Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

The Environmental Quenching Mechanisms of Field Dwarf Galaxies

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using the TNG50 simulation, the paper argues that every quenched field dwarf galaxy in the 10^7–10^9 solar mass range is quenched by environmental gas removal—either backsplash ejection from a massive host or ram-pressure stripping by the…

desk verdict Solid TNG50 analysis with a new population-level breakdown of quenched field dwarfs, but the 'all environmental' claim outruns the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13159 v1 pith:QWE5J6DF submitted 2025-01-22 astro-ph.GA

José A. Benavides , Julio F. Navarro , Laura V. Sales , Isabel Pérez , Bahar Bidaran This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxies:dwarfevolutiongeneralstarformationquenchingbacksplashcosmicwebstrippingTNG50
topics 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

Observational studies have established that essentially all field dwarf galaxies—centrals with stellar masses between $10^7$ and $10^9\,M_\odot$ that are not satellites—are forming stars, yet a small fraction are quenched. This paper uses the TNG50 cosmological hydrodynamical simulation to ask where that quenched population comes from, and concludes that every one of them was quenched environmentally: gas was removed either when the dwarf was once a satellite of a massive host and later ejected ("backsplash"), or when it crossed a filament or sheet and was ram-pressure stripped by diffuse cosmic-web gas. The quenched fraction is roughly 15% across all field dwarfs, but falls to about 1% for the most isolated systems, and among those isolated cases roughly 94% are cosmic-web stripped and only 6% are backsplash. The central prediction is that deeply isolated, quietly quenched dwarf galaxies should exist, and that their numbers should increase toward fainter masses.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two named mechanisms and one diagnostic split. Backsplash is identified from the SubLink merger trees: a present-day central that was once bound to a more massive host, so its gas could be ram-pressure stripped and its dark matter tidally removed before it returned to the field. Cosmic web stripping, a mechanism introduced in the literature by Benítez-Llambay et al. (2013), is identified from orbital histories and gas maps: a low-mass halo crossing a filament or sheet at high speed experiences ram pressure from diffuse gas, removing low-density gas while leaving the dark matter intact. The classification into backsplash versus cosmic-web stripped is made by flagging former satellites in the trees; the remaining quenched dwarfs are then checked in snapshots for stripping events and tails. The empirical contrast between the two classes—halo mass deficit, gas fraction, and quenching time $t_{90}$—is what lets the paper argue they are physically distinct and separable.

What would settle it

Observing or simulating a single quenched dwarf galaxy in this mass range with no massive neighbor within 1.5 Mpc, no prior orbit inside a more massive host, and no passage through a filament or sheet would falsify the claim that all quenched field dwarfs are environmental. A concrete calculation: track the orbital and gas history of every quenched central in a cosmological simulation; if any quenched dwarf never crossed an overdense region and was never a satellite, the "all result from environmental effects" assertion fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In TNG50, the population of quenched field dwarfs with $10^7 < M_\star/M_\odot < 10^9$ decomposes cleanly into two environmental channels, and no other channel is needed. Backsplash systems, identified with merger trees as today's centrals that were once satellites of more massive hosts, dominate the higher-mass end: essentially all quenched dwarfs above $10^8\,M_\odot$ are backsplash. Below that mass, most quenched dwarfs have never been near a massive host; instead, their gas was stripped when they crossed overdense filaments or sheets, the mechanism the authors call cosmic web stripping. The two channels leave distinct fossils: backsplash dwarfs are dark-matter deficient, gas-poor, and quenched early (median $t_{90}\sim7.4$ Gyr), while cosmic-web stripped dwarfs quench later ($t_{90}\sim8.5$ Gyr), retain more gas, and sit on the normal stellar-mass–halo-mass relation. The paper's headline numbers are that quenched systems make up $\sim15\%$ of all field dwarfs, that applying a strict isolation criterion (no neighbor with $M_\star>10^9\,M_\odot$ within 1.5 Mpc) cuts this to $\sim1\%$, and that within that isolated subset $\sim6\%$ are backsplash and $\sim94\%$ are cosmic-web stripped.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that internal feedback processes (supernovae, stellar winds, AGN) cannot by themselves fully quench a dwarf galaxy in the $10^7$–$10^9\,M_\odot$ range, so a quenched central must have had its gas removed environmentally.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The quenched fraction of field dwarfs should rise steeply below $M_\star\sim10^9\,M_\odot$, from a minimum of about 2% up to roughly 35% at $10^7\,M_\odot$, a trend that future surveys can search for.
  • Truly isolated quenched dwarfs—those with no massive neighbor within 1.5 Mpc—should be rare, about 1% of the dwarf population, and if found they should be dominated by cosmic-web stripping rather than backsplash.
  • Backsplash dwarfs should be identifiable as outliers below the stellar-mass–halo-mass relation with very low gas content and old quenching times, whereas cosmic-web stripped dwarfs should quench later and retain a larger HI fraction.
  • If cosmic web stripping operates as modeled, the quenched fraction should continue to increase toward even fainter dwarfs, where the gas is more weakly bound, making this mass range a sensitive test of the mechanism.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same logic would predict that cosmic-web stripping becomes even more important below the $10^7\,M_\odot$ resolution limit of this study, potentially connecting to the faintest quenched dwarfs and ultrafaint systems; the paper hints at this but does not quantify it.
  • If the prediction holds, HI surveys of isolated dwarfs should find asymmetric or one-sided gas tails pointing away from the nearest filament, a geometric signature of cosmic web stripping that the paper does not explicitly develop.
  • The simulation's quenched fraction at $10^7\,M_\odot$ exceeds the SDSS upper limits reported by Geha et al. (2012); whether this discrepancy is a resolution artifact or a real prediction could be tested by re-running the analysis with a higher-resolution zoom-in of the same volume.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper uses the TNG50 cosmological hydrodynamical simulation to study field dwarf galaxies with stellar masses between 10^7 and 10^9 M_sun, defined as central galaxies (not satellites) at z=0. It identifies quenched dwarfs via a specific star formation rate threshold of 10^-11 yr^-1, separates backsplash objects using merger trees, and attributes the remaining quenched dwarfs to cosmic web stripping. The paper reports a quenched fraction of roughly 15% for field dwarfs, which drops to about 1% for deeply isolated systems (no neighbor above 10^9 M_sun within 1.5 Mpc); about 6% of those are backsplash and the rest are attributed to cosmic web stripping. It additionally contrasts backsplash and cosmic-web-stripped dwarfs in halo mass, gas fraction, and quenching time, and predicts that deeply isolated quenched dwarfs should exist and be mostly cosmic-web-stripped.

Significance. If correct, the paper would establish cosmic web stripping as a substantial quenching channel for the lowest-mass field dwarfs and would provide a concrete, falsifiable prediction for surveys of isolated dwarf galaxies. The analysis is transparent about sample definitions and uses the publicly available TNG50 simulation, and it gives quantitative quenched fractions and a clear isolation criterion. The main weakness is that the central attribution of non-backsplash quenched dwarfs to cosmic web stripping rests on visual inspection of two examples rather than a reproducible quantitative classification, and the conclusion that internal feedback cannot quench these dwarfs is asserted rather than tested. The result is therefore promising but not yet fully demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1 (Figs. 3-4); Abstract] The statement that 'careful examination of the non-backsplash cases reveals that cosmic web stripping is the additional mechanism' is not supported by a reproducible, per-object criterion. Only two illustrative examples are shown; there is no quantitative measurement of how many non-backsplash quenched dwarfs cross a filament or sheet coincident with a gas-loss event, no threshold on environmental gas density or ram pressure, and no comparison with star-forming field dwarfs that also cross such structures. The abstract's claim that quenched field dwarfs 'all result from environmental effects' therefore exceeds the presented evidence. Please define and apply an explicit stripping criterion to the full non-backsplash sample, or restate the conclusion as applying to the cases examined.
  2. [Sec. 1 (Introduction) and Sec. 3.1] The conclusion that all quenched field dwarfs have an environmental origin relies on the premise that internal processes (supernova feedback, stellar winds, AGN) cannot by themselves fully quench dwarfs in the 10^7-10^9 M_sun range. This premise is asserted in the Introduction ('not expected to lead to the full suppression of star formation in dwarfs') but is not tested within TNG50, even though TNG50 includes these feedback channels. The reduced gas fractions shown in Fig. 6 do not by themselves distinguish gas removal by environmental ram pressure from gas exhaustion or ejection by feedback. A test that correlates the timing and location of gas loss with the dwarf's trajectory through overdense regions, or a comparison with isolated dwarfs that never cross such regions, is needed to support the 'all' claim.
  3. [Sec. 3.3 (Fig. 8) and Summary] The paper's headline numbers for deeply isolated dwarfs (roughly 1% quenched fraction and roughly 94% cosmic-web-stripped among those) are given without the absolute number of systems or any uncertainty estimate. If this subsample contains only a handful of galaxies, the 6%/94% split is not statistically robust. Please report the number of objects underlying Figs. 2 and 8 and give Poisson or bootstrap confidence intervals for the quenched fractions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.2] There is a typographical duplication: 'We shall only consider only central galaxies' should read 'We shall only consider central galaxies.'
  2. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption says the backsplash distribution is 'highlighted by thick green line, as in the left panel,' but in the right panel the thick green line is drawn over the thin red line; please clarify the relation between the two distributions.
  3. [Sec. 3.3 (Fig. 7)] The median t50 and t90 values are quoted with asymmetric uncertainties but without sample sizes for the backsplash and non-backsplash quenched populations; adding N would help interpret the small differences in t90.
  4. [Data Availability] The paper states that derived sample properties 'may be shared upon request'; for reproducibility of the central classification claim, it would be preferable to release the full catalog of quenched field dwarfs with their backsplash/non-backsplash flags and, if possible, the derived cosmic-web-stripping classifications.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the TNG50 quenched-field-dwarf analysis is self-contained; self-citations to cosmic-web stripping and backsplash are contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are derived directly from the TNG50 simulation: quenched field dwarfs are identified by sSFR below 10^-11 yr^-1, backsplash systems are identified via SubLink merger trees, and non-backsplash quenched dwarfs are attributed to cosmic-web stripping based on examination of gas distributions and orbits. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed as a prediction; the quenched fractions, isolation statistics, and quenching times are measured simulation outputs. Citations to Benitez-Llambay et al. (2013) and Sales et al. (2007) provide the concepts of cosmic-web stripping and backsplash, but the TNG50 analysis does not rely on those papers to generate its results; the simulation itself shows ram-pressure tails and mass-dependent trends. The assumption that internal feedback alone does not fully quench dwarfs is stated in Sec. 1 but is an external premise, not an equation that reduces to the conclusion. The classification of all non-backsplash quenched dwarfs as cosmic-web-stripped is supported by only two illustrated examples, which is a verification limitation, but it is not circular because the classification is not imposed by construction. Overall, the derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities or fitted model parameters are introduced. The central claim rests on simulation fidelity, backsplash classification, and three hand-chosen or standard thresholds that define the numerical headline values.

free parameters (3)
  • Isolation distance D9 = 1.5 Mpc
    Hand-chosen threshold defining 'deeply isolated' dwarfs. The headline fractions of about 1 percent quenched and 94 percent cosmic-web stripped depend directly on this choice.
  • Stellar mass lower limit = 10^7 Msun
    Set by TNG50 resolution (about 120 star particles). The analysis excludes fainter dwarfs where reionization might act, shaping the quenched fraction trends.
  • sSFR quenching threshold = 10^-11 yr^-1
    Standard threshold from Wetzel et al. 2012. The quenched fraction and t90 quenching times are sensitive to this boundary.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption TNG50 subgrid physics (star formation and stellar feedback) is a faithful model for dwarf galaxies at Mstar > 10^7 Msun.
    The population-level claim that quenched field dwarfs arise only from environment rests on the simulation not producing quenched dwarfs via internal feedback. Invoked in Section 2.2 and the Introduction.
  • domain assumption SubLink merger trees and the backsplash classification correctly identify galaxies that were once satellites of a massive host.
    The 6 percent versus 94 percent split between backsplash and cosmic-web stripped dwarfs depends on this classification. Misclassification would change the relative fractions. See Section 2.2.
  • domain assumption The sSFR threshold of 10^-11 yr^-1 cleanly separates quenched from star-forming dwarfs.
    Used to define the sample and central claims. Borderline objects could shift the quenched fractions, especially near the low-mass end. See Section 2.2 and Figure 1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Environmental Quenching Mechanisms of Field Dwarf Galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QWE5J6DF

@misc{pith2026250113159,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Environmental Quenching Mechanisms of Field Dwarf Galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QWE5J6DF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13159}
}
abstract

Field dwarf galaxies not actively forming stars are relatively rare in the local Universe, but are present in cosmological hydrodynamical simulations. We use the TNG50 simulation to investigate their origin and find that they all result from environmental effects that have removed or reduced their gas content. Quenched field dwarfs consist of either backsplash objects ejected from a massive host or of systems that have lost their gas after crossing overdense regions such as filaments or sheets (``cosmic web stripping''). Quenched fractions rise steeply with decreasing stellar mass, with quenched systems making up roughly $\sim 15\%$ of all field dwarfs (i.e., excluding satellites) with stellar masses $10^{7}<M_{\star}/M_{\odot}<10^{9}$. This fraction drops to only $\sim1\%$ when a strict isolation criterion that requires no neighbours with $M_{\star}>10^9\, M_{\odot}$ within {$1.5$} Mpc is applied. Of these isolated dwarfs, $\sim 6\%$ are backsplash, while the other $\sim 94\%$ have been affected by the cosmic web. Backsplash systems are more deficient in dark matter, have retained less or no gas, and have stopped forming stars earlier than cosmic web-stripped systems. The discovery of deeply isolated dwarf galaxies which were quenched relatively recently would lend observational support to the prediction that the cosmic web is capable of inducing the cessation of star formation in dwarfs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13159 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Specific star formation rate (sSFR) as a function of stellar mass for all simulated central galaxies in the TNG50 sim￾ulation, split into star-forming (blue filled circles) and quenched (red filled circles) galaxies, following the criterion of Wetzel et al. (2012) at sSFR = 10−11 yr−1 (dashed horizontal pink line). We also highlight the sample of backsplash galaxies (green open cir￾cles). Quenched galaxies with SFR … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Fraction of quenched galaxies as a function of stellar mass. The solid red line denotes all simulated central galaxies in TNG50, while the dashed green line corresponds to backsplash galaxies. For comparison, observational data of quenched isolated galaxies from SDSS are shown using orange symbols (Tinker et al. 2011; Geha et al. 2012). The focus of this work is on low-mass galaxies with stellar masses in the range … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spatial distribution of the gas content (first and third rows) in specific snapshots showing the evolution of two examples of isolated dwarf galaxies quenched through cosmic web stripping (Benítez-Llambay et al. 2013), and the large-scale environment (second and fourth rows) with the orbit followed by each galaxy over time, indicated by the thin red line. In all cases, the arrows represent the direction of the insta… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples of the evolution parameters for the same two isolated quenched galaxies showed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Halo mass–stellar mass relation (𝑀200-𝑀★) for all central galaxies in TNG50, separated into star-forming (blue filled circles) and quenched (red filled circles) galaxies, with backsplash galaxies highlighted as green open circles (as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fraction of neutral hydrogen (𝐻 𝐼) mass with respect to baryon mass (neutral Hydrogen mass + stellar mass) as a function of stellar mass for all simulated central galaxies in TNG50 (left panel), separated into star-forming (blue filled circles) and quenched (red filled…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left panel: Relation between the times to assemble 50% (𝑡50) and 90% (𝑡90) of stellar mass in cosmic time units (𝑧 = 0 corresponds to ∼ 13.8 Gyr). Quenched dwarf galaxies in TNG50 are separated into backsplash (green) and non-backsplash (orange) populations. Right pane…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Fraction of dwarfs whose closest massive (𝑀★ > 109𝑀⊙) neighbor lies beyond a distance 𝐷9. The black thin line corresponds to all central dwarf galaxies (𝑀★ = [107 -109 ] 𝑀⊙) in TNG50, while star-forming and quenched galaxies are highlighted with thick solid blue and re…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Dwarf Galaxies in the TNG50 Field: connecting their Star-formation Rates with their Environments

    astro-ph.GA 2025-01 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    In the TNG50 simulation, only about 1% of isolated field dwarfs are quenched, while most quenched field dwarfs are backsplash galaxies near cluster-scale halos, producing a two-halo galactic conformity signal.

  2. Zangetsu: A Candidate of Isolated, Quiescent, and Backsplash Ultra-Diffuse Galaxy in the COSMOS Field

    astro-ph.GA 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A candidate ultra-diffuse galaxy, Zangetsu, found in HSC COSMOS images is unusually elongated, quiescent, apparently isolated, and an extreme size outlier.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    G., Moore, B., & Bower, R

    Abadi, M. G., Moore, B., & Bower, R. G. 1999, MNRAS, 308, 947, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02715.x

    arXiv 1999

  2. [2]

    L., Navarro, J

    Balogh, M. L., Navarro, J. F., & Morris, S. L. 2000, ApJ, 540, 113, doi: 10.1086/309323 10 J. A. Benavides et al

    doi:10.1086/309323 2000

  3. [3]

    A., Sales, L

    Benavides, J. A., Sales, L. V., Abadi, M. G., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1255, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01458-1

    doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01458-1 2021

  4. [4]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 4887, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2698 Benítez-Llambay, A., Navarro, J

    Benitez-Llambay, A., & Frenk, C. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 4887, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2698 Benítez-Llambay, A., Navarro, J. F., Abadi, M. G., et al. 2013, ApJL, 763, L41, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/763/2/L41 Benítez-Llambay, A., Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3913, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2982

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2698 2020

  5. [5]

    Bhattacharyya, J., Peter, A. H. G., & Leauthaud, A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.01946, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.01946

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.01946 2025

  6. [6]

    The puzzle of isolated and quenched dwarf galaxies in cosmic voids

    Bidaran, B., Pérez, I., Sánchez-Menguiano, L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.02910, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.02910

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.02910 2025

  7. [7]

    S., & Kaplinghat, M

    Boylan-Kolchin, M., Bullock, J. S., & Kaplinghat, M. 2011, MNRAS, 415, L40, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01074.x

    arXiv 2011

  8. [8]

    T., Alvarez, M

    Busha, M. T., Alvarez, M. A., Wechsler, R. H., Abel, T., & Strigari, L. E. 2010, ApJ, 710, 408, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/710/1/408

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/710/1/408 2010

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    A., et al

    Carleton, T., Ellsworth-Bowers, T., Windhorst, R. A., et al. 2024, ApJL, 961, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1b56

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Greco, J

    Casey, K. J., Greco, J. P., Peter, A. H. G., & Davis, A. B. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 4715, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad352

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    K., Kereš, D., Wetzel, A., et al

    Chan, T. K., Kereš, D., Wetzel, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 906, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1153

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    S., & White, S

    Davis, M., Efstathiou, G., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1985, ApJ, 292, 371, doi: 10.1086/163168

    1985 doi

  5. [14]

    R., Yan, R., & Tinker, J

    Geha, M., Blanton, M. R., Yan, R., & Tinker, J. L. 2012, ApJ, 757, 85, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/85

    2012 doi

  6. [15]

    E., & Gott, J

    Gunn, J. E., & Gott, J. Richard, I. 1972, ApJ, 176, 1, doi: 10.1086/151605 Herzog,G.,Benítez-Llambay,A.,&Fumagalli,M.2023,MNRAS, 518, 6305, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3282

    1972 doi

  7. [16]

    E., Carlsten, S

    Li, J., Greene, J. E., Carlsten, S. G., & Danieli, S. 2024, ApJL, 975, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5b59

    2024 doi

  8. [17]

    D., Navarro, J

    Ludlow, A. D., Navarro, J. F., Springel, V., et al. 2009, ApJ, 692, 931, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/931

    2009 doi

  9. [18]

    A., Sanchis, T., Salvador-Solé, E., & Solanes, J

    Mamon, G. A., Sanchis, T., Salvador-Solé, E., & Solanes, J. M. 2004, A&A, 414, 445, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034155

    2004 doi

  10. [19]

    P., Naab, T., & White, S

    Moster, B. P., Naab, T., & White, S. D. M. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 3121, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts261

    2013 doi

  11. [20]

    2014, A&A, 564, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322033

    Muriel, H., & Coenda, V. 2014, A&A, 564, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322033

    2014 doi

  12. [21]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040

    2018 doi

  13. [22]

    2019a, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, doi: 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

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

    doi

  14. [23]

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

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

    doi

  15. [24]

    Okamoto, T., & Frenk, C. S. 2009, MNRAS, 399, L174, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00748.x

    2009

  16. [25]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd54a

    Park, M., Belli, S., Conroy, C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd54a

    2023 doi

  17. [26]

    C., Springel, V., & van de Voort, F

    Pasha, I., Mandelker, N., van den Bosch, F. C., Springel, V., & van de Voort, F. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 2692, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3776

    2023 doi

  18. [27]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 1425, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3633

    Santos-Santos, I. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1425, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3633

    2023 doi

  19. [28]

    2018a, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

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

    doi

  20. [29]

    2018b, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Hernquist, L., et al. 2018b, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    doi

  21. [30]

    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

    2019 doi

  22. [31]

    Romanowsky, A. J. 2021, ApJL, 914, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac024f

    2021 doi

  23. [32]

    J., van der Burg, R

    Prole, D. J., van der Burg, R. F. J., Hilker, M., & Spitler, L. R. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 2049, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3296

    2021 doi

  24. [33]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 49, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv264 Román, J., Beasley, M

    Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Genel, S., Vogelsberger, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 49, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv264 Román, J., Beasley, M. A., Ruiz-Lara, T., & Valls-Gabaud, D. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 823, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz835

    2015 doi

  25. [34]

    V., Navarro, J

    Sales, L. V., Navarro, J. F., Abadi, M. G., & Steinmetz, M. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 1475, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12026.x

    2007

  26. [35]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 3849, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2576

    Samuel, J., Pardasani, B., Wetzel, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 3849, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2576

    2023 doi

  27. [36]

    J., Mutlu-Pakdil, B., Jones, M

    Sand, D. J., Mutlu-Pakdil, B., Jones, M. G., et al. 2022, ApJL, 935, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac85ee

    2022 doi

  28. [37]

    Santos-Santos, I. M. E., Navarro, J. F., & McConnachie, A. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 55, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad085

    2023 doi

  29. [38]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    Springel, V. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    2010

  30. [39]

    Springel, V., White, S. D. M., Tormen, G., & Kauffmann, G. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 726, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04912.x

    2001

  31. [40]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.07834

    Stephenson, H., Stott, J., Butler, J., Webster, M., & Head, J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.07834. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.07834

    2024 arXiv

  32. [42]

    2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1107.5046, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1107.5046

    Tinker, J., Wetzel, A., & Conroy, C. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1107.5046, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1107.5046

    2011 doi arXiv

  33. [43]

    R., Tinker, J

    Wetzel, A. R., Tinker, J. L., & Conroy, C. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 232, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21188.x

    2012

  34. [44]

    2022, A&A, 660, L11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243307

    Yang, Y., Ianjamasimanana, R., Hammer, F., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, L11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243307

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.