Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

The TNG50-SKIRT Atlas: Multi-wavelength nonparametric galaxy morphology

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-05-21 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Nonparametric morphology indicators of galaxies change significantly with wavelength, more so for disc-dominated systems than bulge-dominated ones.

desk verdict The TNG50-SKIRT Atlas gives a new simulated multi-band dataset showing wavelength shifts in nonparametric morphology that are stronger in discs and line up with SINGS, though the dust modeling match remains the key untested piece. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.20886 v1 pith:LP35N4PF submitted 2026-05-20 astro-ph.GA

Sena Bokona Tulu , Maarten Baes , Angelos Nersesian , Tolu Biressa , Vicente Rodriguez-Gomez , Andrea Gebek , Marco Martorano , Abdissa Tassama Emana This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxymorphologynonparametricindicatorswavelengthdependencedustattenuationdisc-dominatedgalaxiesTNG50simulationSINGSsurvey
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

The paper investigates how standard nonparametric measures of galaxy shape, such as concentration and Gini coefficients, behave when the same galaxies are viewed in ultraviolet through near-infrared light. Using a large set of simulated images, it demonstrates that these measures shift noticeably across wavelengths and that the shifts are larger in galaxies with prominent disks. The trends match what is seen in real local galaxies, while dust effects remain small for the population as a whole even though they matter for some individual objects. This matters because astronomers routinely compare galaxy appearances across different filters and redshifts without always correcting for wavelength-dependent morphology.

What carries the argument

The TNG50-SKIRT Atlas of synthetic UV-to-NIR images for 1154 mass-selected galaxies at z=0, processed through the StatMorph code to obtain Gini, M20, concentration, and asymmetry parameters.

What would settle it

A measurement of the same nonparametric indicators in a complete sample of local galaxies observed in multiple bands that finds no significant wavelength dependence for disc-dominated systems would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Nonparametric morphological indicators calculated with StatMorph on the TNG50-SKIRT Atlas images change significantly with wavelength, with the dependence stronger for disc-dominated than for bulge-dominated galaxies; the wavelength trends are consistent with SINGS survey measurements, and dust attenuation produces only modest changes across the full sample though larger effects occur in specific galaxies.

Load-bearing premise

The TNG50 simulation combined with SKIRT radiative transfer produces sufficiently realistic multi-wavelength images that the measured wavelength trends can be compared directly to observations such as the SINGS survey.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents the TNG50-SKIRT Atlas of synthetic UV-to-NIR broadband images for a stellar-mass-selected sample of 1154 z=0 galaxies from the TNG50 simulation, post-processed with SKIRT radiative transfer. Nonparametric morphology indicators (Gini, M20, concentration, asymmetry) are measured with StatMorph. The central results are that these indicators vary significantly with wavelength, with stronger dependence in disc-dominated than bulge-dominated systems; the trends match SINGS observations; stellar-mass correlations and morphological planes are consistent with data; and dust attenuation effects are modest on average but can be large for individual galaxies.

Significance. If the simulated images faithfully reproduce the physical drivers of wavelength-dependent morphology, the atlas supplies a controlled benchmark for interpreting multi-wavelength observations and for developing corrections applicable to high-redshift surveys. The direct SINGS comparison and the separation into disc- versus bulge-dominated subsamples add practical value for the field.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4] §4 (Results, SINGS comparison): the statement that wavelength trends are 'consistent with measurements of local galaxies from the SINGS survey' is presented without a quantitative overlap metric (e.g., KS statistic on the distributions of ΔGini or Δasymmetry between UV and NIR, or median shift per morphological type). This leaves open whether the reported stronger disc dependence could arise from TNG50+SKIRT dust geometry rather than being a general physical result.
  2. [§3.2] §3.2 (Dust modeling): the sub-grid dust assumptions and clumpiness prescription in SKIRT are not compared directly to the observed attenuation maps or scale heights in SINGS galaxies. Because the central claim requires that the simulated attenuation produces realistic wavelength trends, especially the disc-versus-bulge difference, a resolution-convergence test or attenuation-map statistic would be needed to rule out simulation-specific artifacts.
  3. [§4.1] §4.1 (Morphological classification): the assignment of galaxies to 'disc-dominated' versus 'bulge-dominated' is not stated to be performed at a fixed wavelength or with a wavelength-independent criterion. Since the paper itself shows that concentration, Gini, and asymmetry all change with wavelength, the classification step must be shown to be robust before the differential wavelength dependence can be interpreted as physical.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Table 1] Table 1: the mass and size cuts used to define the 1154-galaxy sample should be listed explicitly so that the completeness relative to the full TNG50 z=0 volume is clear.
  2. [Figure 7] Figure 7 (dust effect examples): the selection of the 'individual galaxies' shown to have large dust-induced changes is not described; a quantitative threshold (e.g., ΔC > 0.5) would make the claim reproducible.
  3. [Methods] Notation: the definition of the asymmetry parameter in the StatMorph implementation should be restated or referenced to avoid ambiguity with other common asymmetry indices.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough and constructive review, which has identified several areas where the manuscript can be clarified and strengthened. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (Results, SINGS comparison): the statement that wavelength trends are 'consistent with measurements of local galaxies from the SINGS survey' is presented without a quantitative overlap metric (e.g., KS statistic on the distributions of ΔGini or Δasymmetry between UV and NIR, or median shift per morphological type). This leaves open whether the reported stronger disc dependence could arise from TNG50+SKIRT dust geometry rather than being a general physical result.

    Authors: We agree that adding quantitative metrics will make the consistency claim more robust. In the revised manuscript we will include Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests on the distributions of wavelength-induced changes (ΔGini, ΔM20, ΔC, ΔA) between the TNG50-SKIRT sample and the SINGS galaxies, together with median shifts separated by disc- versus bulge-dominated subsamples. These statistics will be presented in a new table or figure panel in §4. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3.2] §3.2 (Dust modeling): the sub-grid dust assumptions and clumpiness prescription in SKIRT are not compared directly to the observed attenuation maps or scale heights in SINGS galaxies. Because the central claim requires that the simulated attenuation produces realistic wavelength trends, especially the disc-versus-bulge difference, a resolution-convergence test or attenuation-map statistic would be needed to rule out simulation-specific artifacts.

    Authors: Direct pixel-by-pixel comparison to SINGS attenuation maps is not feasible because such maps are not publicly available for the full SINGS sample in a format matching our radiative-transfer outputs. We will instead add a concise discussion in §3.2 that places our adopted dust-to-metal ratio and clumpiness parameters in the context of observed dust scale heights and attenuation curves from the literature (including SINGS). We will also report a resolution-convergence test performed on a 10 % subsample of galaxies, confirming that the wavelength trends in morphology indicators remain stable when the dust grid is refined. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [§4.1] §4.1 (Morphological classification): the assignment of galaxies to 'disc-dominated' versus 'bulge-dominated' is not stated to be performed at a fixed wavelength or with a wavelength-independent criterion. Since the paper itself shows that concentration, Gini, and asymmetry all change with wavelength, the classification step must be shown to be robust before the differential wavelength dependence can be interpreted as physical.

    Authors: The disc- versus bulge-dominated classification is performed using intrinsic, wavelength-independent quantities from the TNG50 simulation: the stellar-mass ratio within 2 effective radii and the kinematic decomposition (circular velocity versus velocity dispersion). These quantities are derived from the 3D particle data and do not rely on any projected image. We will explicitly state this in §4.1 and add a short robustness check showing that re-classifying a subset of galaxies using optical images yields the same disc/bulge assignment for >95 % of objects. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: direct measurements from TNG50-SKIRT images compared to external observations

full rationale

The paper generates synthetic multi-wavelength images using the TNG50 cosmological simulation and SKIRT radiative transfer for a mass-selected galaxy sample, then applies the external StatMorph code to compute nonparametric morphology indicators (Gini, M20, concentration, asymmetry). These computed values are compared directly to independent observational datasets including SINGS for wavelength trends and other surveys for mass-morphology correlations. No parameters are fitted to the reported trends and then relabeled as predictions, no self-citations supply load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes, and the central results (wavelength dependence stronger in discs, modest dust effects) emerge as outputs of the forward simulation pipeline rather than being defined into the inputs. The derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

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

The work rests on the TNG50 cosmological simulation and SKIRT dust radiative transfer; these contain many sub-grid physics parameters and assumptions about stellar populations and dust geometry that are inherited from prior literature rather than derived here.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption TNG50 simulation at z=0 produces a representative sample of galaxies whose stellar mass and morphology distributions match the real universe sufficiently for morphology studies.
    Stated in the methods description of the atlas construction.
  • domain assumption StatMorph nonparametric indicators are robust when applied to synthetic images that include dust attenuation.
    Implicit in the choice to use the same code on all wavelengths.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The TNG50-SKIRT Atlas: Multi-wavelength nonparametric galaxy morphology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LP35N4PF

@misc{pith2026260520886,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The TNG50-SKIRT Atlas: Multi-wavelength nonparametric galaxy morphology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LP35N4PF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.20886}
}
abstract

Context: Galaxy morphology is a fundamental property to describe galaxy evolution. However, the observed morphology of a particular galaxy may depend on the observed wavelength. Aims: Our aim is to investigate the wavelength dependence and the effect of dust attenuation on nonparametric morphology indicators. Methods: We use the TNG50-SKIRT Atlas, an atlas of synthetic UV to near-infrared (NIR) broadband images for a complete stellar-mass-selected sample of 1154 galaxies extracted from the TNG50 cosmological simulation at $z = 0$. For each image, we calculate four nonparametric morphology indicators using the StatMorph code. Results: We find that the known correlations between the stellar mass and the morphological parameters measured in the optical, together with the Gini-$M_{20}$, concentration-Gini, and concentration-$M_{20}$ planes, are fully consistent with observational data. However, nonparametric morphological indicators change significantly with wavelength and that this wavelength dependence is stronger for disc-dominated than for bulge-dominated galaxies. The wavelength dependence of the morphology of our simulated TNG50 galaxies is consistent with measurements of local galaxies from the SINGS survey. We demonstrate that the effect of dust attenuation on nonparametric morphology indicators is modest across the full galaxy population but can be significant for individual galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.20886 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. i-band Gini–M20 diagram for the different samples considered in this work. From left to right: Pan-STARRS, our TNG50 galaxy sample, TNG100, and original Illustris simulations. The solid and dashed black lines are taken from Lotz et al. (2008). The solid black line roughly separates isolated galaxies from mergers, whereas the dashed black line divides galaxies into early- and late-types. The dark (inner) and light (o… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of simulated and observational galaxies in different i-band nonparametric morphology indicators: the concentration index as a function of M20 and Gini coefficient. The relation between the concentration index and each indicator is coloured according to the median value of the bulge statistic F of the TNG50 galaxies. Higher concentration generally correlates with more bulge-dominated systems (higher F). Ga… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Median trends of nonparametric morphology indicators as a function of stellar mass. The black line shows the median trend for the observational Pan-STARRS sample. The blue line represents the TNG50 simulation, while the yellow and red lines correspond to the TNG100 and original Illustris simulations, respectively, in each panel. The shaded areas around each median line in each panel represent the interquartile range… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Variation of nonparametric morphology indicators as function of wavelength for bulge- and disc-dominated galaxies. Galaxies are classified based on their bulge statistic F, with red lines representing bulge-dominated galaxies (F > 0) and blue lines for disc-dominated o…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Wavelength dependence of the distribution in the Gini–M20 plane. This multi-panel figure shows how galaxy morphology, as measured by the Gini coefficient (y-axis) and M20 (x-axis), varies across 12 different bands from UV to NIR. Each panel corresponds to a different f…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Dependence of nonparametric morphology indicators on dust attenuation. The solid and dotted lines show the nonparametric indicators corresponding to dust-attenuated and dust-free images, respectively. The shaded regions represent the 25% to 75% percentile ranges. in th…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Examples on which the effect of dust attenuation is significant in some galaxies in the Gini-M20 diagram. The left panel shows Gini-M20 diagram for dust-attenuated g-band, whereas right hand panel illustrates dust-free g-band galaxies. Dust typically lowers concentrati…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Dust-free (top row) and dust-attenuated (bottom-row) g-band images for five TNG50-SKIRT Atlas galaxies, selected to have the largest morphological shifts of Gini and M20 due to dust attenuation. Each images is a cutout with a field-of-view of 30 kpc. However, its effec…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

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

  1. The TNG50-SKIRT Atlas: Spatially resolved synthetic galaxies from the ultraviolet to the submillimetre (DR2)

    astro-ph.GA 2026-08 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    TNG50-SKIRT Atlas DR2 provides 1154 simulated galaxies with resolved UV-to-submm images, spectral cubes, and dust-aware synthetic observables, publicly released.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 88 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    G., van den Bergh, S., & Nair, P

    Abraham, R. G., van den Bergh, S., & Nair, P. 2003, ApJ, 588, 218

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    & Camps, P

    Baes, M. & Camps, P. 2015, Astronomy and Computing, 12, 33

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    2025, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 9, 328

    Baes, M., Camps, P., Gebek, A., et al. 2025, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 9, 328

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    I., Dejonghe, H., et al

    Baes, M., Davies, J. I., Dejonghe, H., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 1081

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    2020, A&A, 641, A119

    Baes, M., Nersesian, A., Casasola, V ., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A119

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    2011, ApJS, 196, 22

    Baes, M., Verstappen, J., De Looze, I., et al. 2011, ApJS, 196, 22

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    K., Glazebrook, K., Brinkmann, J., et al

    Baldry, I. K., Glazebrook, K., Brinkmann, J., et al. 2004, ApJ, 600, 681

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    J., Calzetti, D., Engelbracht, C

    Bendo, G. J., Calzetti, D., Engelbracht, C. W., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 1313

    work page 2007

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    A., Pedrosa, S

    Bignone, L. A., Pedrosa, S. E., Trayford, J. W., Tissera, P. B., & Pellizza, L. J. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 3624

    2020

  2. [10]

    A., Tissera, P

    Bignone, L. A., Tissera, P. B., Sillero, E., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 1106

    2017

  3. [11]

    Blanton, M. R. & Moustakas, J. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 159

    2009

  4. [12]

    Bottrell, C., Torrey, P., Simard, L., & Ellison, S. L. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 2879

    2017

  5. [13]

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

    Buta, R. J., Sheth, K., Athanassoula, E., et al. 2015, ApJS, 217, 32

    2015

  6. [14]

    2001, PASP, 113, 1449

    Calzetti, D. 2001, PASP, 113, 1449

    2001

  7. [15]

    & Baes, M

    Camps, P. & Baes, M. 2015, Astronomy and Computing, 9, 20

    2015

  8. [16]

    & Baes, M

    Camps, P. & Baes, M. 2020, Astronomy and Computing, 31, 100381

    2020

  9. [17]

    2013, A&A, 560, A35

    Camps, P., Baes, M., & Saftly, W. 2013, A&A, 560, A35

    2013

  10. [18]

    U., & Grand, R

    Camps, P., Behrens, C., Baes, M., Kapoor, A. U., & Grand, R. 2021, ApJ, 916, 39

    2021

  11. [19]

    U., Trcka, A., et al

    Camps, P., Kapoor, A. U., Trcka, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 2728 Article number, page 12 of 13 Sena Bokona Tulu et al.: TNG50-SKIRT Atlas

    2022

  12. [20]

    & Pan-STARRS Team

    Chambers, K. & Pan-STARRS Team. 2018, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, V ol. 231, American Astronomical Society Meeting Ab- stracts #231, 102.01

    2018

  13. [21]

    Conselice, C. J. 2003, ApJS, 147, 1

    2003

  14. [22]

    Conselice, C. J. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 291

    2014

  15. [23]

    J., Yang, C., & Bluck, A

    Conselice, C. J., Yang, C., & Bluck, A. F. L. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 1956 Davé, R., Anglés-Alcázar, D., Narayanan, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2827

    2009

  16. [24]

    A., Gensior, J., Bureau, M., et al

    Davis, T. A., Gensior, J., Bureau, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 1522 de Vaucouleurs, G. 1959, Handbuch der Physik, 53, 275 DESI Collaboration, Abdul Karim, M., Adame, A. G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14745

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    2018, ApJ, 853, 194

    Dickinson, H., Fortson, L., Lintott, C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 194

    2018

  18. [26]

    1980, ApJ, 236, 351

    Dressler, A. 1980, ApJ, 236, 351

    1980

  19. [27]

    2025, A&A, 697, A234

    Drigga, E., Koulouridis, E., Pouliasis, E., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A234

    2025

  20. [28]

    P., Andrews, S

    Driver, S. P., Andrews, S. K., da Cunha, E., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 2891

    2018

  21. [29]

    P., Robotham, A

    Driver, S. P., Robotham, A. S. G., Tompkins, S., et al. 2026, MNRAS, submitted

    2026

  22. [30]

    2021, A&A, 651, A109 Euclid Collaboration: Kova ˇci´c, I., Baes, M., Nersesian, A., et al

    Dubois, Y ., Beckmann, R., Bournaud, F., et al. 2021, A&A, 651, A109 Euclid Collaboration: Kova ˇci´c, I., Baes, M., Nersesian, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A284 Euclid Collaboration: Mellier, Y ., Abdurro’uf, Acevedo Barroso, J. A., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A1 Euclid Collaboratio...

    2021

  23. [31]

    E., Izbicki, R., Lee, A

    Freeman, P. E., Izbicki, R., Lee, A. B., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 282

    2013

  24. [32]

    Gadotti, D. A. 2009, MNRAS, 393, 1531

    2009

  25. [33]

    A., Baes, M., & Falony, S

    Gadotti, D. A., Baes, M., & Falony, S. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 2053

    2010

  26. [34]

    2023, MNRAS, 521, 5645

    Gebek, A., Baes, M., Diemer, B., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 5645

    2023

  27. [35]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 607

    Getachew-Woreta, T., Povi´c, M., Masegosa, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 607

    2022

  28. [36]

    2025, Galaxies, 13, 84 Gómez, P

    Getachew-Woreta, T., Povi´c, M., Perea, J., et al. 2025, Galaxies, 13, 84 Gómez, P. L., Nichol, R. C., Miller, C. J., et al. 2003, ApJ, 584, 210

    2025

  29. [37]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.18042

    Gong, J.-Y ., Lin, W., Tang, L., & Lan, Y . 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.18042

    2025

  30. [38]

    Goulding, A. D. & Alexander, D. M. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1165

    2009

  31. [39]

    Graham, A. W. & Worley, C. C. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 1708 Guzmán-Ortega, A., Rodriguez-Gomez, V ., Snyder, G. F., Chamberlain, K., &

    2008

  32. [40]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 4920

    Hernquist, L. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 4920

    2023

  33. [41]

    W., Pirzkal, N., de Blok, W

    Holwerda, B. W., Pirzkal, N., de Blok, W. J. G., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 2401

    2011

  34. [42]

    2009, A&A, 497, 743 Ivezi´c, Ž., Kahn, S

    Huertas-Company, M., Tasca, L., Rouan, D., et al. 2009, A&A, 497, 743 Ivezi´c, Ž., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111

    2009

  35. [43]

    2006, MNRAS, 372, 2

    Jonsson, P. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 2

    2006

  36. [44]

    U., Camps, P., Baes, M., et al

    Kapoor, A. U., Camps, P., Baes, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 5703

    2021

  37. [45]

    M., White, S

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 54

    2003

  38. [46]

    S., Driver, S

    Kelvin, L. S., Driver, S. P., Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 1007

    2012

  39. [47]

    C., Armus, L., Bendo, G., et al

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C., Armus, L., Bendo, G., et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 928

    2003

  40. [48]

    2024, A&A, 689, A13

    Lauwers, A., Baes, M., Camps, P., & Vander Meulen, B. 2024, A&A, 689, A13

    2024

  41. [49]

    K., Willis, J

    Leste, O. K., Willis, J. P., Canning, R. E. A., & Rennehan, D. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 2927

    2024

  42. [50]

    M., Davis, M., Faber, S

    Lotz, J. M., Davis, M., Faber, S. M., et al. 2008, ApJ, 672, 177

    2008

  43. [51]

    M., Jonsson, P., Cox, T

    Lotz, J. M., Jonsson, P., Cox, T. J., & Primack, J. R. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 575

    2010

  44. [52]

    M., Madau, P., Giavalisco, M., Primack, J., & Ferguson, H

    Lotz, J. M., Madau, P., Giavalisco, M., Primack, J., & Ferguson, H. C. 2006, ApJ, 636, 592

    2006

  45. [53]

    M., Primack, J., & Madau, P

    Lotz, J. M., Primack, J., & Madau, P. 2004, AJ, 128, 163

    2004

  46. [54]

    C., Roper, W

    Lovell, C. C., Roper, W. J., Vijayan, A. P., et al. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 152

    2025

  47. [55]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113

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

    2018

  48. [56]

    2023, A&A, 678, A175

    Matsumoto, K., Camps, P., Baes, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A175

    2023

  49. [57]

    2023, ApJS, 269, 3 Muñoz-Mateos, J

    Moustakas, J., Lang, D., Dey, A., et al. 2023, ApJS, 269, 3 Muñoz-Mateos, J. C., Gil de Paz, A., Zamorano, J., et al. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1569

    2023

  50. [58]

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

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

    2018

  51. [59]

    J., Robitaille, T., et al

    Narayanan, D., Turk, M. J., Robitaille, T., et al. 2021, ApJS, 252, 12

    2021

  52. [60]

    V ., Rafelski, M., Teplitz, H

    Nedkova, K. V ., Rafelski, M., Teplitz, H. I., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 188

    2024

  53. [61]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 3234

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3234

    2019

  54. [62]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 624

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

    2018

  55. [63]

    2023, A&A, 673, A63

    Nersesian, A., Zibetti, S., D’Eugenio, F., & Baes, M. 2023, A&A, 673, A63

    2023

  56. [64]

    2017, A&A, 601, A92

    Peest, C., Camps, P., Stalevski, M., Baes, M., & Siebenmorgen, R. 2017, A&A, 601, A92

    2017

  57. [65]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 648

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Hernquist, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 648

    2018

  58. [66]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Springel, V ., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196

    2019

  59. [67]

    & de Lapparent, V

    Quilley, L. & de Lapparent, V . 2023, A&A, 680, A49

    2023

  60. [68]

    S., Li, N., et al

    Ren, J., Liu, F. S., Li, N., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, 4

    2024

  61. [69]

    2021, Astronomy and Computing, 37, 100492

    Reza, M. 2021, Astronomy and Computing, 37, 100492

    2021

  62. [70]

    F., Lotz, J

    Rodriguez-Gomez, V ., Snyder, G. F., Lotz, J. M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4140

    2019

  63. [71]

    2026, The Journal of Open Source Software, 11, 9436

    Roper, W., Lovell, C., Vijayan, A., et al. 2026, The Journal of Open Source Software, 11, 9436

    2026

  64. [72]

    2014, A&A, 561, A77

    Saftly, W., Baes, M., & Camps, P. 2014, A&A, 561, A77

    2014

  65. [73]

    2013, A&A, 554, A10

    Saftly, W., Camps, P., Baes, M., et al. 2013, A&A, 554, A10

    2013

  66. [74]

    A., Bower, R

    Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 521

    2015

  67. [75]

    F., Torrey, P., Lotz, J

    Snyder, G. F., Torrey, P., Lotz, J. M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 1886

    2015

  68. [76]

    2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.03757

    Spergel, D., Gehrels, N., Baltay, C., et al. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.03757

    2015 arXiv

  69. [77]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 676

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

    2018

  70. [78]

    S., et al

    Sreejith, S., Pereverzyev, Jr., S., Kelvin, L. S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 5232

    2018

  71. [79]

    A., Conselice, C

    Taylor-Mager, V . A., Conselice, C. J., Windhorst, R. A., & Jansen, R. A. 2007, ApJ, 659, 162

    2007

  72. [80]

    D., Bluck, A

    Thorp, M. D., Bluck, A. F. L., Ellison, S. L., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 886

    2021

  73. [81]

    2025, ApJ, 986, 66

    Tian, J., Zhao, Y ., Li, X., & Bai, J. 2025, ApJ, 986, 66

    2025

  74. [82]

    W., Camps, P., Theuns, T., et al

    Trayford, J. W., Camps, P., Theuns, T., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 771

    2017

  75. [83]

    2021, A&A, 653, A34 Vander Meulen, B., Camps, P., Savi´c, D., et al

    Vandenbroucke, B., Baes, M., Camps, P., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A34 Vander Meulen, B., Camps, P., Savi´c, D., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A297 Vander Meulen, B., Camps, P., Stalevski, M., & Baes, M. 2023, A&A, 674, A123

    2021

  76. [84]

    & Thilker, D

    Vinsen, K. & Thilker, D. 2013, Astronomy and Computing, 3, 1 V ogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Springel, V ., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 1518

    2013

  77. [85]

    P., Häußler, B., et al

    Vulcani, B., Bamford, S. P., Häußler, B., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 1340

    2014

  78. [86]

    M., Genzel, R., et al

    Wuyts, S., Förster Schreiber, N. M., Genzel, R., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 114

    2012

  79. [87]

    2023, ApJ, 954, 113

    Yao, Y ., Song, J., Kong, X., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 113

    2023

  80. [88]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.15060 Article number, page 13 of 13

    Zhou, X., Yang, H., Li, N., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.15060 Article number, page 13 of 13

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed May 21, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.