellite collisions.
  • Slow collisions perturb too weakly and fast collisions interact too briefly; both are less effective than the intermediate $500\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ case.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that, if the parameter preferences hold across random seeds, they give a falsifiable population-level prediction: barred galaxies that acquired bars this way should show signs of a recent off-center, high-inclination, massive satellite encounter.
  • Because the authors ran each configuration once and judged bar presence at a fixed 5 Gyr endpoint, an extension with many seeds and longer runtimes would likely turn the $3\times10^9$ solar mass floor into a probabilistic statement rather than a sharp threshold.
  • A consequence not developed in the paper is that the gas-suppression effect should make the collision channel more effective in low-gas or quenched disks, so bars in gas-poor galaxies might more often trace a collision origin.
  • The inferred mass floor could be tested observationally by comparing the satellite mass distributions of barred versus unbarred local disk galaxies, since the mechanism requires a recent massive satellite passage.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper uses gadget-4 N-body simulations to study bar formation in a MW/M31-like disk galaxy (with an NFW halo, exponential disk, and Hernquist bulge) hit by a low-mass intruder ('satellite collision'). The main suite varies the intruder's initial velocity (250, 500, 1000 km/s), inclination angle (0-90 deg), collision offset (0 or 10 kpc), and intruder mass (3e10 or 6e10 Msun), with additional runs testing lower intruder masses, gas content, and collision direction. Bar formation is diagnosed by the maximum of the m=2 Fourier amplitude A2,max, with a bar threshold of A2>=0.2 at 5 Gyr. The paper reports that bar formation favors moderate velocity (~500 km/s), large inclination angle, off-center collisions, and larger intruder mass; that the intruder must be more massive than roughly 3e9 Msun; that the resulting bar's pattern speed and length are insensitive to these parameters; and that gas suppresses collision-induced bar formation.

Significance. If substantiated, this is a useful exploration of an under-studied regime: galaxy interactions with extreme mass ratios (>1:10), a regime relevant to the Milky Way and M31. The paper's strengths are its systematic parameter grid, an isolated-galaxy control run with Q=2 confirming no spontaneous bar within 8 Gyr, the use of a literature-standard Fourier bar diagnostic, and a gas-suppression result consistent with previous work (Athanassoula et al. 2013). The qualitative parameter trends are internally consistent. However, the quantitative central claim--the ~3e9 Msun mass floor--is built on a single near-threshold realization per mass and is clouded by an internal inconsistency between the text and Table 1 regarding the collision geometry of the F-series runs.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1 and Table 1] The minimum-mass study in Section 4.1 states that the other three parameters are set to the most favorable conditions, i.e., V0=500 km/s, theta=90 deg, and l=10 kpc, but Table 1 lists Fa, Fb, and Fc with l=0 kpc. This is an internal inconsistency that directly affects the reported mass floor, because l is one of the parameters claimed to favor bar formation. Please correct the table or the text, and if the runs were actually performed with l=0 kpc, repeat the mass series at l=10 kpc (or justify why l does not matter for the mass threshold).
  2. [Section 3 and Figure 3] The conclusions rely on one realization per parameter combination, evaluated by the A2>=0.2 threshold at exactly 5 Gyr. The decisive run Fb (m=3e9 Msun) reaches the threshold only at the final snapshot, while A4 shows a steadily rising A2 that the authors themselves note might eventually form a bar. With a single seed and no resolution variation, the reported parameter preferences and the mass floor could shift if the simulation time, threshold, or initial random seed were changed. Please add seed variations for at least the borderline runs (Fb, Fc, A4, and the D-series cases near the theta boundary) and report how the A2 evolution behaves beyond 5 Gyr, or otherwise demonstrate that single realizations are representative.
  3. [Section 4.1] The claim that the intruder mass must be at least ~3e9 Msun rests on only three single-realization runs (Fa, Fb, Fc) spanning a factor of 5 in mass. In particular, Fb forms only a weak bar at the end of the simulation and Fc shows almost no rise in A2, so the boundary is essentially one near-threshold trajectory away from moving. Please quantify the robustness of this floor, for example by using multiple seeds, by examining the growth rate and phase coherence of the m=2 mode to distinguish a genuine bar from a transient distortion, and by reporting the time at which A2 crosses 0.2 rather than only the final value.
  4. [Section 4.3, Figure 4] The claim that bar pattern speed and length are insensitive to the impact parameters is based on visual overlap of the Omega_p-A2 and R_A2max-A2 curves, but several runs (B7, B8, B9, E8, E9) deviate noticeably, as the paper acknowledges. Please provide a quantitative measure of the spread in Omega_p and R_A2max at fixed A2, and state explicitly how boundary cases and repeated-passage runs are treated, so the reader can judge whether 'insensitivity' holds beyond the central region of the parameter space.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 1 and Figure 3 caption] Table 1 lists six extra simulations (Fa, Fb, Fc, Ga, Gb, H), but the Figure 3 caption says '50 main simulations and 5 extra simulations' and the caption text only mentions Fb, Fc, Ga, Gb, and H. Please clarify whether Fa is omitted from Figure 3 and correct the caption to match the number of extra simulations.
  2. [Section 3, paragraph on V0] There is a typo: 'It it important to note' should read 'It is important to note'.
  3. [Section 3, paragraph on mass] In the discussion of series A and E, the text says 'When i = 40 deg', but the inclination angle is denoted theta elsewhere; please use consistent notation.
  4. [Section 5] Grammar: 'We explores the interaction parameter space' should be 'We explore the interaction parameter space'.
  5. [Section 2.1 and 4.2] When gas is introduced by converting 30% of stellar disk particles into gas particles, please specify whether the gas particle mass equals the stellar particle mass and whether this conversion changes the initial disk stability properties, since this could affect the comparison with the collisionless runs.
  6. [Author affiliations] The affiliation for Hui Li contains a typo: 'Tsinghua Univeristy' should be 'Tsinghua University'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the headline results are forward N-body outputs measured with a standard Fourier diagnostic, not derivations from their own definitions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical outcomes of forward N-body simulations: the interaction parameters V0, θ, l, and m are inputs to gadget-4, and the bar diagnostics (A2,max, pattern speed, bar length) are measured from the resulting snapshots using Equations (1) and (2). Nothing is fitted to these diagnostics and then re-predicted: the favorable-parameter trends are direct comparisons of A2(t) curves in Figure 3, and the ~3e9 Msun mass floor is a threshold read from three additional fixed-mass runs (Fa, Fb, Fc), not a parameter derived from the paper's own definitions. The A2 >= 0.2 bar criterion is a literature-standard diagnostic adopted from Rosas-Guevara et al. (2020), and the conclusion that bar formation favors certain conditions is a summary of which runs cross that threshold; this is a measurement convention, not a reduction of output to input. Self-citations (Feng et al. 2022, 2024) are used only as an example of M31's bar and are not load-bearing. I therefore find no step where an equation equals itself by construction, no fitted input renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work. Two non-circular weaknesses deserve note: Table 1 lists Fa, Fb, and Fc with l = 0 kpc, whereas Section 4.1 states the runs use the most favorable condition l = 10 kpc; and the decisive m = 3e9 run Fb forms only a weak bar at the final snapshot, with a single realization and a fixed 5 Gyr runtime, so the reported mass floor is fragile. These affect robustness and reproducibility, but not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on adopted galaxy models, a literature-standard bar criterion, and the simulation control parameters (V0, θ, l, m). No new entities are introduced and no parameters are fitted to external data; the 3e9 Msun mass floor is an empirical boundary from discrete simulation tests, not an input parameter.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The target galaxy is modeled as an NFW halo, exponential disk, and Hernquist bulge with parameters from van der Marel et al. (2012), and this simplified model represents MW/M31-like galaxies.
    Used to set up all simulations (Section 2.1); if the real MW/M31 disks differ substantially (e.g., gas content, structure), the quantitative thresholds would change.
  • domain assumption The Toomre parameter Q=2 prevents spontaneous bar formation, verified by an isolated test with no bar in 8 Gyr.
    Ensures bars in collision runs are induced by the intruder (Section 2.1).
  • domain assumption A galaxy is considered barred if A2,max >= 0.2, and strongly barred if >= 0.3, following Rosas-Guevara et al. (2020).
    The threshold is adopted from the literature (Section 2.3); conclusions about which runs form bars depend on this criterion.
  • domain assumption The intruder's internal structure (NFW halo plus Hernquist bulge) does not significantly affect results.
    Stated in Section 2.1; not tested, but plausible for a small accreted galaxy.
  • ad hoc to paper Single realizations per parameter combination are representative of the outcome.
    Implicit in the design (Section 3); no seed variance is explored, so near-threshold conclusions could be realization dependent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of N-body simulations of galaxy bars generated by satellite collisions: effects of the impact geometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WMAXPDKM

@misc{pith2026250705745,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: N-body simulations of galaxy bars generated by satellite collisions: effects of the impact geometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WMAXPDKM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05745}
}
abstract

Bars, a common and important structure in disk galaxies, can be induced by galaxy interactions. Although there have been some studies on bar formation in flybys or collisions, the vast parameter space still leaves many scenarios that require further investigation. Here, we focus on the role of collisions caused by small galaxies (denoted as intruders), referred to as satellite collisions, in bar formation for MW/M31-like galaxies (denoted as target galaxies). Multiple sets of simulations with varying intruder initial velocities, inclination angles, collision positions, and intruder masses were run to study the dependence of this mechanism on these parameters. Our simulations show that bar formation favors moderate collision velocity, large inclination angle, off-center collision position, and large intruder mass. However, the bar's pattern speed and length are insensitive to these parameters, as the intruder's mass is relatively small compared to that of the target galaxy itself. Moreover, based on our tests, the intruder mass should be more than $\sim 3\times10^{9}$ ${\rm M}_{\odot}$ in order for this bar formation mechanism to operate effectively in MW/M31-like galaxies. Our work suggests the possibility that satellite collisions may have contributed, to some extent, to the bar formation in the Milky Way or M31.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05745 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the target galaxy and the intruder, showing V0, θ and l (the impact parameter b can be derived from θ and l). The blue horizontal line represents the galaxy disk. Another geometric configuration of the off-center collision in Simulation H is also presented, with details provided in Section 4.3. between the normal of the target galaxy and the ini￾tial velocity direction of the intruder. (i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The stellar surface density of the target galaxy for certain snapshots. The collision happens at ∼80 Myr. The first row shows the states of simulation A8 at different times, while the remaining rows display the states of several main simulations at 5 Gyr (limited by space, only showing simulations with θ of 0, 20, 40, 60 and 80 deg) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of the bar strength A2 (defined in Section 2.3) as a function of time for 50 main simulations and 5 extra simulations. Simulation labels are marked in the upper-left corners. The first row of Series B, C, D, and E shows their parameter differences relative to the fiducial series (V0 changed to 250 km s−1 , V0 changed to 1000 km s−1 , l changed to 10 kpc, and m changed to 6 × 1010 M⊙, respectively). The num… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: , with most occupying the same region in the Ωp￾A2 space. This suggests that the pattern speed of the bar triggered by satellite collision is indeed insensitive to interaction parameters, due to the intruder’s mass being relatively small compared to that of the target …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R., Gough-Kelly, S., Debattista, V

    Anderson, S. R., Gough-Kelly, S., Debattista, V. P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 2919, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3271

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3271 2024

  2. [2]

    2013, in Secular Evolution of Galaxies, ed

    Athanassoula, E. 2013, in Secular Evolution of Galaxies, ed. J. Falc´ on-Barroso & J. H. Knapen, 305, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1211.6752

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1211.6752 2013

  3. [3]

    Athanassoula, E., Machado, R. E. G., & Rodionov, S. A. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1949, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts452

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts452 2013

  4. [5]

    J., Sheth, K., Athanassoula, E., et al

    Buta, R. J., Sheth, K., Athanassoula, E., et al. 2015, ApJS, 217, 32, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/217/2/32

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/217/2/32 2015

  5. [6]

    G., Yee, H

    Carlberg, R. G., Yee, H. K. C., Morris, S. L., et al. 2001, ApJ, 552, 427, doi: 10.1086/320555

    work page doi:10.1086/320555 2001

  6. [7]

    K., & Bekki, K

    Cavanagh, M. K., & Bekki, K. 2020, A&A, 641, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037963

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037963 2020

  7. [8]

    L., et al

    Cheung, E., Athanassoula, E., Masters, K. L., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 162, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/162

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/2/162 2013

  8. [9]

    1982, MNRAS, 199, 1069, doi: 10.1093/mnras/199.4.1069

    Efstathiou, G., Lake, G., & Negroponte, J. 1982, MNRAS, 199, 1069, doi: 10.1093/mnras/199.4.1069

    doi:10.1093/mnras/199.4.1069 1982

Show all 35 references
  1. [10]

    B., Frogel, J

    Eskridge, P. B., Frogel, J. A., Pogge, R. W., et al. 2000, AJ, 119, 536, doi: 10.1086/301203

    2000 doi

  2. [11]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 233, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7964 —

    Feng, Z.-X., Li, Z., Shen, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 233, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7964 —. 2024, ApJ, 963, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad13ee

    2022 doi

  3. [12]

    2012, MNRAS, 425, 2255, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21566.x

    Fiacconi, D., Mapelli, M., Ripamonti, E., & Colpi, M. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 2255, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21566.x

    2012

  4. [13]

    A., Willett, K

    Galloway, M. A., Willett, K. W., Fortson, L. F., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 3442, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv235

    2015 doi

  5. [14]

    L., et al

    Guo, Y., Jogee, S., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2023, ApJL, 945, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acacfb

    2023 doi

  6. [15]

    1990, ApJ, 356, 359, doi: 10.1086/168845

    Hernquist, L. 1990, ApJ, 356, 359, doi: 10.1086/168845

    1990 doi

  7. [16]

    C., Filippenko, A

    Ho, L. C., Filippenko, A. V., & Sargent, W. L. W. 1997, ApJ, 487, 591, doi: 10.1086/304643

    1997 doi

  8. [17]

    F., & Quataert, E

    Hopkins, P. F., & Quataert, E. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 1529, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17064.x

    2010

  9. [18]

    Jogee, S., Scoville, N., & Kenney, J. D. P. 2005, ApJ, 630, 837, doi: 10.1086/432106

    2005 doi

  10. [19]

    D., Rix, H.-W., et al

    Jogee, S., Barazza, F. D., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2004, ApJL, 615, L105, doi: 10.1086/426138

    2004 doi

  11. [20]

    H., Shlosman, I., & Peletier, R

    Knapen, J. H., Shlosman, I., & Peletier, R. F. 2000, ApJ, 529, 93, doi: 10.1086/308266

    2000 doi

  12. [21]

    Kormendy, J., & Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 2004, ARA&A, 42, 603, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134024

    2004

  13. [22]

    2014, ApJL, 790, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/790/2/L33 Le Conte, Z

    Lang, M., Holley-Bockelmann, K., & Sinha, M. 2014, ApJL, 790, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/790/2/L33 Le Conte, Z. A., Gadotti, D. A., Ferreira, L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 1984, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae921 Lokas, E. L. 2018, ApJ, 857, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab4ff Lokas, E. ...

    2014 doi

  14. [24]

    2004, MNRAS, 347, 277, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07202.x Men´ endez-Delmestre, K., Sheth, K., Schinnerer, E., Jarrett, T

    Mayer, L., & Wadsley, J. 2004, MNRAS, 347, 277, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07202.x Men´ endez-Delmestre, K., Sheth, K., Schinnerer, E., Jarrett, T. H., & Scoville, N. Z. 2007, ApJ, 657, 790, doi: 10.1086/511025

    2004

  15. [25]

    1998, ApJ, 499, 149, doi: 10.1086/305611

    Miwa, T., & Noguchi, M. 1998, ApJ, 499, 149, doi: 10.1086/305611

    1998 doi

  16. [26]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563, doi: 10.1086/177173

    1996 doi

  17. [27]

    1996, ApJ, 469, 605, doi: 10.1086/177809

    Noguchi, M. 1996, ApJ, 469, 605, doi: 10.1086/177809

    1996 doi

  18. [28]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 2547, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3180

    Rosas-Guevara, Y., Bonoli, S., Dotti, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 2547, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3180

    2020 doi

  19. [29]

    K., Ishizuki, S., & Scoville, N

    Sakamoto, K., Okumura, S. K., Ishizuki, S., & Scoville, N. Z. 1999, ApJ, 525, 691, doi: 10.1086/307910

    1999 doi

  20. [30]

    M., Elmegreen, B

    Sheth, K., Elmegreen, D. M., Elmegreen, B. G., et al. 2008, ApJ, 675, 1141, doi: 10.1086/524980

    2008 doi

  21. [32]

    2005, MNRAS, 361, 776, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x

    Springel, V., Di Matteo, T., & Hernquist, L. 2005, MNRAS, 361, 776, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x

    2005

  22. [33]

    2002, MNRAS, 333, 649, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05445.x —

    Springel, V., & Hernquist, L. 2002, MNRAS, 333, 649, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05445.x —. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 289, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06206.x

    2002

  23. [34]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 2871, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1855 van der Marel, R

    Springel, V., Pakmor, R., Zier, O., & Reinecke, M. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2871, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1855 van der Marel, R. P., Besla, G., Cox, T. J., Sohn, S. T., &

    2021 doi

  24. [35]

    2012, ApJ, 753, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/9

    Anderson, J. 2012, ApJ, 753, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/9

    2012 doi

  25. [36]

    L., van der Marel, R

    Watkins, L. L., van der Marel, R. P., & Bennet, P. 2024, ApJ, 963, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1f58

    2024 doi

  26. [37]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9bae

    Zheng, Y., & Shen, J. 2025, ApJ, 979, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9bae

    2025 doi

  27. [38]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.10014, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.10014

    Zheng, Y., Shen, J., Wu, X., & Chen, B.-H. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.10014, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.10014

    2025 doi arXiv

Pith tools

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