Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 69 references

A galaxy merger's morphological outcome—compact disc, late disc, or extended spheroid—is set by the stellar feedback recipe, while the remnant disc's spin always tracks the merger orbit.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 06:53 UTC pith:WUBDHN46

load-bearing objection A careful nine-code comparison showing merger morphology groups with feedback type, but the causal attribution is underdetermined; the orbit-alignment result is the strongest. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21710 v1 pith:WUBDHN46 submitted 2026-07-23 astro-ph.GA

The AGORA High-resolution Galaxy Simulations Comparison Project. IX - Part 2: Effects of a Major Galaxy Merger on the Stellar Morphology of a Milky Way-mass Galaxy Progenitor

Thinh Huu Nguyen , Kirk S. S. Barrow , Minyong Jung , Ram\'on Rodr\'iguez-Cardoso , Santi Roca-F\`abrega , Ji-hoon Kim , Joel R. Primack , Kentaro Nagamine
show 18 more authors
Renyue Cen Daniel Ceverino Weiguang Cui Anna Genina Hyeonyong Kim Yuri Oku Johnny W. Powell Yves Revaz Pablo Granizo Alessandro Lupi Ikkoh Shimizu H\'ector Vel\'azquez Tom Abel Oscar Agertz Avishai Dekel Boon Kiat Oh Thomas R. Quinn the AGORA Collaboration
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxy mergersstellar feedbackgalaxy morphologydisc formationcosmological zoom-in simulationsangular momentum alignmentcode comparisonmerger remnants
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper tries to establish that the type of stellar feedback in galaxy-formation simulations controls the morphological outcome of a major merger at z≈4.5 in a Milky Way-mass progenitor. Using nine independent codes calibrated to share initial conditions and astrophysics, it finds three reproducible groups: momentum-injecting (kinetic) feedback compacts the galaxy and starts forming a disc at first periapsis; purely thermal feedback delays both until coalescence; delayed-cooling or superbubble feedback suppresses disc formation and leaves an extended remnant. Two codes whose pre-merger galaxies are already at the resolution floor are set aside for the compaction test. In all nine codes, however, the remnant disc's rotational axis aligns with the orbital angular momentum of the interaction, not with the pre-merger disc axis, implying that infalling gas preserves its orbital angular momentum. The result matters because it suggests merger remnant morphology can serve as a probe of the unknown stellar feedback process, and it warns that a simulation's feedback choice can bias predicted galaxy demographics.

Core claim

The central claim is that the morphological outcome of a major gas-rich merger is governed by the way a simulation code implements stellar feedback, with three distinct behaviors: kinetic (momentum-injecting) feedback produces rapid compaction and early disc formation during the infall and first-passage stages; thermal-only feedback delays compaction and disc formation until coalescence; and delayed-cooling or superbubble feedback prevents both, leaving an extended, dispersion-dominated remnant. In contrast, the orientation of the remnant disc is code-independent: in every code, the disc's rotational angular momentum lies within 30 degrees of the interaction's orbital angular momentum and is

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the calibrated code-comparison design: nine codes run from identical zoom-in initial conditions, sharing gas cooling, UV background, and star formation criteria, differing only in numerical architecture and the stellar-feedback subgrid model. Morphological state is quantified by stellar radial mass profiles and by the orbital-circularity parameter epsilon = j_z/j_circ(E), which assigns each star to a rotating disc or a pressure-supported spheroid; disc-to-total ratios are derived from this decomposition. Merger timing is standardized into four stages (infall, first passage, coalescence, post-coalescence) and comparisons are made at a code-independent equivalent tim

Load-bearing premise

The attribution of morphology to feedback type assumes that the careful calibration of the nine codes has removed every code-to-code difference other than the stellar feedback subgrid model, even though each feedback type is realized by a single code with its own hydro solver, resolution treatment, and subgrid choices—and the paper itself notes the comparison rests on one merger per code.

What would settle it

Run the same target merger in a single code twice, toggling only whether stellar feedback injects momentum or heat; the paper's claim predicts the kinetic run compacts at first periapsis and forms a disc, while the thermal run compacts at coalescence. If instead the morphological timing follows the code's hydro solver or resolution rather than the feedback toggle, the central attribution is falsified.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • If feedback type really drives these three morphologies, observed merger remnants—compact discs, late-forming discs, or extended spheroids—could be used to infer the dominant stellar feedback mode in real galaxies.
  • A merger remnant's disc orientation is a robust, code-independent tracer of the merger's orbital plane, so measuring disc axes in high-redshift remnants can reveal past orbital histories even when the underlying code physics differ.
  • The negative correlation between burst fraction and half-mass radius change predicts that galaxies with stronger merger-driven starbursts end up more compact; this can be tested with larger samples of mergers run within a single code.
  • Simulation predictions of galaxy morphology demographics will carry a feedback-induced bias; surveys of simulated galaxies must marginalize over feedback schemes before comparing to observed morphology distributions.
  • The semi-analytic model's difficulty with central dark-matter fraction in compact or expanded remnants implies that analytic merger recipes need a size-dependent treatment of inner dark-matter depletion or enhancement.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because each feedback type is realized by only one code, the cleanest test of the causal claim would be running the same code twice with two feedback implementations; if the three-way grouping persists, the feedback attribution is strengthened, and if it follows the code architecture, the attribution is weakened.
  • The code-independent orbit-disc alignment suggests that in gas-rich high-redshift mergers the new disc forms from accreted orbital gas rather than from the pre-existing disc; a testable extension would compare remnants with varying gas fractions to see whether the alignment weakens in drier mergers.
  • I would predict that observed z≈3–5 merger remnants with compact, rotation-dominated discs are more likely in regimes where momentum-injecting feedback dominates, and that extended, dispersion-dominated remnants correspond to strong preventative feedback—an association that could be checked with JWST-era morphologies.
  • The paper's grouping could be used to calibrate subgrid feedback models: comparing the simulated distribution of remnant sizes and disc fractions to observations would disfavor feedback recipes whose group predictions mismatch the observed compactness distribution.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a nine-code comparison (AGORA CosmoRun) of the morphological outcome of a single major merger at z≈4.5 affecting a Milky Way-mass progenitor. Using common initial conditions, common cooling/UV/star-formation settings, and per-code feedback implementations, the authors classify the nine codes into three groups: kinetic-feedback codes (Group 1) compact and form a disc early; pure-thermal codes (Group 2) compact and form a disc only during coalescence; and delayed-cooling/superbubble codes (Group 3) show no compaction and little disc formation. They further report that the disc angular momentum aligns with the orbital angular momentum of the merger rather than with the pre-merger stellar rotation axis, and they compare remnant stellar mass, half-mass radius, dark-matter fraction, and velocity dispersion with the Santa Cruz semi-analytic model. The paper is a companion to Paper IX - Part 1 and emphasizes that merger remnant morphology may serve as a probe of stellar feedback physics.

Significance. If the feedback-type grouping is accepted, this is a valuable multi-code result: it shows that the same cosmological initial conditions and target merger can produce qualitatively different morphological remnants depending on the subgrid feedback model, and that the disc orientation is nonetheless robust across codes. The strengths of the paper are the carefully shared initial conditions, the transparent treatment of difficult cases (GADGET-3/4 resolution floor, GEAR decomposition), the public availability of the raw simulation snapshots, and the explicit acknowledgment of the one-merger-per-code limitation. The main value is as a cautionary demonstration for the simulation community and as a target for future controlled feedback experiments. However, the causal claim that the feedback type is responsible for the morphological grouping is not fully identified by the current design, and the semi-analytic comparison contains a circular element.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, §5] The central claim that the adopted stellar feedback type drives the Group 1/2/3 differences is underdetermined by the one-merger-per-code design. Table 1 shows that each code uses a unique combination of feedback submodels, and the codes also differ in hydro solver, mesh/particle treatment, softening, and refinement. After the reasonable exclusion of GADGET-3 and GADGET-4 from the radial-compaction test (§3.1), Group 1 contains only ART-I and GIZMO, which differ in architecture (AMR vs meshless) and in kinetic vs mechanical feedback. The manuscript acknowledges this limitation in §5, but the abstract and conclusion state the feedback dependence as an established result. I recommend softening the causal wording to 'consistent with' or 'suggests,' and explicitly stating that feedback type is confounded with code architecture in this suite.
  2. [§4.1] The Santa Cruz SAM comparison contains a circular element. Crad is chosen per code to minimize the error between the predicted and simulated Rf, so the agreement in stellar half-mass radius is by construction. The subsequent inference that codes with kinetic feedback have higher Crad and are therefore more dissipative uses the fitted parameter as evidence for the feedback-group interpretation. This is not an independent test. The paper should present Crad as a descriptive fit parameter and avoid using the fitted Rf agreement as validation of the SAM, or as support for the feedback-type causal claim.
  3. [§2.3, Appendix A] The comparison across codes at the 'equivalent timestep' is not fully equivalent for GEAR: tpost/eq falls during GEAR's coalescence stage rather than in the post-coalescence stage, and GEAR's disc fraction is derived with a different decomposition method (Kannan et al. 2015, Appendix A) because its nuclei are still orbiting. Since GEAR is one of the three Group 3 codes, the statement that Group 3 codes show negligible disc formation is partly dependent on this non-standard measurement at a non-comparable evolutionary phase. The authors should either show GEAR's D/T at a later, relaxed time or treat GEAR as a separate case in the Group 3 summary.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.3] Typo: 'Paper XI - Part 1' should be 'Paper IX - Part 1' in the sentence about ENZO and AREPO-T SFR.
  2. [§3.3] Typo: 'ARPEO' should be 'AREPO' in the list of codes that develop a rotational structure.
  3. [Appendix A] Typo: 'bugles' should be 'bulges'.
  4. [§4.2] The observational comparison would benefit from a more direct statement of the redshift and mass mismatch between the simulated remnants (z≈4.5, Mstar≈1e9–1e10 Msun) and the post-starburst samples (z<2, Mstar≈1e10–1e11.5 Msun), which is mentioned but could be more prominent.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

SAM half-mass-radius 'agreement' is achieved by per-code tuning of Crad; main feedback-morphology and disc-orientation results are independent.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1, Fig. 8 caption, Abstract, and Conclusion bullet 4]
    "for each code, we chose the Crad that minimises the error between the model's prediction and the simulation's outcome on Rf ... By tuning the parameter Crad, the model's predicted values can match the true values for all codes. Even though this agreement is achieved by fine-tuning, the tuned values of Crad can help imply the level of dissipation or energy loss that each simulated merger has."

    Rf is the target used to tune Crad per code, so the model's Rf 'agreement' is enforced by the fit rather than demonstrated. The abstract and conclusion nonetheless report 'reasonable agreement in stellar mass and half-mass radius' as a successful comparison. The follow-up claim that kinetic-feedback codes have higher Crad and are therefore more dissipative also maps the fitted Crad back onto the same compactness ordering it was calibrated to reproduce, making the explanatory step circular rather than independent.

full rationale

The main morphological comparison (Section 3) is not circular: the Group 1/2/3 partition follows the independently known feedback implementations in Table 1, not the outcome, and the six codes' morphological trajectories are direct simulation outputs. The orientation result (Section 3.4) is an independent finding (jpost/eq vs jorb vs jstart) and is externally echoed by Bell et al. 2026. The heavy self-citation of AGORA papers is normal reference to prior calibration/definitions; the calibration assumption (feedback vs architecture confound) is a validity threat, not a circular reduction. The one genuine circular element is the SAM Rf comparison in Section 4.1: Crad is fit per code to minimize Rf error, so the 'good agreement' on Rf in Fig. 8, the abstract, and the conclusion is by construction; the fitted Crad ordering is then used as evidence for the dissipation/compaction explanation. Because this is a secondary comparison and the central morphological claims do not depend on it, the overall circularity is partial (4/10).

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on no new physical entities. The main free parameters are the tuned SAM coupling Crad, the hand-chosen galactic-centre threshold, and the hand-chosen equivalent timestep; the most load-bearing assumptions are the effectiveness of the AGORA calibration, the reliability of the halo finder, and the validity of the kinematic decomposition and sSFR-baseline method. The paper is transparent about most of these, listing the small sample and the GEAR exception.

free parameters (3)
  • Crad (per code) = 0.03 – 1.48
    Section 4.1: the semi-analytic model's Crad is tuned per code to minimize the squared error in the stellar half-mass radius Rf. The subsequent claim that the SAM 'agrees well' on Rf is therefore partly a fitting result, and the inferred dissipation ordering is read off the fitted values.
  • Overdensity threshold for galactic centre (2000) = 2000
    Section 2.4: the iterative centre-finding procedure uses a threshold of 2000 times the critical density, chosen by hand. Different thresholds could shift the centre and thus the measured radial profiles and disk properties, though likely not the group-level trends.
  • Equivalent timestep (600 Myr after first periapsis) = 600 Myr
    Section 2.3: the post-merger comparison time is chosen as 600 Myr after first periapsis for all codes except GEAR, where it falls inside the coalescence stage. This hand-selected timestep affects the half-mass radii, D/T values, and orientation measurements that support the main claims.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The AGORA calibration (shared initial conditions, common cooling/UV background/SF criteria) reduces code differences to 'a few variables' (Section 2.1).
    The central attribution of morphological differences to stellar feedback type depends on the assumption that the calibration removes or sufficiently diminishes other numerical differences. This is an unproved assertion about the effectiveness of the AGORA common-physics setup.
  • domain assumption HASKAP PIE's halo finding, merger tree, and stellar assignment are reliable for this system (Section 2.2).
    The merger timings, the identification of the target merger, and the definition of which stars belong to the primary galaxy all come from HASKAP PIE as described in Paper XI. Any systematic error in the halo finder would propagate into the morphological measurements.
  • domain assumption The Liang et al. (2025) kinematic decomposition correctly separates spheroid and disk at high redshift for a post-merger system (Section 3.3).
    The paper uses the circularity parameter epsilon with the Liang et al. decomposition, assuming the spheroid component is symmetric about zero. The GEAR case shows this assumption can fail, and the paper needed a different method; whether the remaining codes are truly free of the same bias is assumed.
  • domain assumption The specific star formation rate (sSFR) of a galaxy would remain constant in the absence of the target merger, and the lowest sSFR in the prior 100 Myr is a valid baseline (Section 3.2, Paper IX-1).
    The burst fraction fsb is defined as (M_actual - M_baseline)/M_actual, where M_baseline assumes a constant sSFR. This counterfactual is not independently testable, and GADGET-3/4 are excluded because their prior starburst breaks the assumption.
  • domain assumption Stellar feedback type is the primary differentiator between the code groups (Table 1).
    The groups are formed by known feedback families, but each code also differs in hydro solver, resolution, softening, and secondary subgrid parameters. The causal reading that feedback type drives the morphology is assumed; the paper does not run the same feedback in different solvers.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 27619 in / 9293 out tokens · 95922 ms · 2026-08-01T06:53:42.571998+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The AGORA High-resolution Galaxy Simulations Comparison Project. IX - Part 2: Effects of a Major Galaxy Merger on the Stellar Morphology of a Milky Way-mass Galaxy Progenitor." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WUBDHN46

@misc{pith2026260721710,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The AGORA High-resolution Galaxy Simulations Comparison Project. IX - Part 2: Effects of a Major Galaxy Merger on the Stellar Morphology of a Milky Way-mass Galaxy Progenitor},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WUBDHN46}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21710}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Galaxy mergers, with their high sensitivity to initial conditions, provide a valuable setting for comparative studies of galaxy simulation codes. Following our first paper focusing on merger-driven star formation, we present a code comparison examining the morphological transformation impact of a major galaxy merger at $z \approx 4.5$ on a Milky Way-mass galaxy progenitor. Our analysis employs nine state-of-the-art codes from the AGORA CosmoRun cosmological zoom-in simulation suite. For this merger, we show that the adopted stellar feedback type influences the galaxy's compaction and stellar disc formation. Codes with purely thermal feedback produce a merger remnant that forms a disc and becomes compact primarily during and after coalescence; codes that include kinetic feedback begin disc formation and compaction around the first periapsis; and codes with strong delayed cooling or superbubble feedback suppress disc formation and produce a more extended remnant. In contrast, the orientation of the remnant disc is code-independent. In all codes, the rotational angular momentum of the remnant disc aligns with the interaction's orbital angular momentum rather than the pre-merger rotational axis, implying that the infalling gas preserves its orbital angular momentum to form a new disc. Comparisons with the Santa Cruz semi-analytic model show reasonable agreement in stellar mass and half-mass radius, yet the model underpredicts (overpredicts) the dark matter fraction and velocity dispersion for codes exhibiting strong compaction (expansion). The systematic dependence of our remnants' morphology on feedback schemes demonstrates that merger remnant morphology may serve as a powerful probe of stellar feedback processes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21710 by Alessandro Lupi, Anna Genina, Avishai Dekel, Boon Kiat Oh, Daniel Ceverino, H\'ector Vel\'azquez, Hyeonyong Kim, Ikkoh Shimizu, Ji-Hoon Kim, Joel R. Primack, Johnny W. Powell, Kentaro Nagamine, Kirk S. S. Barrow, Minyong Jung, Oscar Agertz, Pablo Granizo, Ram\'on Rodr\'iguez-Cardoso, Renyue Cen, Santi Roca-F\`abrega, The Agora Collaboration, Thinh Huu Nguyen, Thomas R. Quinn, Tom Abel, Weiguang Cui, Yuri Oku, Yves Revaz.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Gas projection plots showing key moments - tstart (column 1), an intermediate timestep between tstart and tfp (column 2), tfp (column 3), tmax (column 4), tcls (column 5), and tpost/eq (column 6) - of the target merger across nine CosmoRun codes. For each code, all projections are centred on the primary galaxy’s centre with their normal vector aligned with the system’s angular momentum at tpost/eq (face-on… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The radial mass distribution of the main galaxy across the codes before and after the target merger, shown in panels (a) and (b), respectively. For better visualization, the y-limit is set differently between panel (a) and panel (b). In panel (b), the total stellar distribution is decomposed into five groups: the old stars existing in the main galaxy before the merger ("old"), stars formed during the infal… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The ratio between the post-merger and pre￾merger half-mass radius as a function of the burst fraction of the target merger (fsb). For codes without delayed cooling feedback, a stronger merger-driven starburst corresponds to a more compact galaxy after the merger. GADGET-3 and GADGET-4 are omitted from the plot because their burst fraction cannot be reliably computed. We proceed to explore how the changes i… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The mass-weighted distribution of orbital circularity ϵ for star particles in the main galaxy. Top row: the distribution at the pre-infall timestep (left) and at the equivalent timestep (right). Bottom row: the ϵ distribution of stars in the five stellar groups in the main galaxy after the target merger: old stars existing in the main galaxy before the merger, stars formed during the merger stages listed i… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The stacked mass fraction contributed by each merger stage to the merger remnant’s disc, evaluated at tpost/eq. The disc-to-total ratios (D/T) of the main galaxy at tpre-infall (left) and at tpost/eq (right) are reported above the bar of each code. Except for RAMSES, CHANGA, and GEAR, all codes build up a substantial stellar disc after the interaction (D/T > 0.5). In codes with only thermal feedback (ENZO … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The distribution of stars formed during different merger stages on the radial distance-orbital circularity plane, evaluated at tpost/eq. A kernel density estimate is applied to draw the 10%, 50%, and 95% contour levels of the distributions. For better visualization, only stars within 0.2R200c are used for the kernel density estimate. These plots combine the results from Figs. 2 and 4, offering us a compreh… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The unit vectors showing the directions of the main galaxy’s rotational angular momentum at tstart (⃗jstart, solid black arrows), the merger remnant disc’s rotational angular momentum at tpost/eq (⃗jpost/eq, solid coloured arrows), and the orbital angular momentum of the merging interaction evaluated at the first periapsis (⃗jorb, dashed-line coloured arrows). ⃗jpost/eq is calculated using only the star pa… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the merger remnant’s properties (evaluated at the coalescence timestep) between being directly obtained from the CosmoRun simulations and being predicted using Covington et al. (2008)’s semi-analytic model. From left to right, the compared properties are stellar mass (Mf ), stellar 3D half-mass radius (Rf ), DM fraction inside 0.5Rf (fdm,f), and stellar velocity dispersion inside Rf (σf ). Fo… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Face-on and edge-on maps of stellar surface density for different kinematic components at three timesteps around tpost/eq. The kinematic decomposition follows the method of Liang et al. (2025). From left to right, each set of columns represents the spheroid, thin disc, thick disc, and total stellar component. Since the merging galaxies have not coalesced, we notice two stellar nuclei orbiting around each o… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left and Middle: the morphological decomposition between the Liang et al. (2025)’s method and the Kannan et al. (2015)’s method (K15). Right: the edge-on maps of stellar surface density for the spheroid and the disc components decomposed by Kannan et al. (2015)’s method. Because the galaxy system in GEAR undergoes a significantly prolonged coalescence stage (compared to other codes) during the target merg… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    G., Navarro, J

    Abadi, M. G., Navarro, J. F., Steinmetz, M., & Eke, V. R. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 597, 21, doi: 10.1086/378316

    doi:10.1086/378316 2003

  2. [2]

    T., et al

    Almaini, O., Wild, V., Maltby, D. T., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 472, 1401, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1957

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1957 2017

  3. [3]

    Barrow, K. S. S., Nguyen, T. H., & Skrabacz, E. 2026a, The Astrophysical Journal, 999, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2eb4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2eb4

  4. [4]

    Barrow, K. S. S., Nguyen, T. H., Roca-Fàbrega, S., et al. 2026b, The AGORA High-resolution Galaxy Simulations Comparison Project. XI: Solving the Non-Spherical Morphology and Evolution of Dark Matter Halos with Haskap Pie, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.24097

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.24097

  5. [5]

    F., D’Souza, R., Valluri, M., & Gozman, K

    Bell, E. F., D’Souza, R., Valluri, M., & Gozman, K. 2026, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 9, doi: 10.33232/001c.161450

    doi:10.33232/001c.161450 2026

  6. [6]

    L., Norman, M

    Bryan, G. L., Norman, M. L., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 211, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/19

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/19 2014

  7. [7]

    J., & H¨ außler, B

    Buitrago, F., Trujillo, I., Conselice, C. J., & H¨ außler, B. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 428, 1460, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts124

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts124 2013

  8. [8]

    Primack, J. R. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 384, 94, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12601.x

    arXiv 2008

  9. [9]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 438, 1870, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2331

    Dekel, A., & Burkert, A. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 438, 1870, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2331

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2331 2014

  10. [10]

    L., & Ferreira, L

    Ellison, S. L., & Ferreira, L. 2026, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 9, doi: 10.33232/001c.161257 23

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.161257 2026

  11. [11]

    French, K. D. 2021, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 133, 072001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac0a59

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac0a59 2021

  12. [12]

    2026, Galaxies, 14, 14, doi: 10.3390/galaxies14020014

    Granizo, P., Oku, Y., & Nagamine, K. 2026, Galaxies, 14, 14, doi: 10.3390/galaxies14020014

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies14020014 2026

  13. [13]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 746, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/125

    Haardt, F., & Madau, P. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 746, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/125

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/2/125 2012

  14. [14]

    2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 415, 2101, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x

    Hahn, O., & Abel, T. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 415, 2101, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x

    arXiv 2011

  15. [15]

    B., et al

    Hammer, F., Flores, H., Yang, Y. B., et al. 2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 496, 381, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810488

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810488 2009

  16. [16]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 208, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19

    Hinshaw, G., Larson, D., Komatsu, E., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 208, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19 2013

  17. [17]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 53, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv195

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv195 2015

  18. [18]

    F., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Cox, T. J., Younger, J. D., & Hernquist, L. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 691, 1168, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1168

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/691/2/1168 2009

  19. [19]

    F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., & Keres, D. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 175, 356, doi: 10.1086/524362

    doi:10.1086/524362 2008

  20. [20]

    F., Bundy, K., Croton, D., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Bundy, K., Croton, D., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 715, 202, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/1/202

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/715/1/202 2010

  21. [21]

    Hubble, E. P. 1926, The Astrophysical Journal, 64, 321, doi: 10.1086/143018

    doi:10.1086/143018 1926

  22. [22]

    V., & Quinn, T

    Jetley, P., Gioachin, F., Mendes, C., Kale, L. V., & Quinn, T. 2008, in 2008 IEEE International Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing (Miami, FL, USA: IEEE), 1–12, doi: 10.1109/IPDPS.2008.4536319

    arXiv 2008

  23. [23]

    Quinn, T. R. 2010, in Proceedings of the 2010 ACM/IEEE International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and

    2010

  24. [24]

    Analysis, SC ’10 (USA: IEEE Computer Society), 1–11, doi: 10.1109/SC.2010.49

    doi:10.1109/sc.2010.49 2010

  25. [25]

    D., Pontzen, A., Agertz, O., et al

    Joshi, G. D., Pontzen, A., Agertz, O., et al. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 537, 3792, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf276

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf276 2025

  26. [26]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 964, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad245b

    Jung, M., Roca-Fàbrega, S., Kim, J.-H., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 964, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad245b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad245b 2024

  27. [27]

    H., et al

    Jung, M., Kim, J.-h., Nguyen, T. H., et al. 2025, The AGORA High-resolution Galaxy Simulations Comparison Project. VIII: Disk Formation and Evolution of Simulated Milky Way Mass Galaxy Progenitors at $1, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.05720

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.05720 2025

  28. [28]

    2026, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 548, stag551, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag551

    Kajisawa, M. 2026, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 548, stag551, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag551

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stag551 2026

  29. [29]

    V., Fontanot, F., et al

    Kannan, R., Macciò, A. V., Fontanot, F., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 452, 4347, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1633

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1633 2015

  30. [30]

    W., Wadsley, J., Benincasa, S

    Keller, B. W., Wadsley, J., Benincasa, S. M., & Couchman, H. M. P. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 442, 3013, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1058

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1058 2014

  31. [31]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 210, 14, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/210/1/14

    Kim, J.-h., Abel, T., Agertz, O., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 210, 14, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/210/1/14

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/210/1/14 2013

  32. [32]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 833, 202, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/202

    Kim, J.-h., Agertz, O., Teyssier, R., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 833, 202, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/202

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/202 2016

  33. [33]

    M., Dunkley, J., et al

    Komatsu, E., Smith, K. M., Dunkley, J., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 192, 18, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/18

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/18 2011

  34. [34]

    V., Klypin, A

    Kravtsov, A. V., Klypin, A. A., & Khokhlov, A. M. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 111, 73, doi: 10.1086/313015

    doi:10.1086/313015 1997

  35. [35]

    2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 541, 2304, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf947

    Liang, J., Jiang, F., Mo, H., et al. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 541, 2304, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf947

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf947 2025

  36. [36]

    M., Jonsson, P., Cox, T

    Lotz, J. M., Jonsson, P., Cox, T. J., & Primack, J. R. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 391, 1137, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14004.x

    arXiv 2008

  37. [37]

    1967, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 136, 101, doi: 10.1093/mnras/136.1.101

    Lynden-Bell, D. 1967, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 136, 101, doi: 10.1093/mnras/136.1.101

    doi:10.1093/mnras/136.1.101 1967

  38. [38]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 2266, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1936

    Pichon, C. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 2266, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1936

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1936 2018

  39. [39]

    T., Simard, L., Ellison, S

    Mendel, J. T., Simard, L., Ellison, S. L., & Patton, D. R. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 429, 2212, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts489

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts489 2013

  40. [40]

    2015, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 2, 1, doi: 10.1186/s40668-015-0007-9

    Menon, H., Wesolowski, L., Zheng, G., et al. 2015, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 2, 1, doi: 10.1186/s40668-015-0007-9

    doi:10.1186/s40668-015-0007-9 2015

  41. [41]

    J., Hartley, W

    Mortlock, A., Conselice, C. J., Hartley, W. G., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 433, 1185, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt793

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt793 2013

  42. [42]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 914, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfa16

    Nagamine, K., Shimizu, I., Fujita, K., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 914, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfa16

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfa16 2021

  43. [43]

    M., Lanz, L., Nader, C., & Helou, G

    Ogle, P. M., Lanz, L., Nader, C., & Helou, G. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 817, 109, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/109 24

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/817/2/109 2016

  44. [44]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 975, 183, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad77d3

    Oku, Y., & Nagamine, K. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 975, 183, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad77d3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad77d3 2024

  45. [45]

    B., et al

    Pallero, D., Galaz, G., Tissera, P. B., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 699, A376, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554509

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554509 2025

  46. [46]

    L., & Athanassoula, E

    Peschken, N., Lokas, E. L., & Athanassoula, E. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 1375, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa299

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa299 2020

  47. [47]

    Johansson, P. H. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 444, 942, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1434

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1434 2014

  48. [48]

    D., Hogg, D

    Quintero, A. D., Hogg, D. W., Blanton, M. R., et al. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 602, 190, doi: 10.1086/380601

    doi:10.1086/380601 2004

  49. [49]

    2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 538, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117402

    Revaz, Y., & Jablonka, P. 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 538, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117402

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117402 2012

  50. [50]

    P., Agertz, O., Starkenburg, T

    Rey, M. P., Agertz, O., Starkenburg, T. K., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 521, 995, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad513 Roca-Fàbrega, S., Kim, J.-h., Hausammann, L., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 917, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac088a Roca-Fàbrega, S., Kim, J.-H., Primack, J. R., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 9...

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad513 2023

  51. [51]

    V., Genel, S., et al

    Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Sales, L. V., Genel, S., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 467, 3083, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx305

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx305 2017

  52. [52]

    Romano, L. E. C., Nagamine, K., & Hirashita, H. 2022a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 1441, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1385 —. 2022b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 1461, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1386

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1385

  53. [53]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 11, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3034

    Rosdahl, J., Schaye, J., Dubois, Y., Kimm, T., & Teyssier, R. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 11, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3034

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3034 2017

  54. [54]

    Roth, N., Pontzen, A., & Peiris, H. V. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 455, 974, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2375

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2375 2016

  55. [55]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 919, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0f7f

    Sazonova, E., Alatalo, K., Rowlands, K., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 919, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0f7f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0f7f 2021

  56. [56]

    J., Verrico, M., Bezanson, R., et al

    Setton, D. J., Verrico, M., Bezanson, R., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 931, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6096

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6096 2022

  57. [57]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 2632, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz098

    Shimizu, I., Todoroki, K., Yajima, H., & Nagamine, K. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 2632, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz098

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz098 2019

  58. [58]

    D., Bryan, G

    Smith, B. D., Bryan, G. L., Glover, S. C. O., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 2217, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3291

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3291 2017

  59. [59]

    2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 364, 1105, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x —

    Springel, V. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 364, 1105, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x —. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    arXiv 2005

  60. [60]

    2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 622, L9, doi: 10.1086/429486

    Springel, V., & Hernquist, L. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 622, L9, doi: 10.1086/429486

    doi:10.1086/429486 2005

  61. [61]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 506, 2871, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1855

    Springel, V., Pakmor, R., Zier, O., & Reinecke, M. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 506, 2871, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1855

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1855 2021

  62. [62]

    R., et al

    Strawn, C., Roca-Fàbrega, S., Primack, J. R., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 962, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad12cb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad12cb 2024

  63. [63]

    2002, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 385, 337, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011817

    Teyssier, R. 2002, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 385, 337, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011817

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20011817 2002

  64. [64]

    D., Ellison, S

    Thorp, M. D., Ellison, S. L., & Galicia, A. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 690, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451662

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451662 2024

  65. [65]

    S., et al

    Ueda, J., Iono, D., Yun, M. S., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 214, 1, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/214/1/1

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/214/1/1 2014

  66. [66]

    E., Setton, D

    Verrico, M. E., Setton, D. J., Bezanson, R., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 949, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc38b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc38b 2023

  67. [67]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 248, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab908c

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V., & Pakmor, R. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 248, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab908c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab908c 2020

  68. [68]

    E., Kriek, M., Van Dokkum, P

    Whitaker, K. E., Kriek, M., Van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 745, 179, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/179

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/745/2/179 2012

  69. [69]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 433, 2986, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt941

    Monaco, P. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 433, 2986, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt941

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt941 2013