pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.25047 · v1 · pith:PSGUAUVFnew · submitted 2026-06-23 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.CO

Characterizing the Formation and Evolution of S0-galaxies (CaFES-0): Revealing the origin of the mass-size relation for S0 galaxies

Diego Pallero , Yara L. Jaffe , Amelia Fraser-McKelvie , Lodovico Coccato , Facundo A. Gomez , Evelyn J. Johnston , Ciria Lima-Dias , Maria Emilia De Rossi
show 1 more author
Gissel P. Montaguth
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 23:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO
keywords S0 galaxiesmass-size relationlenticular galaxiesgalaxy formationquenchingmergersstructural evolution
0
0 comments X

The pith

S0 galaxies follow a V-shaped mass-size relation created by two distinct formation channels.

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

The paper investigates the structural evolution of lenticular galaxies in cosmological simulations that match observed mass-size relations from surveys. It shows that S0 galaxies occupy a V-shaped locus in the mass-size plane because low-mass ones mostly quench after falling into their host halo and keep the sizes of their star-forming disks, while high-mass ones form through mergers, quench earlier, and grow like ellipticals. A sympathetic reader would care because these separate paths account for both the break in slope and the scatter seen in the S0 mass-size relation. Tracing histories back to redshift 1 reveals that faded S0s change little after quenching while merger S0s grow through later interactions.

Core claim

The S0 population occupies a characteristic V-shaped locus in the mass-size plane, which arises from the superposition of two physically distinct channels. Low-mass S0s are predominantly faded-formed S0s, quenched after infall into their present-day host halo and retaining the disk sizes of their star-forming progenitors. In contrast, high-mass S0s formed through mergers exhibit structural properties and size evolution similar to ellipticals, and typically quench before infall, consistent with pre-processing in group environments. By tracing their histories back to z=1, faded-formed S0s experience minimal structural evolution after quenching, whereas merger-formed S0s grow significantly in s

What carries the argument

The V-shaped locus in the mass-size plane produced by the superposition of faded-formed low-mass S0s and merger-formed high-mass S0s.

If this is right

  • Faded-formed S0s show little structural change after they quench.
  • Merger-formed S0s increase in size through later dissipationless interactions.
  • The two channels together produce the observed break in slope and the scatter of the S0 mass-size relation.
  • Lenticular galaxies therefore arise from multiple formation mechanisms that leave distinct structural signatures.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same split into faded and merger channels could produce similar V-shaped loci in other morphological types if their quenching and merger histories differ by mass.
  • Surveys that separate S0 galaxies by stellar mass could test whether angular momentum and size growth track the two channels separately.
  • Comparing S0 sizes in dense clusters versus the field would reveal how much environment drives the low-mass faded channel.

Load-bearing premise

Simulated galaxies accurately reproduce the observed mass-size relation, so the two formation channels identified in the simulations apply to real S0 galaxies.

What would settle it

An absence of the V-shaped locus when S0 galaxies from large surveys are plotted in the mass-size plane, or the discovery that low-mass and high-mass S0s show identical size evolution histories when their star-formation quenching times are measured.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.25047 by Amelia Fraser-McKelvie, Ciria Lima-Dias, Diego Pallero, Evelyn J. Johnston, Facundo A. Gomez, Gissel P. Montaguth, Lodovico Coccato, Maria Emilia De Rossi, Yara L. Jaffe.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left panel: Morphokinematic classification of galaxies based on their specific star formation rate and λ/ √ ε ratio. The dashed lines divide galaxies into five regions based on their kinematical support and sSFR. Galaxies are divided as spirals (star-forming disks), lenticulars (non-star-forming disks), star-forming ellipticals (star-forming spheroids), ellipticals (non-star-forming spheroids), and a trans… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Mass-size relation for all galaxies in the simulation, colour coded by their angular momentum, λ (left panel), and their ellipticity, ε (right panel). White contours show the mass-size relation for a sample of SAMI and MaNGA galaxies with different morphological types. Additionally, a grey dashed line indicates the "Zone of Avoidance“ (ZoA), a lower limit that includes 99% of all early-type galaxies as def… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: Mass-size relation for galaxies in the simulation split by morphological type. Cyan, red, and magenta dots correspond to spiral, elliptical, and lenticular galaxies, respectively. Contours with the same colours are added to highlight the overall distribution of each galaxy population. Right: Mass-size relation for lenticular galaxies split by their formation mechanism. Orange and purple dots represen… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of the time-since infall for satellite merged-formed lenticular galaxies (red) and faded-formed S0s (cyan). The dashed line shows the median distribution for each population. Error bars corre￾spond to the binomial uncertainties associated with each bin. Merged formed lenticulars have fallen onto their present-day host halo more re￾cently than faded-formed S0s. When comparing the median, merged… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mass size relation for merged formed lenticular galaxies (upper panel) and faded-formed lenticular galaxies (lower panel), colour-coded by their time since infall to their host halo. Squares and stars correspond to pre-quenched and cluster-quenched galaxies, respectively, i.e., those that were quenched before their infall or after being accreted into their current host halo. The dashed grey line is the low… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution in time for the mass size relation for galaxies selected at z = 0 with different morphologies. From right to left, the mass-size relation is shown at z = 1, 0.7, 0.5, 0.25, and 0. The mass size relation for elliptical, merged-formed lenticulars, spirals, and faded-formed S0s is shown from the top to bottom panels. The lower envelope, including 99% of all early-type galaxies at z = 0, is shown in … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Variations in size with respect to z = 1 for galaxies with different morphologies as a function of their stellar mass. The results at z = 0.7, 0.5, 0.25, and 0, respectively, are shown from right to left. From top to bottom, we show elliptical, merged-form lenticulars, faded lenticulars, and spiral galaxies. Galaxies are colour-coded by their sSFR at a given redshift (z). The black dashed line on each pane… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Median growth in size of galaxies with different morphologies since z = 1. Galaxies are divided into eight stellar mass bins, selected at z = 0, and colour-coded accordingly. Bins are 0.25dex wide between 10 ≤ log10M⋆/M⊙ ≤ 12. Elliptical and merged-formed lenticular galax￾ies grow steadily since z = 1, with more massive galaxies growing more than less massive galaxies. On the other hand, Spiral and faded s… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Median growth in size of galaxies with different morphologies since z = 1. Galaxies are split into five bins of M⋆/M200 selected at z = 0 to trace how dominant the environment is for each galaxy. Bins are one dex wide between −6 ≤ log10M⋆/M200 ≤ −1. Elliptical and merged￾formed lenticular galaxies grow steadily, growing more when residing in haloes where they dominate. On the other hand, Spiral and faded￾f… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate the structural evolution and formation pathways of lenticular (S0) galaxies using the Hydrangea suite of cosmological hydrodynamical simulations. Simulated galaxies reproduce the observed mass-size relation from the SAMI and MaNGA surveys, enabling a direct comparison between morphology, angular momentum, and size growth. We show that the S0 population occupies a characteristic V-shaped locus in the mass-size plane, which arises from the superposition of two physically distinct channels. Low-mass S0s are predominantly faded-formed S0s, quenched after infall into their present-day host halo and retaining the disk sizes of their star-forming progenitors. In contrast, high-mass S0s formed through mergers exhibit structural properties and size evolution similar to ellipticals, and typically quench before infall, consistent with pre-processing in group environments. By tracing their histories back to $z=1$, we find that faded-formed S0s experience minimal structural evolution after quenching, whereas merger-formed S0s grow significantly in size through dissipationless interactions. These divergent evolutionary pathways explain both the slope break and the overall scatter of the S0 mass-size relation, demonstrating that lenticular galaxies arise from multiple formation mechanisms that leave distinct structural imprints.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes S0 galaxies in the Hydrangea cosmological hydrodynamical simulations, showing that they reproduce the observed mass-size relation from SAMI and MaNGA surveys. It identifies a V-shaped locus in the mass-size plane arising from two channels: low-mass faded-formed S0s quenched after infall (retaining progenitor disk sizes) and high-mass merger-formed S0s quenched before infall (evolving like ellipticals with significant post-quenching size growth via dissipationless interactions). Tracing histories to z=1 supports divergent evolutionary paths explaining the slope break and scatter.

Significance. If the channel attribution is robust, the result provides a physical basis for the S0 mass-size relation and demonstrates multiple formation pathways with distinct structural signatures. The simulation-based tracing of infall, quenching, and size evolution is a methodological strength that enables falsifiable predictions for observed samples.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3: The central claim that the V-shape arises from superposition of the two channels rests on the simulations accurately capturing infall times, quenching epochs, and post-quenching size evolution. However, the global reproduction of the SAMI/MaNGA mass-size relation does not constrain these specific quantities; a direct test (e.g., comparing simulated vs. observed transition mass or channel fractions) is needed to establish that the channel distinction is not an artifact of subgrid physics.
  2. [§4.1] §4.1 (channel classification): The distinction between faded-formed (post-infall quenching) and merger-formed (pre-infall quenching) S0s is load-bearing for attributing the low-mass and high-mass branches. The manuscript does not report robustness checks against variations in the merger identification or environmental stripping criteria used to label the channels.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that simulated galaxies reproduce the observed relation but does not specify the quantitative metrics (slope, scatter, or Kolmogorov-Smirnov test p-values) used for the comparison.
  2. Figure captions should explicitly state the mass range and selection criteria for the S0 sample to allow direct comparison with SAMI/MaNGA.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our manuscript. We respond point-by-point to the major comments below, indicating where revisions will be made to address the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3: The central claim that the V-shape arises from superposition of the two channels rests on the simulations accurately capturing infall times, quenching epochs, and post-quenching size evolution. However, the global reproduction of the SAMI/MaNGA mass-size relation does not constrain these specific quantities; a direct test (e.g., comparing simulated vs. observed transition mass or channel fractions) is needed to establish that the channel distinction is not an artifact of subgrid physics.

    Authors: We agree that reproducing the global mass-size relation is necessary but insufficient on its own to validate the specific channel attributions. Our analysis does include direct tracing of individual galaxy histories back to z=1, which explicitly connects infall times, quenching epochs, and post-quenching size evolution to the observed V-shape. To further address this point, the revised manuscript will incorporate a direct comparison of the simulated transition mass between the faded-formed and merger-formed channels against available observational estimates from the literature. We note that direct observational measurements of channel fractions are not currently available, limiting that specific test, but the transition mass offers a falsifiable prediction. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§4.1] §4.1 (channel classification): The distinction between faded-formed (post-infall quenching) and merger-formed (pre-infall quenching) S0s is load-bearing for attributing the low-mass and high-mass branches. The manuscript does not report robustness checks against variations in the merger identification or environmental stripping criteria used to label the channels.

    Authors: We recognize that explicit robustness checks would strengthen confidence in the channel classification. In the revised version, we will add tests that vary the merger identification criteria (including mass ratio thresholds) and the definitions used for environmental stripping to demonstrate that the separation into faded-formed and merger-formed populations, as well as the resulting V-shaped mass-size relation, remains stable under reasonable variations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation uses external simulations and surveys

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that the V-shaped mass-size locus arises from two distinct channels (faded post-infall low-mass S0s vs. merger pre-infall high-mass S0s)—is obtained by tracing galaxy histories in the independent Hydrangea cosmological hydrodynamical simulations and comparing the resulting structural properties to the external SAMI and MaNGA observational surveys. The abstract states that the simulations reproduce the observed mass-size relation, but this global match is not used to fit parameters that then define the channel distinction or the V-shape; the channels are identified via direct simulation tracing of infall, quenching, and merger events. No self-citations, self-definitional steps, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or ansatzes smuggled via prior work appear in the provided text. The derivation is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract, specific free parameters, axioms, and invented entities cannot be identified in detail. The work relies on the established Hydrangea cosmological hydrodynamical simulation suite without introducing new entities.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Standard Lambda-CDM cosmology and hydrodynamical physics assumptions underlying the Hydrangea simulations
    Invoked implicitly to enable tracing galaxy histories and structural evolution back to z=1.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5805 in / 1500 out tokens · 31455 ms · 2026-06-25T23:24:27.499657+00:00 · methodology

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

85 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Athanassoula, E., Machado, R. E. G., & Rodionov, S. A. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1949 Bahé, Y . M., Barnes, D. J., Dalla Vecchia, C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4186 Bahé, Y . M., Schaye, J., Barnes, D. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 2287

    2013

  2. [2]

    P., Aragón-Salamanca, A., & Milvang-Jensen, B

    Bamford, S. P., Aragón-Salamanca, A., & Milvang-Jensen, B. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 308

    2006

  3. [3]

    J., Kay, S

    Barnes, D. J., Kay, S. T., Bahé, Y . M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 1088

    2017

  4. [4]

    G., Aragón-Salamanca, A., & Merrifield, M

    Bedregal, A. G., Aragón-Salamanca, A., & Merrifield, M. R. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 1125

    2006

  5. [5]

    & Couch, W

    Bekki, K. & Couch, W. J. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 1783

    2011

  6. [6]

    J., & Shioya, Y

    Bekki, K., Couch, W. J., & Shioya, Y . 2002, ApJ, 577, 651

    2002

  7. [7]

    Bell, E. F. & de Jong, R. S. 2001, ApJ, 550, 212

    2001

  8. [8]

    R., Kazin, E., Muna, D., Weaver, B

    Blanton, M. R., Kazin, E., Muna, D., Weaver, B. A., & Price-Whelan, A. 2011, AJ, 142, 31

    2011

  9. [9]

    2019, A&A, 622, A103

    Boquien, M., Burgarella, D., Roehlly, Y ., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A103

    2019

  10. [10]

    & Gavazzi, G

    Boselli, A. & Gavazzi, G. 2006, PASP, 118, 517

    2006

  11. [11]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 1275

    Brown, T., Catinella, B., Cortese, L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 1275

    2017

  12. [12]

    J., Owers, M

    Bryant, J. J., Owers, M. S., Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 2857

    2015

  13. [13]

    A., Law, D

    Bundy, K., Bershady, M. A., Law, D. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, 7

    2015

  14. [14]

    2013, ApJ, 778, L2

    Cappellari, M. 2013, ApJ, 778, L2

    2013

  15. [15]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 597

    Cappellari, M. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 597

    2016

  16. [16]

    2011, MNRAS, 416, 1680

    Cappellari, M., Emsellem, E., Krajnovi´c, D., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 1680

    2011

  17. [17]

    L., et al

    Coccato, L., Fraser-McKelvie, A., Jaffé, Y . L., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 201

    2022

  18. [18]

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

    2003

  19. [19]

    2021, PASA, 38, e035

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

    2021

  20. [20]

    Cortese, L., Fogarty, L. M. R., Bekki, K., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 170

    2016

  21. [21]

    A., Schaye, J., Bower, R

    Crain, R. A., Schaye, J., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1937

    2015

  22. [22]

    M., Owers, M

    Croom, S. M., Owers, M. S., Scott, N., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 991 Dalla Vecchia, C. & Schaye, J. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 1431 Davé, R., Anglés-Alcázar, D., Narayanan, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2827 De Lucia, G., Weinmann, S., Poggianti, B. M., Aragón-Salamanca, A., & Zarit- sky, D. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 1277 de Vaucouleurs, G. 1959, Handbuch der Physik, 53, 275

    2021

  23. [23]

    J., Sweet, S

    Deeley, S., Drinkwater, M. J., Sweet, S. M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 895

    2021

  24. [24]

    1980, ApJ, 236, 351

    Dressler, A. 1980, ApJ, 236, 351

    1980

  25. [25]

    1984, ARA&A, 22, 185

    Dressler, A. 1984, ARA&A, 22, 185

    1984

  26. [26]

    1987, ApJ, 317, 1

    Dressler, A. 1987, ApJ, 317, 1

    1987

  27. [27]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 3948

    Dubois, Y ., Peirani, S., Pichon, C., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 3948

    2016

  28. [28]

    2011, MNRAS, 414, 888

    Emsellem, E., Cappellari, M., Krajnovi´c, D., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 888

    2011

  29. [29]

    2007, MNRAS, 379, 401

    Emsellem, E., Cappellari, M., Krajnovi´c, D., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 401

    2007

  30. [30]

    Fall, S. M. & Efstathiou, G. 1980, MNRAS, 193, 189

    1980

  31. [31]

    2018, MN- RAS, 481, 5580

    Fraser-McKelvie, A., Aragón-Salamanca, A., Merrifield, M., et al. 2018, MN- RAS, 481, 5580

    2018

  32. [32]

    2026, MNRAS, 547, stag428

    Frosst, M., Obreschkow, D., Ludlow, A., & Fraser-McKelvie, A. 2026, MNRAS, 547, stag428

    2026

  33. [33]

    2004, PASJ, 56, 29

    Fujita, Y . 2004, PASJ, 56, 29

    2004

  34. [34]

    G., Crain, R

    Furlong, M., Bower, R. G., Crain, R. A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 722

    2017

  35. [35]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 3976

    Genel, S., Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 3976

    2018

  36. [36]

    & Madau, P

    Haardt, F. & Madau, P. 2001, in Clusters of Galaxies and the High Redshift Universe Observed in X-rays, ed. D. M. Neumann & J. T. V . Tran, 64

    2001

  37. [37]

    E., van de Sande, J., Cortese, L., et al

    Harborne, K. E., van de Sande, J., Cortese, L., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 2018

    2020

  38. [38]

    Hubble, E. P. 1926, ApJ, 64, 321

    1926

  39. [39]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 1859

    Huertas-Company, M., Rodriguez-Gomez, V ., Nelson, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 1859

    2019

  40. [40]

    W., Zaritsky, D., Sand, D

    Just, D. W., Zaritsky, D., Sand, D. J., Desai, V ., & Rudnick, G. 2010, ApJ, 711, 192

    2010

  41. [41]

    1977, ApJ, 218, 333

    Kormendy, J. 1977, ApJ, 218, 333

    1977

  42. [42]

    & Kennicutt, Jr., R

    Kormendy, J. & Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 2004, ARA&A, 42, 603

    2004

  43. [43]

    D., et al

    Lacerna, I., Rodriguez, F., Montero-Dorta, A. D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 2271

    2022

  44. [44]

    Lagos, C. d. P., Stevens, A. R. H., Bower, R. G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4956 Article number, page 11 of 12 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aa59852-26

    2018

  45. [45]

    Lagos, C. d. P., Theuns, T., Stevens, A. R. H., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3850

    2017

  46. [46]

    P., Robotham, A

    Lange, R., Driver, S. P., Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 2603

    2015

  47. [47]

    B., Tinsley, B

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

    1980

  48. [48]

    & Cooper, A

    Liao, L.-W. & Cooper, A. P. 2026, A&A, 705, A84

    2026

  49. [49]

    2021, MNRAS, 500, 1323

    Lima-Dias, C., Monachesi, A., Torres-Flores, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 1323

    2021

  50. [50]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 5792

    Lima-Dias, C., Monachesi, A., Torres-Flores, S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 5792

    2024

  51. [51]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113

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

    2018

  52. [52]

    J., Mao, S., & White, S

    Mo, H. J., Mao, S., & White, S. D. M. 1998, MNRAS, 295, 319

    1998

  53. [53]

    P., Torres-Flores, S., Monachesi, A., et al

    Montaguth, G. P., Torres-Flores, S., Monachesi, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 5340

    2023

  54. [54]

    Muzzin, A., Wilson, G., Yee, H. K. C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 746, 188

    2012

  55. [55]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 3357

    Naab, T., Oser, L., Emsellem, E., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3357

    2014

  56. [56]

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

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

    2018

  57. [57]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 624

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

    2018

  58. [58]

    2009, A&A, 507, 1793

    Noll, S., Burgarella, D., Giovannoli, E., et al. 2009, A&A, 507, 1793

    2009

  59. [59]

    B., et al

    Pallero, D., Galaz, G., Tissera, P. B., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A376

    2025

  60. [60]

    A., Padilla, N

    Pallero, D., Gómez, F. A., Padilla, N. D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3210

    2022

  61. [61]

    A., Padilla, N

    Pallero, D., Gómez, F. A., Padilla, N. D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 847

    2019

  62. [62]

    L., Fraser-McKelvie, A., et al

    Pallero, D., Jaffé, Y . L., Fraser-McKelvie, A., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.19461

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  63. [63]

    C., et al

    Palma, D., Lacerna, I., Artale, M. C., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A67

    2025

  64. [64]

    2015, Nature, 521, 192

    Peng, Y ., Maiolino, R., & Cochrane, R. 2015, Nature, 521, 192

    2015

  65. [65]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 648 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Hernquist, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 648 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2014, A&A, 566, A54

    2018

  66. [66]

    B., Agertz, O., & Renaud, F

    Romeo, A. B., Agertz, O., & Renaud, F. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 5656

    2020

  67. [67]

    B., Agertz, O., & Renaud, F

    Romeo, A. B., Agertz, O., & Renaud, F. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 1002

    2023

  68. [68]

    Salim, S., Boquien, M., & Lee, J. C. 2018, ApJ, 859, 11

    2018

  69. [69]

    C., Janowiecki, S., et al

    Salim, S., Lee, J. C., Janowiecki, S., et al. 2016, ApJS, 227, 2

    2016

  70. [70]

    M., Kolesnikov, I., de Carvalho, R

    Sampaio, V . M., Kolesnikov, I., de Carvalho, R. R., Ferreras, I., & Silk, J. 2025, MNRAS, 541, 1164

    2025

  71. [71]

    2015, MNRAS, 454, 2277

    Schaller, M., Dalla Vecchia, C., Schaye, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2277

    2015

  72. [72]

    A., Bower, R

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

    2015

  73. [73]

    & Dalla Vecchia, C

    Schaye, J. & Dalla Vecchia, C. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 1210

    2008

  74. [74]

    J., White, S

    Shen, S., Mo, H. J., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 978

    2003

  75. [75]

    T., Patton, D

    Simard, L., Mendel, J. T., Patton, D. R., Ellison, S. L., & McConnachie, A. W. 2011, ApJS, 196, 11

    2011

  76. [76]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 676

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

    2018

  77. [77]

    Springel, V ., White, S. D. M., Tormen, G., & Kauffmann, G. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 726

    2001

  78. [78]

    A., Bezanson, R., Nelson, E

    Suess, K. A., Bezanson, R., Nelson, E. J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 937, L33

    2022

  79. [79]

    C., Aceves, H., et al

    Tapia, T., Eliche-Moral, M. C., Aceves, H., et al. 2017, A&A, 604, A105

    2017

  80. [80]

    W., Theuns, T., Bower, R

    Trayford, J. W., Theuns, T., Bower, R. G., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 3925

    2016

Showing first 80 references.