The impact of ram pressure on cluster galaxies, insights from GAEA and TNG

Fabio Fontanot; Gabriella De Lucia; Lizhi Xie; Matteo Fossati; Michaela Hirschmann

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The impact of ram pressure on cluster galaxies, insights from GAEA and TNG

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Most cluster galaxies keep their gas after first close pass

desk verdict A useful, mostly honest model comparison that overstates the TNG/GAEA agreement because the TNG binding pressure is computed with hot gas included; still deserves peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.12863 v1 pith:YKKBB34U submitted 2025-04-17 astro-ph.GA

Lizhi Xie , Gabriella De Lucia , Matteo Fossati , Fabio Fontanot , Michaela Hirschmann This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GA

keywords galaxies:evolutionstarformationISMinteractionshaloesrampressurestrippinggalaxyclusterssatellitegalaxies

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

Satellite galaxies falling into massive cluster halos are often assumed to lose their cold gas in one decisive event at first closest approach. This paper tests that assumption using two independent modeling techniques, the semi-analytic model GAEA and the hydrodynamical simulation TNG, by following galaxy orbits from $2.5R_{\rm vir}$ through the first pericentric passage. The authors compare the ram pressure felt along each orbit with the gravitational pressure binding each galaxy's gas disk, and divide the cluster phase-space diagram into strong, moderate, weak, and no stripping zones. They find that in Virgo-like halos about half of low-mass galaxies never enter the strong stripping zone during their first passage, while in Coma-like halos almost all low-mass galaxies do; galaxies above $10^{10} M_\odot$ retain some gas even there. The conclusion is that the first pericenter is not a universal gas-removal event for cluster galaxies, and rapid stripping in some cosmological simulations may be artificially strong.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing comparison is between ram pressure, $P_{\rm ram} = \rho_{\rm ICM} v^2$ (Gunn–Gott), and the gravitational binding pressure of the gas disk, $P_{\rm grav}(r) = 2\pi G \Sigma_{gs}(<r)\,\Sigma_g(r)$ in GAEA's exponential-disk approximation and a cell-based equivalent in TNG. Binding pressure profiles fix the thresholds that define the stripping zones: $10^{-10.5}$, $10^{-12}$, and $10^{-13.5}\,\mathrm{g\,cm^{-1}s^{-2}}$, corresponding roughly to strong, moderate, and weak stripping. These thresholds become separating lines in the phase-space diagram (normalized cluster-centric distance versus relative velocity), fitted as functions of redshift and final halo mass. Galaxy orbits are interpolated to 0.02 Gyr resolution and overlaid on these zones; the time each galaxy spends with ram pressure above each threshold, from infall at $2.5 R_{\rm vir}$ to first apocenter, is the quantity that carries the argument.

What would settle it

Measure gravitational restoring pressure profiles for a sample of resolved cluster galaxies in a Virgo-like cluster and compare them with the ram pressure implied by each galaxy's phase-space position; if typical central restoring pressures fall below $10^{-10.5}\,\mathrm{g\,cm^{-1}s^{-2}}$ for low-mass galaxies, the strong-stripping fraction would be much higher than the paper's roughly-half estimate. Equivalently, an HI census of recently accreted cluster members selected from phase space should show about half retaining a substantial gas reservoir if the claim is right, and nearly universal HI deficiency would falsify it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that ram pressure during the first pericentric passage removes a significant fraction of cold gas only from galaxies with $\log M_\star/M_\odot < 9.5$ in halos with $\log M_h/M_\odot > 15$. In the more common Virgo-like halos ($\log M_h/M_\odot \sim 14$), about half of low-mass galaxies do not experience strong ram pressure at all during that passage, and typical low-mass satellites retain at least 10 percent of their cold gas afterward. The claim is built by estimating gravitational binding pressure profiles of model disks, translating three characteristic pressures ($10^{-10.5}$, $10^{-12}$, $10^{-13.5}\,\mathrm{g\,cm^{-1}s^{-2}}$) into retained gas fractions, and mapping those thresholds onto the phase-space diagram. Orbital tracks from $2.5R_{\rm vir}$ to the first apocenter then show how long galaxies spend in each zone; GAEA and TNG agree that the strong zone is usually avoided in Virgo-like halos and reached by nearly all galaxies in Coma-like halos. Although TNG central galaxies show higher binding pressures at large radii, TNG cluster galaxies are still gas-poorer, which the authors attribute to artificially enhanced ram pressure in the hydrodynamical run. The authors conclude that most cluster galaxies keep a notable gas reservoir and continue forming stars after the first passage.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim assumes that the gravitational binding pressures computed from the modeled gas and stellar disks, which ignore dark matter and black hole gravity, are close to the real restoring forces holding gas in cluster galaxies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In Virgo-like clusters, about half of low-mass galaxies are never strongly stripped on first passage, so HI-poor galaxies and jellyfish morphologies should be rarer among first-infall systems than among older, repeatedly stripped satellites.
In Coma-like clusters, low-mass galaxies are almost all stripped of their cold gas, but galaxies with $\log M_\star/M_\odot > 10$ keep 10–20 percent of their central gas, meaning first-passage ram pressure alone cannot fully quench them.
Because most first-passage stripping is moderate rather than strong, the finite (roughly gigayear) stripping timescale matters: galaxies spend only about 400 Myr in the strong zone, too short for complete removal.
The agreement of GAEA and TNG on orbits and ram-pressure distribution implies that the remaining difference between their gas contents lies mostly in how efficiently hydrodynamics removes stripped gas, not in the pressure exerted.
The fitted phase-space zone boundaries give a direct way to classify a galaxy's expected stripping state from its projected radius, velocity, cluster mass, and redshift.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable extension: if the first passage rarely empties a galaxy's gas, resolved HI or CO observations of a Virgo-like cluster should find that galaxies on first-infall orbits retain substantial gas, with jellyfish tails concentrated among orbits that dive into the strong zone.
The paper's interpretation of the TNG discrepancy implies that numerical mixing of interstellar and intracluster gas, plus resolution-limited feedback, inflates stripping in hydrodynamical runs; rerunning such simulations with finer gas resolution or gentler feedback is a concrete way to see whether retained fractions move toward the GAEA values.
The phase-space zone fits could be applied to survey data to build predicted ram-pressure maps of clusters and compare them with observed star-forming fractions as a function of phase-space position, extending the model-only analysis to observations.
If most galaxies keep dense central gas, star formation should persist in central disks even while outer HI is removed; resolved molecular-gas observations of recently accreted cluster members would provide a direct check.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the paper makes a specific, quantitative claim—about half of Virgo-like cluster galaxies avoid strong ram-pressure stripping on first pericenter—and backs it up with a two-model comparison and useful phase-space fits. That claim is plausible and worth taking seriously. But the two-model consistency is not as clean as the paper presents, because the TNG binding pressure is computed differently from GAEA's, and the gap is used to dismiss TNG's stronger stripping.

What is genuinely new: the phase-space zone fits (Eqs. 4-6), which let you read off strong/moderate/weak/no RPS zones as a function of redshift and halo mass; and the explicit test of a simplified ram-pressure estimator against TNG's gas-cell calculation (Fig. 4). The authors are also careful in places—they check orbital interpolation convergence (Appendix A), they acknowledge orphan galaxy caveats, and they present the retained fractions as lower limits. The GAEA result alone is a solid model prediction that contradicts several hydro-simulation studies, and the observational comparisons to Boselli et al. and Wang et al. are appropriate.

Where it gets soft. First, the strong/moderate/weak thresholds are defined from GAEA's own binding pressure, then used to compute the retained fractions and to bin the phase space. That is partly circular, though the authors do offer the TNG comparison and observed gas disk radii as external checks. Second, and more serious: the TNG binding pressure in Fig. 1 includes hot gas in the gravitating mass, while GAEA's does not. The TNG calculation explicitly projects 'gas (including hot and cold gas)' and Eq. 3 uses total gas plus stars within radius r. Hot gas is diffuse and vertically extended, so including it inflates the restoring pressure at large radii—exactly where TNG profiles rise above GAEA. The paper uses that gap to argue TNG's more efficient stripping is a numerical artifact. If you redo TNG with cold gas only, the gap might shrink or flip, and then TNG would be gas-poorer because its baryonic restoring pressure is genuinely lower, not because RPS is artificially enhanced. That weakens the 'independent support' from TNG, though it doesn't erase it: TNG phase-space ram pressures still show ~40% of galaxies avoiding the strong zone even with the GAEA-derived threshold.

Bottom line: the GAEA-based result and the phase-space fits are worth publishing, and the authors are honest about assumptions. The referee should ask for a TNG binding pressure calculation excluding hot gas, and for a sensitivity test of the zone thresholds. I'd send this to peer review; with those two additions it could be solid.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses the semi-analytic model GAEA and the Illustris TNG simulation to ask whether cluster galaxies are strongly ram-pressure stripped during their first pericentric passage. The authors compute gravitational binding pressure profiles for galaxies in three stellar mass bins at z~0.5 and z~1, derive retained cold-gas fractions as a function of ram pressure from GAEA alone, and use these to define strong, moderate, weak, and no RPS zones in cluster phase space, with analytic fits for the zone boundaries (Eqs. 4-6). Tracing satellite orbits from 2.5 Rvir to the first apocenter, they measure how long galaxies spend in each RPS zone. Their main conclusion is that in Virgo-like halos a large fraction of low-mass galaxies avoid strong RPS during the first passage in both GAEA and TNG, while in Coma-like halos strong RPS can strip low-mass galaxies but more massive galaxies retain 10-20% of their gas. They argue that the consistency between GAEA and TNG supports the view that hydrodynamical simulations may artificially enhance ram-pressure stripping.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the paper is a useful counterweight to previous cosmological hydrodynamical-simulation studies that predict near-total gas removal at the first pericenter, and the analytic phase-space RPS-zone fits could be valuable for interpreting observational phase-space diagrams. The paper has concrete strengths: it validates the simplified ram-pressure calculation against a direct gas-cell method in TNG (Section 3.2, Fig. 4), tests the convergence of pericenter/apocenter measurements from interpolated orbits (Appendix A), and draws on two independent modeling techniques. However, the quantitative center of the paper is carried by GAEA: the retained-fraction curves are computed only from GAEA, and the RPS thresholds are calibrated using GAEA's gravitational binding pressure. The TNG comparison is currently qualitative and, as discussed below, is affected by an inconsistency in the way the binding pressure is computed in the two models. The central claim is plausible but needs a stronger and more consistent cross-model test before it can be regarded as robust.

major comments (2)

[Sec. 3.1, Eq. (1) and Sec. 4] The comparison of gravitational binding pressures between GAEA and TNG in Fig. 1 is not apples-to-apples. For GAEA, Eq. (1) is evaluated with Sigma_gs being the surface density of cold gas plus stars, whereas for TNG the text states that the projected surface density includes "gas (including hot and cold gas)" within radius r, and Eq. (3) uses the total gas plus stellar mass within r. Hot gas is diffuse and vertically extended, so including it in a thin-disk restoring-pressure formula inflates Pgrav at large radii, which is exactly where the TNG profiles are reported to be higher than GAEA in Fig. 1. This matters because Section 4 uses the combination of higher TNG Pgrav and gas-poorer TNG galaxies to argue that RPS in TNG is artificially enhanced and that GAEA's longer stripping timescales are preferred. If the TNG/GAEA gap is largely due to this component mismatch, that argument collapses and the paper loses the independent TNG support claimed in the abstract. I ask the authors to recompute the TNG Pgrav with a definition consistent with the GAEA calculation (for example, excluding hot gas from the gravitating surface density), or to demonstrate explicitly that the hot-gas contribution is negligible, and then to re-evaluate the Section 4 reasoning.
[Secs. 3.1-3.3, Figs. 2 and 7] The RPS-zone thresholds ("strong log Pram > -10.5," "moderate -12 < log Pram < -10.5," etc.) are derived from GAEA's gravitational binding pressure profiles in Fig. 2, and the same thresholds are then used to classify first-passage orbits and to measure the time spent in each zone for both GAEA and TNG in Section 3.3 (Figs. 5-7). This is partially circular for GAEA and inconsistent for TNG, whose own Pgrav differs from GAEA's (Fig. 1). The headline claim that a substantial fraction of galaxies in Virgo-like halos did not suffer strong RPS in both GAEA and TNG therefore depends on thresholds calibrated with a single model. The retained-fraction curves, which are the physical basis for these thresholds, are also computed only from GAEA. I recommend that the authors quantify the sensitivity of the zone fractions to the assumed thresholds (for example, by varying log Pram by +/-0.5 dex) or, preferably, compute the strong-RPS fraction for TNG using TNG-specific Pgrav profiles and retained fractions. If the conclusion survives such a test, it should be stated with the new quantitative support.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. 2.1 and Sec. 4] There are several typos: "semi-analtyic" in the Section 2.1 heading and "hydro-simulation simulation TNG" in the first paragraph of Section 4 should be corrected.
[Sec. 3.1] The phrase "within the r brand radius r90" after Eq. (1) appears garbled; please clarify whether "break radius" or "r-band radius" is intended.
[Sec. 3.2 and Sec. 3.3] The text refers to "Equation: 6" and "Eqn 6" but the zone fits are given by Eqs. (4)-(6); please correct the references and state the redshift and halo-mass range over which these fits are valid.
[Sec. 3.2] The claim that GAEA and TNG phase-space ram-pressure distributions are "consistent" is not supported by a direct quantitative comparison; Fig. 3 shows GAEA and Fig. 4 shows TNG separately. An overlay or a statistical comparison of the two maps would strengthen the claim.
[Sec. 3.3] The statement that "more massive galaxies have similar orbits as lower-mass ones" is not shown or quantified; a figure or a brief quantitative statement would make this assertion easier to verify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: RPS thresholds are transparent model calibrations, and the orbital ram-pressure distributions are independently measured inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The gravitational binding pressure profiles are computed from GAEA disk models (Eq. 1) under explicit assumptions (exponential disks, instantaneous stripping when P_ram exceeds P_grav), and these profiles set the 'strong/moderate/weak/none' thresholds. The central result, however, is the independently computed orbital ram-pressure distribution for galaxies traced from 2.5 R_vir to the first apocenter in GAEA and TNG; the claim that about half of Virgo-like galaxies do not enter the strong-RPS zone follows from comparing that measured orbital P_ram distribution with the fixed, previously defined threshold, not from fitting the threshold to the same orbital data. The retained-fraction curve in Fig. 2 is a stated model calculation, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The TNG comparison is also not circular: TNG ram pressures are derived separately from TNG gas cells and group catalogues, and the paper explicitly tests its simplified SIS procedure against a gas-cell-based method (Fig. 4). Self-citations to Xie et al. (2020) and other GAEA papers describe the model and its prior validation, but the load-bearing orbital and pressure calculations in this paper are performed here from the simulations' outputs, with additional external checks against observational ram-pressure estimates from Wang et al. (2021), Boselli et al. (2022), and Jaffe et al. (2018). The possible apples-to-oranges issue of including hot gas in the TNG projected surface density is a systematic-comparison concern, not a circularity, because the conclusion does not reduce to that comparison by construction. Overall, no step in the derivation is equivalent to its own input by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the modeled gravitational binding pressure of galaxies and on the assumed ICM density distribution. These are reasonable astrophysical assumptions, but they are model-based rather than measured. The only additionalfree parameters are the fitted coefficients of the phase-space zone boundaries. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)

Phase-space RPS zone boundary fits (Eqs. 4 to 6) = Slope and intercept for each boundary as functions of redshift z and host halo mass log Mh,0
These coefficients are fitted to the GAEA phase-space ram pressure distributions and are then used to classify all galaxies in both GAEA and TNG into RPS zones. Errors in these fits would directly change the strong/moderate/weak classifications.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The ICM density follows a singular isothermal sphere profile (Section 2.4.1).
Used to compute ram pressure from Equation 2; assumes the hot gas mass is distributed as 1/r^2 out to the virial radius.
domain assumption The relative velocity of the galaxy with respect to the ICM equals its relative velocity to the central galaxy (Section 2.4.1).
Simplifies the Gunn-Gott ram pressure formula; the TNG gas-cell comparison (Fig. 4) shows that this is a reasonable approximation on average.
domain assumption Stellar and cold gas disks follow exponential density profiles (Section 2.4.1).
Used to compute the gravitational binding pressure in Eq. 1 for GAEA; not valid for all TNG galaxies, which is why TNG is handled differently.
domain assumption Gas at a given radius is stripped instantaneously when ram pressure exceeds the local gravitational binding pressure (Section 3.1).
Used to convert Pgrav profiles into retained fractions; the authors note this is an upper limit on stripping efficiency and therefore conservative for the conclusion that galaxies retain gas.
domain assumption Gravitational binding pressure calculated without dark matter and black hole gravity is a lower limit on the true binding pressure (Section 2.4.2).
Both GAEA and TNG Pgrav estimates omit these components, so the ram pressure required for stripping may be underestimated.
domain assumption The difference in gas content between TNG and GAEA cluster galaxies is caused by artificially enhanced RPS in TNG (Section 4).
This attribution is used to argue that GAEA's longer quenching timescales are preferable; it is plausible but not demonstrated in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The impact of ram pressure on cluster galaxies, insights from GAEA and TNG." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YKKBB34U

@misc{pith2026250412863,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The impact of ram pressure on cluster galaxies, insights from GAEA and TNG},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YKKBB34U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12863}
}

abstract

Ram pressure stripping (RPS) has a non-negligible impact on the gas content of cluster galaxies. We use the semi-analytic model GAEA and the hydro-simulation TNG to investigate whether cluster galaxies suffer a strong RPS that is sufficient to remove a significant fraction of their gas during the first pericentric passage. We estimate that a ram pressure of $10^{-10.5}$, $10^{-12} $, $10^{-13.5} $ $g cm^{-1} s^{-2}$ can remove at most $90\%$, $50\%$, and $20\%$ of the cold gas reservoir from low-mass galaxies with $9<\log M_{\star}/{\rm M}_{\odot} <9.5$, assuming the gas can be stripped instantaneously. We then use this information to divide the phase space diagram into `strong', `moderate', `weak', and `no' RPS zones. By tracing the orbit of galaxies since $2.5R_{vir}$, we find in both GAEA and TNG that about half of the galaxies in Virgo-like halos ($\log M_h / M_{\odot} \sim 14 $) did not suffer strong RPS during the first pericentric passage. In Coma-like halos ($\log M_h / M_{\odot} \sim 15$), almost all galaxies have suffered strong RPS during the first pericentric passage, which can remove all gas from low-mass galaxies but is insufficient to significantly reduce the gas content of more massive galaxies. In general, results from TNG and GAEA are consistent, with the RPS being only slightly stronger in TNG than in GAEA. Our findings suggest that most cluster galaxies will maintain a notable fraction of their gas and continue forming stars after the first pericentric passage, except for those with low stellar mass ($\log M_{\star}/{\rm M}_{\odot} <9.5$) in very massive halos ($\log M_{h}/{\rm M}_{\odot} > 15$).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.12863 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The retained gas fraction as a function of ram pressure. Colours and lines are the same as in Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The median ram-pressure distributions around progenitors of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The RP distribution in phase-space around cluster halos from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The orbit of galaxies (9 < log M⋆/M⊙ < 9.5) falling onto the z = 0 cluster halos at redshift 1 < z < 2 and 0.5 < z < 1. Red, pink, light blue, and blue shaded regions mark the strong, moderate, weak, and no RPS zones at z ∼ 0.5. The left and right panels show the orbit…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The median ram pressure on satellite galaxies with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Fraction of galaxies that have spent less than a given time in various RPS zones during the first passage of their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Star formation powers optical line emission from the CGM
astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The H-alpha/[OII]/[OIII] brightness of the inner circumgalactic medium of 72 MaNGA galaxies correlates with star formation rate, not stellar mass, indicating escaping ionizing photons from star formation power the glow.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

A New Method to Quantify Environment and Model Ram-Pressure Stripping in N-Body Simulations

Ayromlou, M., Nelson, D., Yates, R. M., Kauffmann, G., & White, S. D. M. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1903.01988 Bah´ e, Y. M., Barnes, D. J., Dalla Vecchia, C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4186 Bah´ e, Y. M., McCarthy, I. G., Balogh, M. L., & Font, A. S. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 3017

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[2]

Balogh, M. L. & Morris, S. L. 2000, MNRAS, 318, 703

work page 2000
[3]

M., Jaff´ e, Y., et al

Biviano, A., Poggianti, B. M., Jaff´ e, Y., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 117

work page 2024
[4]

C., Fossati, M., et al

Boselli, A., Cuillandre, J. C., Fossati, M., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A68

work page 2016
[5]

2022, A&A Rev., 30, 3

Boselli, A., Fossati, M., & Sun, M. 2022, A&A Rev., 30, 3

2022
[6]

2017, MNRAS, 466, 1275 Br¨uggen, M

Brown, T., Catinella, B., Cortese, L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 1275 Br¨uggen, M. & De Lucia, G. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 1336

work page 2017
[7]

2024, MNRAS, 528, 2451

Chen, H., Xie, L., Wang, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 2451

work page 2024
[8]

H., Kenney, J

Chung, A., van Gorkom, J. H., Kenney, J. D. P., & Vollmer, B. 2007, ApJ, 659, L115

work page 2007

Show all 72 references

[9]

A., Vega-Mart´ ınez, C

Cora, S. A., Vega-Mart´ ınez, C. A., Hough, T., et al. 2018, ArXiv e- prints [arXiv:1801.03883]

2018 arXiv
[10]

2012, A&A, 544, A101

Cortese, L., Boissier, S., Boselli, A., et al. 2012, A&A, 544, A101

2012
[11]

2021, PASA, 38, e035

Cortese, L., Catinella, B., & Smith, R. 2021, PASA, 38, e035

2021
[12]

S., & White, S

Davis, M., Efstathiou, G., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1985, ApJ, 292, 371 De Lucia, G. & Blaizot, J. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 2 De Lucia, G., Fontanot, F., Xie, L., & Hirschmann, M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.06211 De Lucia, G., Tornatore, L., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2014, MN...

1985 arXiv
[13]

Diemer, B., Stevens, A. R. H., Lagos, C. d. P., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 1529

2019
[14]

2021, MNRAS, 506, 4760

Donnari, M., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 4760

2021
[15]

1980, ApJ, 236, 351

Dressler, A. 1980, ApJ, 236, 351

1980
[16]

2020, MNRAS, 496, 3943

Fontanot, F., De Lucia, G., Hirschmann, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 3943

2020
[17]

2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.02194

Fontanot, F., De Lucia, G., Xie, L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.02194

2024 arXiv
[18]

2013, A&A, 553, A91

Fossati, M., Gavazzi, G., Savorgnan, G., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A91

2013
[19]

2005, A&A, 429, 439

Gavazzi, G., Boselli, A., van Driel, W., & O’Neil, K. 2005, A&A, 429, 439

2005
[20]

L., Boselli, A., & Yoshida, M

Gavazzi, G., Consolandi, G., Gutierrez, M. L., Boselli, A., & Yoshida, M. 2018, A&A, 618, A130

2018
[21]

& Haynes, M

Giovanelli, R. & Haynes, M. P. 1985, ApJ, 292, 404

1985
[22]

Gunn, J. E. & Gott, III, J. R. 1972, ApJ, 176, 1

1972
[23]

P., Giovanelli, R., & Chincarini, G

Haynes, M. P., Giovanelli, R., & Chincarini, G. L. 1984, Annual Re- view of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 445

1984
[24]

2016, MNRAS, 461, 1760 J´ achym, P., K¨oppen, J., Palouˇ s, J., & Combes, F

Hirschmann, M., De Lucia, G., & Fontanot, F. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1760 J´ achym, P., K¨oppen, J., Palouˇ s, J., & Combes, F. 2009, A&A, 500, 693 Jaff´ e, Y. L., Poggianti, B. M., Moretti, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 4753 Jaff´ e, Y. L., Smith, R., Candlish, G. N., et al. 2015, M...

2016
[25]

L., Choi, H., Wong, O

Jung, S. L., Choi, H., Wong, O. I., et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, 156 K¨oppen, J., J´ achym, P., Taylor, R., & Palouˇ s, J. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 4367

2018
[26]

S., Staveley-Smith, L., Westmeier, T., et al

Koribalski, B. S., Staveley-Smith, L., Westmeier, T., et al. 2020, Ap&SS, 365, 118

2020
[27]

L., McCarthy, I

Kukstas, E., Balogh, M. L., McCarthy, I. G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 4782

2023
[28]

2023, ApJ, 954, 177

Kulier, A., Poggianti, B., Tonnesen, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 177

2023
[29]

B., Tinsley, B

Larson, R. B., Tinsley, B. M., & Caldwell, C. N. 1980, ApJ, 237, 692

1980
[30]

2019, MNRAS[arXiv:1810.02382]

Lotz, M., Remus, R.-S., Dolag, K., Biviano, A., & Burkert, A. 2019, MNRAS[arXiv:1810.02382]

2019 arXiv
[31]

H., et al

Luber, N., M ¨uller, A., van Gorkom, J. H., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 39

2022
[32]

A., Schaye, J., et al

Marasco, A., Crain, R. A., Schaye, J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 2630

2016
[33]

2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113

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

2018
[34]

G., Frenk, C

McCarthy, I. G., Frenk, C. S., Font, A. S., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 593

2008
[35]

1983, ApJ, 264, 24

Merritt, D. 1983, ApJ, 264, 24

1983
[36]

R., et al

Mostoghiu, R., Arthur, J., Pearce, F. R., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 5029

2021
[37]

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

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

2018
[38]

2018, MNRAS, 475, 624

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

2018
[39]

A., Bah´ e, Y

Oman, K. A., Bah´ e, Y. M., Healy, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 5073

2021
[40]

Oman, K. A. & Hudson, M. J. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 3083

2016
[41]

2019, MNRAS, 484, 1702

Pasquali, A., Smith, R., Gallazzi, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1702

2019
[42]

L., Louren¸ co, A

Piraino-Cerda, F., Jaff´ e, Y. L., Louren¸ co, A. C., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 919 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2015, ArXiv e-prints [arXiv:1502.01589]

2024 arXiv
[43]

M., Smail, I., Dressler, A., et al

Poggianti, B. M., Smail, I., Dressler, A., et al. 1999, ApJ, 518, 576

1999
[44]

N., Catinella, B., Cortese, L., et al

Reynolds, T. N., Catinella, B., Cortese, L., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 1716

2022
[45]

2017, ApJ, 843, 128

Rhee, J., Smith, R., Choi, H., et al. 2017, ApJ, 843, 128

2017
[46]

D., van Weeren, R

Roberts, I. D., van Weeren, R. J., McGee, S. L., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A153

2021
[47]

2015, MN- RAS, 449, 49

Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Genel, S., Vogelsberger, M., et al. 2015, MN- RAS, 449, 49

2015
[48]

& Br ¨uggen, M

Roediger, E. & Br ¨uggen, M. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 567

2006
[49]

& Br ¨uggen, M

Roediger, E. & Br ¨uggen, M. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 1399

2007
[50]

& Hensler, G

Roediger, E. & Hensler, G. 2005, A&A, 433, 875

2005
[51]

2023, MNRAS, 524, 3502

Rohr, E., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 3502

2023
[52]

2022, ApJ, 927, 189

Shi, J., Peng, Y., Diemer, B., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 189

2022
[53]

N., Verde, L., Peiris, H

Spergel, D. N., Verde, L., Peiris, H. V., et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 175

2003
[54]

2018, MNRAS, 475, 676

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

2018
[55]

Springel, V., White, S. D. M., Jenkins, A., et al. 2005, Nature, 435, 629

2005
[56]

Stevens, A. R. H., Lagos, C. d. P., Contreras, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 2066

2017
[57]

E., Cora, S

Tecce, T. E., Cora, S. A., Tissera, P. B., Abadi, M. G., & Lagos, C. D. P. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 2008

2010
[58]

A., Bell, E

Terrazas, B. A., Bell, E. F., Pillepich, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 1888

2020
[59]

Vollmer, B., Cayatte, V., Balkowski, C., & Duschl, W. J. 2001, ApJ, 561, 708

2001
[60]

2017, ApJ, 837, 126

Vulcani, B., Treu, T., Nipoti, C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 126

2017
[61]

2021, ApJ, 915, 70

Wang, J., Staveley-Smith, L., Westmeier, T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 915, 70

2021
[62]

2020, ApJ, 903, 103

Wang, J., Xu, W., Lee, B., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 103

2020
[63]

2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291

Weinberger, R., Springel, V., Hernquist, L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291

2017
[64]

M., van den Bosch, F

Weinmann, S. M., van den Bosch, F. C., Yang, X., et al. 2006, MN- RAS, 372, 1161

2006
[65]

R., Tinker, J

Wetzel, A. R., Tinker, J. L., & Conroy, C. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 232

2012
[66]

J., Lagos, C

Wright, R. J., Lagos, C. d. P., Power, C., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2205.08414

2022 arXiv
[67]

2024, ApJ, 966, L2

Xie, L., De Lucia, G., Fontanot, F., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, L2

2024
[68]

2020, MNRAS, 498, 4327

Xie, L., De Lucia, G., Hirschmann, M., & Fontanot, F. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 4327

2020
[69]

2017, MNRAS, 469, 968

Xie, L., De Lucia, G., Hirschmann, M., Fontanot, F., & Zoldan, A. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 968

2017
[70]

J., et al

Xie, L., De Lucia, G., Wilman, D. J., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 3812

2018
[71]

L., & Putman, M

Zhu, J., Tonnesen, S., Bryan, G. L., & Putman, M. E. 2024, ApJ, 974, 142

2024
[72]

D., Pillepich, A., Rohr, E., & Nelson, D

Zinger, E., Joshi, G. D., Pillepich, A., Rohr, E., & Nelson, D. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8257 Article number, page 10 of 11 Lizhi Xie et al.: RPS on cluster galaxies 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 t [Gyr] 10 1 100 R/R200 interp dt~0.050 Gyr interp dt~0.080 Gyr interp dt~0.100 Gyr GAEA outputs 10 2...

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A New Method to Quantify Environment and Model Ram-Pressure Stripping in N-Body Simulations

Ayromlou, M., Nelson, D., Yates, R. M., Kauffmann, G., & White, S. D. M. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1903.01988 Bah´ e, Y. M., Barnes, D. J., Dalla Vecchia, C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4186 Bah´ e, Y. M., McCarthy, I. G., Balogh, M. L., & Font, A. S. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 3017

work page Pith review arXiv 2019

[2] [2]

Balogh, M. L. & Morris, S. L. 2000, MNRAS, 318, 703

work page 2000

[3] [3]

M., Jaff´ e, Y., et al

Biviano, A., Poggianti, B. M., Jaff´ e, Y., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 117

work page 2024

[4] [4]

C., Fossati, M., et al

Boselli, A., Cuillandre, J. C., Fossati, M., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A68

work page 2016

[5] [5]

2022, A&A Rev., 30, 3

Boselli, A., Fossati, M., & Sun, M. 2022, A&A Rev., 30, 3

2022

[6] [6]

2017, MNRAS, 466, 1275 Br¨uggen, M

Brown, T., Catinella, B., Cortese, L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 1275 Br¨uggen, M. & De Lucia, G. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 1336

work page 2017

[7] [7]

2024, MNRAS, 528, 2451

Chen, H., Xie, L., Wang, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 2451

work page 2024

[8] [8]

H., Kenney, J

Chung, A., van Gorkom, J. H., Kenney, J. D. P., & Vollmer, B. 2007, ApJ, 659, L115

work page 2007