Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 102 references

Smaller stellar disc scale lengths in rich environments

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Stellar disc scale lengths are smaller in X-ray-rich group environments than in the field, by about 1 kpc at low bulge mass.

desk verdict A plausible and well-framed new environmental result, but the key XRS-vs-XRW offset lacks significance testing and matched systematics, so it should go to referees with a request for heavier statistics. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06810 v1 pith:WT2TJINA submitted 2019-08-19 astro-ph.GA

Melanie L. Demers , Laura C. Parker , Ian D. Roberts This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords discscalelengthgalaxygroupsenvironmentalquenchingbulge-discdecompositionram-pressurestrippingintra-groupmediumX-rayluminositySDSS
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 claims that the exponential scale length of a galaxy's stellar disc—the radius over which its surface brightness falls by a factor $e$—depends on the density of the hot gas in which the galaxy lives. Comparing SDSS DR7 galaxies at fixed bulge mass, the authors find that in X-ray strong groups (the densest intra-group medium) discs are on average roughly 1 kpc smaller than in isolated field galaxies and roughly 0.5 kpc smaller than in X-ray weak groups. The effect is strongest at low bulge mass and at small group-centric distances, and it persists for star-forming galaxies and across morphological types. If correct, this is evidence that hydrodynamic processes such as ram-pressure stripping or starvation truncate stellar discs from the outside in.

What carries the argument

The central object is the exponential disc scale length $R_d$, the radius at which the disc's surface brightness profile $\Sigma(r)=\Sigma_0\exp(-r/R_d)$ drops by $1/e$. The environmental split is organized by the $L_X$–$M_{\rm halo}$ relation: groups above the best-fit line are called X-ray strong and those below are X-ray weak, so that X-ray brightness isolates intra-group medium density at fixed halo mass. Bulge-disc decompositions provide both $R_d$ and bulge mass, and $V_{\max}$ weighting corrects for the magnitude-limited selection. The load-bearing comparison is $R_d$ versus bulge mass across the three environments.

What would settle it

Remeasure $R_d$ for the same low-bulge-mass galaxies using deeper, higher-resolution imaging or an independent decomposition code; if the ordered X-ray-strong < X-ray-weak < field offset disappears or shrinks below about 0.5 kpc, the environmental claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At fixed bulge mass, the exponential disc scale lengths of low-mass galaxies in X-ray strong groups are smaller than those in X-ray weak groups by about 0.5 kpc and smaller than in isolated field environments by about 1 kpc. The offset is largely independent of halo mass but concentrates at small group-centric radii, and it is enhanced in the extreme X-ray bright tail of the group population. The same offset appears when using an independent bulge-disc decomposition catalogue, and looking only at star-forming galaxies the discs are larger than the full-sample average, consistent with outside-in fading of quenched discs. The authors interpret the ordering as a response to intra-group medium density traced by X-ray luminosity.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the assumption that the systematic measurement errors in low-mass disc scale lengths are identical across X-ray strong, X-ray weak, and field samples, since the paper compares differences between samples that are said to share the same biases.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Disc scale length joins the list of galaxy properties that respond to environment at fixed stellar mass, adding a structural dimension to environmental quenching.
  • The outside-in fading interpretation predicts that truncated discs should be redder and more massive at their edges, a signature that resolved star-formation maps or integral-field observations could check.
  • Because the effect is strongest at small group-centric radii, the result sharpens the prediction that galaxies falling into dense groups lose their outer discs first, before complete quenching occurs.
  • Consistency across two independent decomposition catalogues implies the offset is not an artifact of one fitting method, so future surveys can treat this ordering as a target signature.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the offset is real, it implies that disc truncation for low-mass galaxies occurs on a timescale shorter than a group crossing time, because only galaxies near the group centre show the strongest effect.
  • The correlation between X-ray brightness and group-centric distance leaves open the possibility that the driving variable is not intra-group medium density alone but repeated tidal encounters that also concentrate near the centre; a matched sample crossing the two variables would separate these mechanisms.
  • The paper's assumption of equal measurement biases could be tested by inserting mock galaxies with known $R_d$ into SDSS images and running the same decompositions in field and group conditions; if the recovered $R_d$ distributions diverge between environments, part of the offset could be methodological.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper uses SDSS-DR7 galaxy samples with photometric bulge-disc decompositions from Simard et al. (2011) and bulge/disc masses from Mendel et al. (2014), combined with Yang et al. (2007) group catalogues and Wang et al. (2014) X-ray luminosities, to study how stellar disc scale lengths depend on environment. The authors split groups into X-ray strong (XRS) and X-ray weak (XRW) using the Lx-Mhalo relation, and compare Vmax-weighted mean exponential disc scale length as a function of bulge mass for XRS, XRW, and an isolated field sample. At low bulge mass, they report that XRS discs are smaller than XRW discs by about 0.5 kpc and smaller than field discs by about 1 kpc, that this offset is largely independent of halo mass but depends on group-centric distance, and that the signal is stronger in the X-ray extreme subsamples. The paper acknowledges known systematic uncertainties in low-mass disc scale lengths and argues that relative comparisons between samples with 'the same measurement biases' are robust.

Significance. The claimed result is observationally interesting: it extends environment-dependent size studies from stellar mass to bulge mass and connects disc structure to a tracer of intra-group medium density, with potential implications for ram-pressure stripping and starvation. The paper has clear strengths: it builds entirely on public catalogues, provides machine-readable output tables, includes an independent decomposition check against Meert et al. (2015), and examines extreme X-ray subsamples as an internal consistency test. However, as presented, the central XRS-versus-XRW offset is not supported by formal significance testing, and the systematic-error cancellation argument is asserted rather than demonstrated. If the offset survives group-level resampling and matched-systematic checks, the result would be a valuable contribution; in its current form the quantitative claim is not yet fully secured.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Figs 4-5] The central claim of a ~0.5 kpc offset in disc scale length between XRS and XRW galaxies at low bulge mass is not accompanied by any significance test. The error bars shown are standard errors of the mean, but no p-values, bootstrap confidence intervals, or group-level resampling are reported. This is especially important because §2.3.1 states that the XRW sample is 'significantly smaller' than XRS, and the samples are Vmax-weighted, so individual galaxies are not independent draws. I request a formal significance assessment (e.g., bootstrap or permutation test that resamples at the level of host groups, not individual galaxies) for the offsets claimed at fixed bulge mass.
  2. [§4.1, Appendix B] The statement that systematic uncertainties cancel because 'we focus on differences between samples with the same measurement biases' is not supported by a demonstration that XRS, XRW, and field samples have matching distributions of the properties that drive disc scale length systematics: apparent magnitude, redshift, signal-to-noise, inclination, and sky background. Appendix B and Fig. B2 show an apparent-magnitude-dependent offset between S11 and Meert et al. (2015) disc scale lengths; if the environmental samples differ in apparent magnitude at fixed bulge mass, this offset will not cancel. The authors should show, at fixed bulge mass, the distribution of these quantities for each environment sample, or otherwise justify that they are matched.
  3. [§4.2, Fig. 7] The independent check using Meert et al. (2015) does not validate the paper's central claim, because Meert et al. provide no bulge masses; Fig. 7 tests disc scale length versus total stellar mass, not bulge mass. This limitation is not stated in the text, and the figure is presented as confirming the S11 results. Please state explicitly that the Meert comparison applies only at fixed stellar mass, and either add a bulge-mass-matched analysis using a decomposition catalogue that provides bulge masses or restrict the claim to what the data actually test.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.1.2] The sentence 'The halo mass distribution for the XRS and XRW samples our shown in Fig. 2' contains a typo: 'our' should be 'are'.
  2. [§4.1] The text says 'starvation only has a small affect on morphology' in the Introduction; 'affect' should be 'effect'. Additional ligature-related typos (e.g., 'different') should be cleaned up.
  3. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption for Fig. 6 does not describe the error bars or shaded regions for the bold lines; please state that they are standard errors of the mean as in Figs 4 and 5.
  4. [§3.2] The sentence 'At low bulge masses, disc scale lengths are largest in the isolated field, smaller in XRW group environments, and smallest in XRS environments' is phrased as a monotonic ordering; given the lack of significance tests and the overlapping error regions in Fig. 5, a more cautious wording such as 'appear to be' would be appropriate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the environmental split is external and the disc-scale-length comparison is measured independently of it.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical comparison built on externally published catalogues rather than a derivation from fitted parameters. Group membership and halo masses come from Yang et al. (2007); X-ray luminosities and the Lx-Mhalo line used for the XRS/XRW split come from Wang et al. (2014); bulge/disc decompositions and masses come from Simard et al. (2011) and Mendel et al. (2014); the independent check uses Meert et al. (2015). The XRS/XRW classification is a residual split in X-ray luminosity at fixed halo mass, and disc scale lengths are measured independently of that classification; no Rd-dependent quantity is fitted to define the environment samples. The ex-XRS/ex-XRW and star-forming subsample comparisons are presented as robustness checks rather than as out-of-sample predictions, and the central offset is not obtained by fitting any parameter to the disc data. Self-citations to Roberts et al. (2016) and Roberts & Parker (2017) supply the group-split convention and the isolated-field catalogue, but the relevant isolation criteria are restated in the text, so the argument does not reduce to an unexamined self-citation. The paper's own caveat that low-mass disc scale lengths have large systematic uncertainties and that the comparison relies on 'differences between samples with the same measurement biases' is a validity caveat, not a circular step. No equation or construction in the paper makes the claimed XRS-vs-XRW disc-size difference equal to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its free parameters are the environmental classification boundaries inherited from external catalogues. The central claim depends on several domain assumptions about the fidelity of X-ray luminosity as an IGM tracer and about the comparability of measurement biases across environments.

free parameters (2)
  • Lx-Mhalo line of best fit (slope and intercept) = not stated; from Wang et al. (2014)
    Used to split groups into XRS and XRW; the central comparison depends on this classification.
  • Y-intercept shift for extreme deciles = top and bottom deciles
    Defines ex-XRS and ex-XRW subsamples used to test robustness; chosen to isolate 10% of the data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption X-ray luminosity traces intra-group medium density at fixed halo mass
    Physical interpretation of the XRS/XRW split as tracing IGM density depends on this.
  • domain assumption Systematic uncertainties in disc scale lengths are the same across environments
    Stated in Sections 4.1 and 5; the relative comparison is only valid if biases cancel.
  • domain assumption Bulge mass is a stable reference that does not co-vary with disc stripping
    Fixed bulge mass is used to isolate disc changes; if bulges also respond to environment, this control fails.
  • domain assumption Vmax weighting corrects Malmquist bias
    Standard assumption; the paper says results are insensitive to weighting.
  • domain assumption Group halo masses and X-ray luminosities from Y07 and Wang et al. are accurate
    All environmental classifications rest on these external catalogues.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Smaller stellar disc scale lengths in rich environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WT2TJINA

@misc{pith2026190806810,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Smaller stellar disc scale lengths in rich environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WT2TJINA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06810}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the dependence of stellar disc scale lengths on environment for a sample of Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 7 galaxies with published photometric bulge-disc decompositions. We compare disc scale lengths at fixed bulge mass for galaxies in an isolated field environment to galaxies in X-ray rich and X-ray poor groups. At low bulge mass, stellar disc scale lengths in X-ray rich groups are smaller compared to discs in both X-ray poor groups and in isolated field environments. This decrease in disc scale length is largely independent of halo mass, though shows some dependence on group-centric distance. We also find that stellar disc scale lengths are smaller in X-ray rich environments for a subset of star-forming galaxies and for galaxies of different morphological types. We note that disc scale lengths of low mass galaxies are known to have large systematic uncertainties, however we focus on differences between samples with the same measurement biases. Our results show that stellar disc scale lengths depend on X-ray brightness, a tracer of IGM density, suggesting a role for hydrodynamic processes such as ram-pressure stripping and/or starvation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06810 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Galaxy group samples in the Lx − Mhalo plane. Groups above and below the solid line of best fit delineate the X-ray strong (XRS) and X-ray weak (XRW) group samples. The top (red) and bottom (blue) deciles of the dataset that lie above and below the dashed lines are re￾ferred to as the extremely X-ray strong (ex-XRS) and extremely X-ray weak (ex-XRW) group samples [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Vmax weighted exponential disc scale length versus redshift for X-ray strong (XRS), X-ray weak (XRW), and isolated field samples with 9.8 ≤ log(M?/M ) ≤ 10.2. Error bars and shaded regions correspond to the standard error of the mean. cut which we use throughout our analysis. We also limit our sample to include galaxies with bulge effective radii Re ≥ 0.1”, to eliminate point-like bulges. The final group sample we u… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Vmax weighted exponential disc scale length versus stellar mass. Error bars and shaded regions correspond to the standard error of the mean [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Vmax weighted exponential disc scale length versus bulge mass, in bins of increasing group-centric radius (top to bottom) and increasing halo mass (left to right). Average trends from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Vmax weighted exponential disc scale length versus stellar mass for Meert et al. (2015) Rd values from S11-Meert et al. (2015) matched sample in Fig. B1 shown in bold lines for XRS, XRW, and isolated field samples, overlaid on S11 XRS, XRW, and isolated field trends fr…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Vmax weighted exponential disc scale length versus bulge mass by morphological type (Sa/Sbs in green and Sc/Sds in purple). Dashed lines are isolated field galaxies, XRW are dot-dashed and XRS are solid. Error bars and shaded regions correspond to the standard error o…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., Moore B., Bower R

    Abadi M. G., Moore B., Bower R. G., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02715.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.308..947A 308, 947

    arXiv 1999

  2. [2]

    N., et al., 2009, @doi [ApJS] 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..182..543A 182, 543

    Abazajian K. N., et al., 2009, @doi [ApJS] 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..182..543A 182, 543

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 2009

  3. [3]

    C., Peletier R

    Andredakis Y. C., Peletier R. F., Balcells M., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/275.3.874 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995MNRAS.275..874A 275, 874

    doi:10.1093/mnras/275.3.874 1995

  4. [6]

    L., Baldry I

    Balogh M. L., Baldry I. K., Nichol R., Miller C., Bower R., Glazebrook K., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/426079 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...615L.101B 615, L101

    doi:10.1086/426079 2004

  5. [8]

    J., Shioya Y., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/342221 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...577..651B 577, 651

    Bekki K., Couch W. J., Shioya Y., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/342221 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...577..651B 577, 651

    doi:10.1086/342221 2002

  6. [9]

    Bluck A. F. L., Mendel J. T., Ellison S. L., Moreno J., Simard L., Patton D. R., Starkenburg E., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu594 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441..599B 441, 599

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu594 2014

  7. [10]

    B \"o sch B., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219244 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219244 2013

  8. [11]

    F., Buat V., Martin D

    Boselli A., Boissier S., Cortese L., Gil de Paz A., Seibert M., Madore B. F., Buat V., Martin D. C., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/507766 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...651..811B 651, 811

    doi:10.1086/507766 2006

Show all 102 references
  1. [12]

    Brinchmann J., Charlot S., White S. D. M., Tremonti C., Kauffmann G., Heckman T., Brinkmann J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07881.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.351.1151B 351, 1151

    2004

  2. [13]

    C., Kinney A

    Calzetti D., Armus L., Bohlin R. C., Kinney A. L., Koornneef J., Storchi-Bergmann T., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308692 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...533..682C 533, 682

    2000 doi

  3. [14]

    Capaccioli M., 1989, in Corwin Jr. H. G., Bottinelli L., eds, World of Galaxies (Le Monde des Galaxies). pp 208--227

    1989

  4. [15]

    Cimatti A., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20078739 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A

    2008 doi

  5. [17]

    E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...712..833C 712, 833

    Conroy C., Gunn J. E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/833 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...712..833C 712, 833

    2010 doi

  6. [18]

    E., White M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...699..486C 699, 486

    Conroy C., Gunn J. E., White M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...699..486C 699, 486

    2009 doi

  7. [19]

    E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/58 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...708...58C 708, 58

    Conroy C., White M., Gunn J. E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/58 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...708...58C 708, 58

    2010 doi

  8. [21]

    C., O'Neil K., Sakai S., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20064873 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A

    Cortese L., Gavazzi G., Boselli A., Franzetti P., Kennicutt R. C., O'Neil K., Sakai S., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20064873 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A

    2006 doi

  9. [22]

    A., van den Bosch F

    Courteau S., Dutton A. A., van den Bosch F. C., MacArthur L. A., Dekel A., McIntosh D. H., Dale D. A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/522193 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...671..203C 671, 203

    2007 doi

  10. [23]

    Daddi E., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/430104 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...626..680D 626, 680

    2005 doi

  11. [24]

    S., White S

    Davis M., Efstathiou G., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/163168 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...292..371D 292, 371

    1985 doi

  12. [25]

    Dey A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....157..168D 157, 168

    2019 doi

  13. [26]

    Dressler A., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157753 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...236..351D 236, 351

    1980 doi

  14. [30]

    A., Parker L

    Evans F. A., Parker L. C., Roberts I. D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty581 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.5284E 476, 5284

    2018 doi

  15. [31]

    Fern \'a ndez Lorenzo M., Sulentic J., Verdes-Montenegro L., Argudo-Fern \'a ndez M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1020 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.434..325F 434, 325

    2013 doi

  16. [32]

    Fujita Y., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/56.1.29 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PASJ...56...29F 56, 29

    2004 doi

  17. [33]

    Fujita Y., Nagashima M., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307139 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...516..619F 516, 619

    1999 doi

  18. [34]

    L., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/345593 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...584..210G 584, 210

    G \'o mez P. L., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/345593 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...584..210G 584, 210

    2003 doi

  19. [35]

    L., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07114.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.346..601G 346, 601

    Goto T., Yamauchi C., Fujita Y., Okamura S., Sekiguchi M., Smail I., Bernardi M., Gomez P. L., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07114.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.346..601G 346, 601

    2003

  20. [36]

    W., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/113 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...746..113G 746, 113

    Graham A. W., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/113 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...746..113G 746, 113

    2012 doi

  21. [37]

    W., 2014, in Seigar M

    Graham A. W., 2014, in Seigar M. S., Treuthardt P., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 480, Structure and Dynamics of Disk Galaxies. p. 185 ( @eprint arXiv 1311.7207 )

    2014 arXiv

  22. [38]

    E., Gott III J

    Gunn J. E., Gott III J. R., 1972, @doi [ ] 10.1086/151605 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972ApJ...176....1G 176, 1

    1972 doi

  23. [39]

    H \"a ring N., Rix H.-W., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/383567 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...604L..89H 604, L89

    2004 doi

  24. [40]

    W., 1999, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999astro.ph..5116H

    Hogg D. W., 1999, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999astro.ph..5116H

    1999

  25. [41]

    P., Geller M

    Huchra J. P., Geller M. J., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160000 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...257..423H 257, 423

    1982 doi

  26. [43]

    Huertas-Company M., Aguerri J. A. L., Bernardi M., Mei S., S \'a nchez Almeida J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015735 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A

    2011 doi

  27. [44]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing In Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing In Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    2007 doi

  28. [45]

    L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty500 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.4753J 476, 4753

    Jaff \'e Y. L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty500 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.4753J 476, 4753

    2018 doi

  29. [46]

    J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2823 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.2317J 465, 2317

    Johnston E. J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2823 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.2317J 465, 2317

    2017 doi

  30. [47]

    http://www.scipy.org/

    Jones E., Oliphant T., Peterson P., et al., 2001. http://www.scipy.org/

    2001

  31. [48]

    D., Parker L

    Joshi G. D., Parker L. C., Wadsley J., 2017, PhD thesis, McMaster University

    2017

  32. [49]

    Kapferer W., Sluka C., Schindler S., Ferrari C., Ziegler B., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200811551 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A

    2009 doi

  33. [50]

    S., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/526544 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...672L.103K 672, L103

    Kawata D., Mulchaey J. S., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/526544 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...672L.103K 672, L103

    2008 doi

  34. [51]

    Kennicutt Jr. R. C., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/167834 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...344..685K 344, 685

    1989 doi

  35. [52]

    Kuchner U., Ziegler B., Verdugo M., Bamford S., H \"a u ler B., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201630252 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A

    2017 doi

  36. [54]

    N., Gunn J

    Lackner C. N., Gunn J. E., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts179 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428.2141L 428, 2141

    2013 doi

  37. [55]

    Lang P., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/11 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...788...11L 788, 11

    2014 doi

  38. [56]

    B., Tinsley B

    Larson R. B., Tinsley B. M., Caldwell C. N., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157917 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...237..692L 237, 692

    1980 doi

  39. [57]

    Lewis I., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05558.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.334..673L 334, 673

    2002

  40. [58]

    Longhetti M., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11171.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.374..614L 374, 614

    2007

  41. [59]

    Magorrian J., et al., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300353 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998AJ....115.2285M 115, 2285

    1998 doi

  42. [60]

    Makino J., Hut P., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304013 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...481...83M 481, 83

    1997 doi

  43. [62]

    T., Arag \'o n-Salamanca A., Gray M

    Maltby D. T., Arag \'o n-Salamanca A., Gray M. E., Hoyos C., Wolf C., Jogee S., B \"o hm A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2536 , 447, 1506

    2015 doi

  44. [63]

    K., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/375804 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...589L..21M 589, L21

    Marconi A., Hunt L. K., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/375804 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...589L..21M 589, L21

    2003 doi

  45. [65]

    pp 51 -- 56

    McKinney W., 2010, in van der Walt S., Millman J., eds, Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference. pp 51 -- 56

    2010

  46. [66]

    Meert A., Vikram V., Bernardi M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2333 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446.3943M 446, 3943

    2015 doi

  47. [67]

    T., Simard L., Palmer M., Ellison S

    Mendel J. T., Simard L., Palmer M., Ellison S. L., Patton D. R., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/210/1/3 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJS..210....3M 210, 3

    2014 doi

  48. [68]

    Moore B., Katz N., Lake G., Dressler A., Oemler A., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1038/379613a0 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Natur.379..613M 379, 613

    1996 doi

  49. [69]

    Moore B., Lake G., Katz N., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305264 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...495..139M 495, 139

    1998 doi

  50. [70]

    M., Ellis R

    Moran S. M., Ellis R. S., Treu T., Salim S., Rich R. M., Smith G. P., Kneib J.-P., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/504078 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...641L..97M 641, L97

    2006 doi

  51. [71]

    M., Ellis R

    Moran S. M., Ellis R. S., Treu T., Smith G. P., Rich R. M., Smail I., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/522303 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...671.1503M 671, 1503

    2007 doi

  52. [72]

    J., Franx M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/117 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...777..117M 777, 117

    Mosleh M., Williams R. J., Franx M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/117 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...777..117M 777, 117

    2013 doi

  53. [73]

    A., 1974, @doi [ ] 10.1086/153216 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974ApJ...194....1O 194, 1

    Oemler Jr. A., 1974, @doi [ ] 10.1086/153216 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974ApJ...194....1O 194, 1

    1974 doi

  54. [74]

    Okamoto T., Nagashima M., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/368251 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...587..500O 587, 500

    2003 doi

  55. [75]

    Peng Y.-j., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/193 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721..193P 721, 193

    2010 doi

  56. [76]

    M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/151/3/78 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....151...78P 151, 78

    Poggianti B. M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/151/3/78 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....151...78P 151, 78

    2016 doi

  57. [77]

    Pohlen M., Trujillo I., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20064883 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A

    2006 doi

  58. [78]

    Quilis V., Moore B., Bower R., 2000, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.288.5471.1617 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000Sci...288.1617Q 288, 1617

    2000

  59. [79]

    Rettura A., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/709/1/512 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...709..512R 709, 512

    2010 doi

  60. [80]

    D., Parker L

    Roberts I. D., Parker L. C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx317 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.3268R 467, 3268

    2017 doi

  61. [81]

    D., Parker L

    Roberts I. D., Parker L. C., Karunakaran A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2572 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455.3628R 455, 3628

    2016 doi

  62. [82]

    Roediger E., Hensler G., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20042131 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A

    2005 doi

  63. [83]

    Schawinski K., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu327 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.440..889S 440, 889

    2014 doi

  64. [84]

    L., 1968, Atlas de Galaxias Australes

    S \'e rsic J. L., 1968, Atlas de Galaxias Australes

    1968

  65. [85]

    J., White S

    Shen S., Mo H. J., White S. D. M., Blanton M. R., Kauffmann G., Voges W., Brinkmann J., Csabai I., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06740.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.343..978S 343, 978

    2003

  66. [87]

    J., De Propris R., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324433 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...565..223S 565, 223

    Shioya Y., Bekki K., Couch W. J., De Propris R., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324433 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...565..223S 565, 223

    2002 doi

  67. [88]

    Simard L., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341399 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJS..142....1S 142, 1

    2002 doi

  68. [89]

    T., Patton D

    Simard L., Mendel J. T., Patton D. R., Ellison S. L., McConnachie A. W., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/196/1/11 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..196...11S 196, 11

    2011 doi

  69. [90]

    Smith R., Fellhauer M., Assmann P., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20077.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.420.1990S 420, 1990

    2012

  70. [91]

    Tasca L. A. M., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912213 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A

    2009 doi

  71. [92]

    B., 2005, in Shopbell P., Britton M., Ebert R., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol

    Taylor M. B., 2005, in Shopbell P., Britton M., Ebert R., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV. p. 29

    2005

  72. [93]

    L., Chen H.-W., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/587432 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...679.1218T 679, 1218

    Tinker J. L., Chen H.-W., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/587432 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...679.1218T 679, 1218

    2008 doi

  73. [94]

    L., van Gorkom J

    Tonnesen S., Bryan G. L., van Gorkom J. H., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/523034 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...671.1434T 671, 1434

    2007 doi

  74. [95]

    Toomre A., Toomre J., 1972, @doi [ ] 10.1086/151823 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972ApJ...178..623T 178, 623

    1972 doi

  75. [96]

    Trujillo I., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/506464 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...650...18T 650, 18

    2006 doi

  76. [97]

    J., Bundy K., Cooper M

    Trujillo I., Conselice C. J., Bundy K., Cooper M. C., Eisenhardt P., Ellis R. S., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12388.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.382..109T 382, 109

    2007

  77. [98]

    K., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv668 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450..873V 450, 873

    Vaghmare K., Barway S., Mathur S., Kembhavi A. K., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv668 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450..873V 450, 873

    2015 doi

  78. [99]

    Valentinuzzi T., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/712/1/226 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...712..226V 712, 226

    2010 doi

  79. [100]

    Voges W., et al., 1999, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A

    1999

  80. [101]

    Wang L., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2481 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.439..611W 439, 611

    2014 doi

  81. [103]

    R., Cohn J

    Wetzel A. R., Cohn J. D., White M., 2009b, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14424.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.395.1376W 395, 1376

    2009

  82. [104]

    R., Tinker J

    Wetzel A. R., Tinker J. L., Conroy C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21188.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.424..232W 424, 232

    2012

  83. [105]

    D., Smit R., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17248.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.408.1818W 408, 1818

    White M., Cohn J. D., Smit R., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17248.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.408.1818W 408, 1818

    2010

  84. [106]

    Yagi M., Komiyama Y., Yoshida M., Furusawa H., Kashikawa N., Koyama Y., Okamura S., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/512359 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...660.1209Y 660, 1209

    2007 doi

  85. [107]

    J., van den Bosch F

    Yang X., Mo H. J., van den Bosch F. C., Jing Y. P., 2005, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08560.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.356.1293Y 356, 1293

    2005

  86. [108]

    J., van den Bosch F

    Yang X., Mo H. J., van den Bosch F. C., Pasquali A., Li C., Barden M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/522027 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...671..153Y 671, 153

    2007 doi

  87. [109]

    I., Mulchaey J

    Zabludoff A. I., Mulchaey J. S., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305355 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...496...39Z 496, 39

    1998 doi

  88. [110]

    Zhang B., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/122 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...777..122Z 777, 122

    2013 doi

  89. [111]

    S., 1996, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A

    de Jong R. S., 1996, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A

    1996

  90. [112]

    G., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/587874 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...677L...5V 677, L5

    van Dokkum P. G., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/587874 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...677L...5V 677, L5

    2008 doi

  91. [113]

    G., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/771/2/L35 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...771L..35V 771, L35

    van Dokkum P. G., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/771/2/L35 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...771L..35V 771, L35

    2013 doi

  92. [114]

    C., Aquino D., Yang X., Mo H

    van den Bosch F. C., Aquino D., Yang X., Mo H. J., Pasquali A., McIntosh D. H., Weinmann S. M., Kang X., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13230.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.387...79V 387, 79

    2008

  93. [115]

    C., Varoquaux G., 2011, CoRR, abs/1102.1523

    van der Walt S., Colbert S. C., Varoquaux G., 2011, CoRR, abs/1102.1523

    2011 arXiv

  94. [116]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.