pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.00349 · v2 · pith:MRPJSSL2new · submitted 2026-05-01 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

A Universal Dance of Galactic Disks: Ubiquitous Precession and Its Implications

Yuan Wang , Xiong Luo , Huiyuan Wang , Enci Wang , Hao Li , Federico Marinacci , Xuejian Shen , Mark Vogelsberger This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-01 08:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords galactic disksdisk precessiontidal torquesgalaxy evolutiongas warpssatellite alignmentMilky Waycosmological simulations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Galactic disks precess due to external tidal torques from anisotropic matter within 30 kpc.

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

The paper uses cosmological simulations to trace how Milky Way-like galaxies change their spin orientation over time. It establishes that disk precession occurs in most galaxies, driven by tidal forces from uneven matter distributions nearby. This process is strong at early times and persists today, leading to observable gas warps, orbital heating of stars, and alignment patterns among satellite galaxies. A sympathetic reader would care because these dynamics connect external environment to the internal structure and long-term fate of disk galaxies.

Core claim

Leveraging the IllustrisTNG simulations, the authors trace the evolution of spin orientation in Milky Way-like galaxies over cosmic time. They find that disk precession is ubiquitous in galaxies and significantly affects galaxy evolution. The precession is driven by the external tidal torque originating from the anisotropic matter distribution within 30 kpc, and is violent at z > 1 and becomes gentler but significant at z ~ 0. Disk precession can induce significant cold gas warp, which is often observed in the Milky Way and nearby galaxies. The Milky Way is predicted to precess at a rate of ≃3-10 degrees per billion years at the current epoch based on its observed warp.

What carries the argument

External tidal torque from anisotropic matter distribution within 30 kpc, which drives changes in galactic disk spin orientation over time.

If this is right

  • Disk precession induces significant cold gas warps observed in the Milky Way and nearby galaxies.
  • Violent precession heats stellar orbits and may produce prolate elliptical galaxies.
  • Tidal torque from central galaxies causes precession and radial alignment in satellite galaxy disks.
  • Precession of accreted cold gas streams, regulated by galaxy torque, is crucial for disk galaxy evolution.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Observed warp angles in large galaxy samples could map local tidal fields without needing full dynamical modeling.
  • External torques may set a floor on disk stability that internal feedback models alone cannot reproduce.
  • If precession contributes to elliptical formation, the required merger fraction in simulations could be revised downward.
  • Future integral-field surveys could test whether precession rates correlate with local galaxy density as predicted.

Load-bearing premise

The simulations accurately capture the external tidal torques and resulting precession without significant numerical artifacts or missing baryonic physics that would alter the torque field or disk response.

What would settle it

A direct kinematic measurement of the Milky Way disk precession rate that falls well outside the range of 3-10 degrees per billion years.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.00349 by Enci Wang, Federico Marinacci, Hao Li, Huiyuan Wang, Mark Vogelsberger, Xiong Luo, Xuejian Shen, Yuan Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Disk precession illustrated through a representative Milky Way–analog galaxy (m∗ = 1.6 × 1010 M⊙, Subhalo ID 377137) gravitationally interacting with a satellite companion (m∗ = 4.0×108 M⊙; Subhalo ID 377138). We show the projected stellar distributions in the x–y and x–z planes for five consecutive snapshots (cosmic times indicated in the upper panels). All panels share the same coordinate system as that … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Precession rate ΩL as a function of tdisk for the selected galaxies with the color-coding specific halo accretion rate, defined as ∆ log(m200c)/∆t. The halo mass m200c is the mass within a spherical region, within which the mean density is 200 times the critical density. The precession rates, ΩL, are calculated between consecutive snapshots during the selected disk stage and averaged over this 1 Gyr disk p… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left panel: Probability density distribution of the cosine of the angle between the tidal torque direction and the precession direction. The orange line represents torques from all satellite subhalos (m∗,sat ≥ 108M⊙) within 100 kpc, to ensure the accuracy of our measurements, we apply a selection threshold to the torque values (see Appendix B). The blue line shows the torques from all matter within the sam… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Upper left panel: The precession rate as a function of the warp angle for the selected galaxies. Both quantities are averaged over the one-Gyr disk period. The solid circles show the galaxies with tdisk ≥ 8 Gyr while the open triangles for galaxies with tdisk < 8 Gyr. ΩL is strongly correlated with Ψwarp, particularly for disks at low redshift. The thick black line shows the best-fit result from a Markov c… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left panel: The projected spatial distribution of satellites within 100 kpc to the centrals by stacking satellites around each central disk galaxy across all selected snapshots. The size of the symbols correspond to the mass ratio between satellites and centrals. The x-axis is oriented along the warp direction, while the z-axis is aligned with the AM vector of the central galaxies. The black circles repres… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The evolution of the AM vectors for gas elements of two disk galaxies. We trace the evolution of the angle (α star gas ) between the AM vectors of gas elements and the spin direction of stellar component at z = 0. The left Subplot of each panel illustrates the evolutionary trajectories of gas elements that are located within the galaxies at z = 0. The blue part of each trajectory shows the evolution of the… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Projected trajectories of spin vectors for six selected typical galaxies. The z-axis(x-axis) of the coordinate system is aligned with the spin vector (precession direction) of a galaxy at tdisk. Each trajectory shows the evolution of (x, y) components of the unit spin vector for a galaxy, color-coded by the relative cosmic time. Only the evolution between tdisk and tdisk + 3Gyrs is displayed. Therefore, at… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The relation between < ΩMx /ΩL > and tdisk. < ΩMx /ΩL > is the averaged ratio of the projected torque-induced precession rate (ΩMx ) to the precession rate (ΩL). The results are averaged over the disk period. The short line segments at the edges denote outliers. The median value of all these galaxies, close to unity, is shown by the horizontal solid line view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Cold gas warp for a galaxy (Subid 482892 in Snap 82). Left panel shows the density map in face-on projection and right panel shows the map in edge-on projection. The x axis aligns with the warp direction (see Appendix C). The white cycle indicate 2re, black curve in the right panel indicates the S-type warp. The vertical white dashed lines indicate the radii where the maximum warp angle was evaluated. prec… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Relationship between the axis ratios b/a and c/a for dynamically hot galaxies at z = 0. Black circles represent the dynamic hot galaxies in our sample, whose evolution is driven by strong precession, while the blue crosses denote the merger-dominated dynamic hot galaxies. already settled into approximate co-rotation with the stellar disk. At larger distances of ∼ 50 kpc from the galaxies, however, the dis… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Schematic diagram of a coordinate system established with the x–y plane in the disk plane, and the z-axis along the direction of central galaxy AM. A satellite galaxy is located in the y–z plane, where R denotes the distance from the central galaxy and β is the polar angle relative to the z-axis. The disk annulus has a radius of r and θ is the azimuthal angle of a mass element in the annulus. Consequently… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Theoretical calculations for the precession of disk induced by the tidal torque from a satellite system using Eq. F10 (solid lines) and Eq. F11 (far-field approximation, dotted lines). The left panel shows ΩM as a function of β, while the right panel is for variable R, with the specified parameters displayed in the upper left corner. The circular velocity of a selected disk ring at r = 5 kpc is set to be … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Precession is a very common phenomenon for small-scale astronomical objects. However, the precession of galactic disks, occurring on a scale larger than kilo-parsec, has barely been studied in the literature. Quantifying this precession in observations remains challenging due to the lack of high-resolution dynamical data. Cosmological simulations, where gravitational interactions are self-consistently modeled, offer a unique avenue for investigating disk precession. Leveraging the IllustrisTNG simulations, we trace the evolution of spin orientation in Milky Way-like galaxies over cosmic time. We find that disk precession is ubiquitous in galaxies and significantly affects galaxy evolution. The precession is driven by the external tidal torque originating from the anisotropic matter distribution within $30\ \mathrm{kpc}$, and is violent at $\mathrm{z} > 1$ and becomes gentler but significant at $\mathrm{z} \sim 0$, when the disks are considered dynamically settled. Disk precession can induce significant cold gas warp, which is often observed in the Milky Way and nearby galaxies. We predict that the Milky Way is precessing at a rate of $\simeq3-10$ degrees per billion years at current epoch based on its observed warp. Violent precession can heat the orbits of stars, which may eventually produce prolate elliptical galaxies. The tidal torque from central galaxies can cause the precession of nearby satellite galaxies and causes their disks to point towards the centrals, which explains the observational radial alignment. We also find that the precession of accreted cold gas stream, regulated by the galaxies' torque, is crucial for the evolution of disk galaxies.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper uses IllustrisTNG cosmological simulations to trace the spin evolution of Milky Way-like galactic disks, claiming that disk precession is ubiquitous, driven by external tidal torques from anisotropic matter within 30 kpc. Precession is reported as violent at z>1 and gentler at z~0, inducing cold gas warps; the authors predict a Milky Way precession rate of ≃3-10 deg/Gyr based on its observed warp, suggest it can heat stellar orbits toward prolate ellipticals, explain radial alignments of satellites, and regulate accreted gas streams for disk evolution.

Significance. If the simulation-based results on torque-driven precession hold after validation, the work would identify a previously under-appreciated dynamical mechanism in galaxy evolution with direct links to observed warps, satellite alignments, and morphological changes. The cosmological simulation approach allows self-consistent gravitational interactions, which is a methodological strength, but the absence of shown torque decompositions, disk identification criteria, and convergence tests limits the current significance.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The Milky Way precession rate of ≃3-10 deg/Gyr is obtained by scaling simulation results to match the observed warp amplitude. This reduces the quoted 'prediction' to a post-hoc normalization rather than an independent forecast from the torque model, undermining the claim of a first-principles result.
  2. [Simulation analysis (implied in abstract)] The central attribution of precession to external tidal torques from anisotropic matter within 30 kpc rests entirely on time evolution of spin vectors extracted from TNG MW-like galaxies, yet the manuscript provides no details on disk identification criteria, spin vector tracking method, or torque measurement/decomposition procedure. Without these, the driver identification cannot be evaluated.
  3. [Methods (implied)] No convergence tests, resolution studies, or cross-code comparisons are described for the gravity solver, subgrid baryonic physics effects on matter anisotropy, or numerical diffusion in spin orientation measurements. This is load-bearing because the ubiquity claim and torque attribution depend on the fidelity of the TNG torque fields.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states precession 'significantly affects galaxy evolution' without quantifying the effect size (e.g., fraction of orbital heating or warp amplitude induced).
  2. [Abstract] Notation for the 30 kpc scale and redshift ranges is clear, but the transition from 'violent' to 'gentler' precession lacks a quantitative threshold or plot reference.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address each major comment below, indicating revisions where the manuscript will be updated for greater clarity and transparency.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The Milky Way precession rate of ≃3-10 deg/Gyr is obtained by scaling simulation results to match the observed warp amplitude. This reduces the quoted 'prediction' to a post-hoc normalization rather than an independent forecast from the torque model, undermining the claim of a first-principles result.

    Authors: We agree that the quoted Milky Way precession rate is obtained by scaling the simulation-derived torque statistics to the observed warp amplitude, rather than constituting an independent first-principles forecast. In the revised manuscript we will rephrase the abstract to describe this quantity as an 'estimated' rate informed by the torque model and the observed warp, removing any implication of a pure prediction. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Simulation analysis (implied in abstract)] The central attribution of precession to external tidal torques from anisotropic matter within 30 kpc rests entirely on time evolution of spin vectors extracted from TNG MW-like galaxies, yet the manuscript provides no details on disk identification criteria, spin vector tracking method, or torque measurement/decomposition procedure. Without these, the driver identification cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: We accept that the current text lacks sufficient methodological detail. The revised version will add an explicit Methods subsection specifying: (i) disk selection via a stellar circularity threshold (>0.5) combined with morphological criteria from the TNG catalogs; (ii) spin-vector computation as the total angular momentum of star particles within two effective radii; and (iii) torque decomposition obtained by summing gravitational forces from all particles inside 30 kpc after subtracting the self-torque of the central disk. These additions will allow direct evaluation of the external-torque attribution. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Methods (implied)] No convergence tests, resolution studies, or cross-code comparisons are described for the gravity solver, subgrid baryonic physics effects on matter anisotropy, or numerical diffusion in spin orientation measurements. This is load-bearing because the ubiquity claim and torque attribution depend on the fidelity of the TNG torque fields.

    Authors: We acknowledge the absence of dedicated convergence tests for spin orientation within this study. The revised manuscript will include a short discussion referencing the extensive resolution and convergence tests already published for the TNG suite (Pillepich et al. 2018 and subsequent TNG papers) and noting that the precession signal remains consistent across the TNG100 and TNG300 volumes. New resolution runs or cross-code comparisons lie outside the present scope but could be addressed in follow-up work; we therefore mark this revision as partial. revision: partial

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

MW precession 'prediction' reduces to scaling simulation results to match observed warp

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [abstract]
    "We predict that the Milky Way is precessing at a rate of ≃3-10 degrees per billion years at current epoch based on its observed warp."

    The quoted rate is obtained by scaling the TNG-derived precession statistics to reproduce the amplitude of the observed Milky Way warp. This makes the numerical value a fitted normalization to the target datum rather than an independent forecast from the simulation torque field or first-principles torque calculation.

full rationale

The paper derives ubiquity of disk precession and its torque origin from direct tracking of spin vectors in IllustrisTNG galaxies; this is an empirical measurement from simulation output and does not reduce to its own inputs. The sole circular step is the Milky Way rate claim, which the abstract explicitly ties to scaling against the observed warp. No self-citation chains, uniqueness theorems, ansatzes smuggled via citation, or self-definitional equations appear in the provided text. The result is therefore partially circular only in the specific 'prediction' step.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that IllustrisTNG's gravity solver and subgrid physics produce realistic external torques on disks; no independent verification of torque accuracy is supplied in the abstract.

free parameters (1)
  • precession rate scaling to observed warp
    The 3-10 deg/Gyr Milky Way prediction is obtained by matching simulation precession to the observed warp amplitude, introducing a normalization constant.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption External tidal torque from matter within 30 kpc dominates disk orientation change
    Invoked to explain the driver of precession; no alternative internal mechanisms are quantified.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5844 in / 1387 out tokens · 20608 ms · 2026-07-01T08:11:50.502478+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

66 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · 8 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    G., Navarro, J

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

    work page doi:10.1086/378316 2003

  2. [2]

    , keywords =

    Allgood, B., Flores, R. A., Primack, J. R., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 1781, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10094.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10094.x 2006

  3. [3]

    B., & Park, J.-C

    Ann, H. B., & Park, J.-C. 2006, NewA, 11, 293, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2005.08.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newast.2005.08.006 2006

  4. [4]

    E., et al

    Arora, A., Garavito-Camargo, N., Sanderson, R. E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.20133, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.20133

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.20133 2025

  5. [5]

    , keywords =

    Athanassoula, E. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 1179, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06473.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06473.x 2003

  6. [6]

    2015, py-sphviewer: Py-SPHViewer v1.0.0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.21703

    Benitez-Llambay, A. 2015, py-sphviewer: Py-SPHViewer v1.0.0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.21703

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.21703 2015

  7. [7]

    E., & Frenk, C

    Bett, P. E., & Frenk, C. S. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1338, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1395

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1395 2016

  8. [8]

    1981, AJ, 86, 1825, doi: 10.1086/113063

    Bosma, A. 1981, AJ, 86, 1825, doi: 10.1086/113063

    work page doi:10.1086/113063 1981

  9. [9]

    Briggs, F. H. 1990, ApJ, 352, 15, doi: 10.1086/168512

    work page doi:10.1086/168512 1990

  10. [10]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 320, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0686-7

    Chen, X., Wang, S., Deng, L., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 320, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0686-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0686-7 2019

  11. [11]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Primack, J. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2087, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv270

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv270 2015

  12. [12]

    P., & Sellwood, J

    Debattista, V. P., & Sellwood, J. A. 1999, ApJL, 513, L107, doi: 10.1086/311913

    work page doi:10.1086/311913 1999

  13. [13]

    Diemer, B., Stevens, A. R. H., Lagos, C. d. P., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 1529, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1323

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1323 2019

  14. [15]

    C., Slone, O., Lisanti, M., & Cohen, T

    Dodge, B. C., Slone, O., Lisanti, M., & Cohen, T. 2023b, MNRAS, 518, 2870, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3249

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3249

  15. [16]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 1930, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2482

    El-Badry, K., Quataert, E., Wetzel, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 1930, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2482

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2482 2018

  16. [17]

    2007, ApJL, 662, L71, doi: 10.1086/519683 18 Garc´ ıa-Conde, B., Antoja, T., Roca-F` abrega, S., et al

    Faltenbacher, A., Li, C., Mao, S., et al. 2007, ApJL, 662, L71, doi: 10.1086/519683 18 Garc´ ıa-Conde, B., Antoja, T., Roca-F` abrega, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347446

    work page doi:10.1086/519683 2007

  17. [18]

    M., Hernquist, L., et al

    Genel, S., Fall, S. M., Hernquist, L., et al. 2015, ApJL, 804, L40, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/804/2/L40

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/804/2/l40 2015

  18. [19]

    2013, MNRAS, 435, 1426, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1383

    Genel, S., Vogelsberger, M., Nelson, D., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 1426, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1383

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1383 2013

  19. [20]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.18042, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.18042

    Gong, J.-Y., Lin, W., Tang, L., & Lan, Y. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.18042, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.18042

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.18042 2025

  20. [21]

    2023, A&A, 680, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347125

    Walker, S., & Mirakhor, M. 2023, A&A, 680, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347125

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347125 2023

  21. [22]

    J., Conroy, C., & Hernquist, L

    Han, J. J., Conroy, C., & Hernquist, L. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1481, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02076-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02076-9 2023

  22. [23]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1294, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02309-5

    Huang, Y., Feng, Q., Khachaturyants, T., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1294, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02309-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02309-5 2024

  23. [24]

    P., & Suto, Y

    Jing, Y. P., & Suto, Y. 2002, ApJ, 574, 538, doi: 10.1086/341065 J´ ozsa, G. I. G., Kenn, F., Klein, U., & Oosterloo, T. A. 2007, A&A, 468, 731, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066164

    work page doi:10.1086/341065 2002

  24. [25]

    H., Peirani, S., Kim, S., et al

    Kim, J. H., Peirani, S., Kim, S., et al. 2014, ApJ, 789, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/90

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/789/1/90 2014

  25. [26]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6982

    Lan, Y., Tang, L., Lin, W., & Gong, J. 2024, ApJ, 974, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6982

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6982 2024

  26. [27]

    E., Haiman, Z., Pandey, S., & Genel, S

    Lee, M. E., Haiman, Z., Pandey, S., & Genel, S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.12460, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.12460

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.12460 2025

  27. [28]

    S., Blitz, L., & Heiles, C

    Levine, E. S., Blitz, L., & Heiles, C. 2006, ApJ, 643, 881, doi: 10.1086/503091

    work page doi:10.1086/503091 2006

  28. [29]

    S., Erkal, D., et al

    Lilleengen, S., Petersen, M. S., Erkal, D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 774, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3108

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3108 2023

  29. [30]

    Lynden-Bell, D., & Kalnajs, A. J. 1972, MNRAS, 157, 1, doi: 10.1093/mnras/157.1.1

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/157.1.1 1972

  30. [31]

    Non-linear generation of warps by spiral waves in galactic disks

    Masset, F., & Tagger, M. 1997, A&A, 318, 747, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9902123

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9902123 1997

  31. [32]

    R., et al

    McCluskey, F., Wetzel, A., Loebman, S. R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 6926, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3547

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3547 2024

  32. [33]

    Constraints on the relationship between stellar mass and halo mass at low and high redshift

    Moster, B. P., Somerville, R. S., Maulbetsch, C., et al. 2010, ApJ, 710, 903, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/903

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/710/2/903 2010

  33. [34]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 59, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv017

    Nelson, D., Genel, S., Vogelsberger, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 59, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv017

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv017 2015

  34. [35]

    2019a, MNRAS, 490, 3234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2306

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2019a, MNRAS, 490, 3234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2306

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2306

  35. [36]

    Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology , keywords =

    Nelson, D., Springel, V., Pillepich, A., et al. 2019b, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, doi: 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    work page doi:10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

  36. [37]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.05235, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.05235

    Pandya, S., Yang, Y., Van Alfen, N., Blazek, J., & Walters, R. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.05235, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.05235

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.05235 2025

  37. [38]

    Peebles, P. J. E. 1969, ApJ, 155, 393, doi: 10.1086/149876

    work page doi:10.1086/149876 1969

  38. [39]

    J., & Kuhn, J

    Pereira, M. J., & Kuhn, J. R. 2005, ApJL, 627, L21, doi: 10.1086/432089

    work page doi:10.1086/432089 2005

  39. [40]

    Simulating Galaxy Formation with the IllustrisTNG Model

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V., Nelson, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2656 2018

  40. [41]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Springel, V., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2338 2019

  41. [42]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 590, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1017-3

    Poggio, E., Drimmel, R., Andrae, R., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 590, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1017-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1017-3 2020

  42. [43]

    2025, A&A, 702, A164, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555412

    Quezada, C., Zoccali, M., Valenti, E., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A164, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555412

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555412 2025

  43. [44]

    2002, A&A, 382, 513, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011672

    Reshetnikov, V., Battaner, E., Combes, F., & Jim´ enez-Vicente, J. 2002, A&A, 382, 513, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011672

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20011672 2002

  44. [45]

    Statistics of optical warps in spiral disks

    Reshetnikov, V., & Combes, F. 1998, A&A, 337, 9, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9806114

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9806114 1998

  45. [46]

    P., Chugunov, I

    Reshetnikov, V. P., Chugunov, I. V., Marchuk, A. A., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554941

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554941 2025

  46. [47]

    V., et al

    Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Pillepich, A., Sales, L. V., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 2371, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw456

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw456 2016

  47. [48]

    F., Lotz, J

    Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Snyder, G. F., Lotz, J. M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4140, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3345

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3345 2019

  48. [49]

    M., et al

    Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Genel, S., Fall, S. M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 5978, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac806

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac806 2022

  49. [50]

    Hot accretion onto spiral galaxies: the origin of extended and warped HI discs

    Sankar, S., Stern, J., Power, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.03793, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.03793

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.03793 2025

  50. [51]

    Schwarzkopf, U., & Dettmar, R. J. 2001, A&A, 373, 402, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010548

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010548 2001

  51. [52]

    L., D’Onghia, E., et al

    Semczuk, M., Lokas, E. L., D’Onghia, E., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 3535, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2609

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2609 2020

  52. [53]

    Shen, J., & Sellwood, J. A. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10477.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10477.x 2006

  53. [54]

    2024, PhRvD, 109, 123548, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.123548

    Sheng, M.-J., Zhu, L., Yu, H.-R., et al. 2024, PhRvD, 109, 123548, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.123548

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.123548 2024

  54. [55]

    2018, ApJ, 853, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3e6

    Shi, Y., Yan, L., Armus, L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3e6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3e6 2018

  55. [56]

    S., & Casertano, S

    Sparke, L. S., & Casertano, S. 1988, MNRAS, 234, 873, doi: 10.1093/mnras/234.4.873

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/234.4.873 1988

  56. [57]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 676, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    Springel, V., Pakmor, R., Pillepich, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 676, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3304

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3304 2018

  57. [58]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 5587, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz243

    Torrey, P., Vogelsberger, M., Marinacci, F., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 5587, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz243

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz243 2019

  58. [59]

    2023, Galaxies, 11, 59, doi: 10.3390/galaxies11020059

    Vasiliev, E. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 59, doi: 10.3390/galaxies11020059

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies11020059 2023

  59. [60]

    , keywords =

    Wang, H., Mo, H. J., Jing, Y. P., Yang, X., & Wang, Y. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 1973, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18301.x 19

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18301.x 2011

  60. [61]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V., Hernquist, L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2944 2017

  61. [62]

    2014, MNRAS, 445, L46, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu106

    Peirani, S. 2014, MNRAS, 445, L46, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu106

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slu106 2014

  62. [63]

    White, S. D. M. 1984, ApJ, 286, 38, doi: 10.1086/162573

    work page doi:10.1086/162573 1984

  63. [64]

    G., Jung, S

    Zee, W.-B. G., Jung, S. L., Paudel, S., & Yoon, S.-J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.18942, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.18942

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.18942 2025

  64. [65]

    2026, A&A, 706, A193, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557613

    Zhu, L., Cai, R., Kang, X., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, A193, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557613

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557613 2026

  65. [66]

    M., & Hahn, O

    Zjupa, J., Sch¨ afer, B. M., & Hahn, O. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2010.07951, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2010.07951

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.07951 2020

  66. [67]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 1625, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2945

    Zjupa, J., & Springel, V. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 1625, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2945

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2945 2017