Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Formation and evolution of boxy/peanut bulges in the Auriga cosmological simulations

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In the Auriga cosmological simulations, boxy/peanut bulges form 1.1–1.6 Gyr after their bar does, always after a buckling episode, and the b/p fraction among barred galaxies falls from 45% at $z=0$ to zero by $z\sim1$.

desk verdict First systematic account of b/p bulges in cosmological simulations, with a real caveat: the detection threshold controls every headline number and is calibrated on the same visual data used for validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13590 v1 pith:HXQFSNVU submitted 2025-05-19 astro-ph.GA

Paula D. López , Francesca Fragkoudi , Sofía A. Cora , Cecilia Scannapieco , Rüdiger Pakmor , Robert J. J. Grand , Facundo Gómez , Federico Marinacci This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords boxy/peanutbulgesgalacticbarsbucklinginstabilitycosmologicalzoom-insimulationsgalaxystructureredshiftevolutionbarfractionAuriga
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

This paper asks when and how boxy/peanut (b/p) bulges appear in disc galaxies that form inside a cosmological context, rather than in the isolated galaxy models where these structures were first studied. Using 30 Milky-Way-mass haloes from the Auriga magneto-hydrodynamical zoom-in simulations, it develops an automatic measure of b/p strength from the vertical height profile of bar stars and traces that measure across cosmic time. It claims that b/p bulges form about 1.1–1.6 Gyr after a bar forms, that all nine b/p bulges in the sample follow a bar-buckling episode, and that the fraction of barred galaxies hosting a b/p falls from 45 per cent at $z=0$ to zero by $z\sim1$. These claims matter because they turn a debated morphological detail into a dated dynamical event that both simulations and high-redshift surveys can agree to look for.

What carries the argument

The central object is the normalized vertical height profile $Z(r)=|z|_{\mathrm{median}}(r)/|z|_{\mathrm{median}}(0)$ built from bar stars, which measures how thick the stellar distribution is at each radius. A b/p bulge is registered as a local peak in $Z$, found automatically as the minimum of $\mathrm{d}^2Z/\mathrm{d}r^2$ dropping below $-0.51$ and staying there for at least five snapshots. The same peak's radial position defines the b/p size $R_{\mathrm{bp}}$, and its height defines the b/p strength. Supporting diagnostics are the Fourier bar-strength profile $A_2(r)$, the buckling amplitude $A_{\mathrm{buck}}$, and the meridional tilt angle $\Theta_{\mathrm{tilt}}$, whose peaks locate buckling episodes and tie the b/p peak to a physical instability.

What would settle it

Re-run the peak-detection algorithm on the same nine galaxies with thresholds of, say, $-0.40$ and $-0.60$ and recompute formation times and the $z=0$ fraction: if the 1.1–1.6 Gyr delay or the 45 per cent fraction moves by more than the quoted uncertainties, the published timeline is a calibration artifact. A second test: a securely identified b/p bulge in a barred galaxy at $z>1$ would contradict the claim that the b/p fraction reaches zero by $z\sim1$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that boxy/peanut bulges in cosmological simulations are not slow resonance-built structures but the visible aftermath of discrete buckling events. The peak-detection method finds nine b/p bulges in the 30 Auriga haloes; each one appears between 1.1 and 1.6 Gyr (median) after the bar forms, and in every case a visual break in the bar's mid-plane symmetry precedes the appearance. Two galaxies in the sample lose their b/p signal for a period and then regrow it after a later buckling, and one galaxy shows four buckling episodes. The paper also reports that b/p bulges extend to roughly half the bar length, with a median $R_{\mathrm{bp}}/R_{\mathrm{bar}}=0.48$ at $z=0$, and that the fraction of barred galaxies with a b/p drops from 45 per cent at $z=0$ to 20 per cent at $z=0.5$ and to zero at $z\sim1$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the single threshold $\mathrm{d}^2Z/\mathrm{d}r^2 < -0.51$, chosen by visually inspecting the same galaxies, is what separates a real b/p bulge from a faint or transient one; because the paper itself shows faint b/p features remaining visible in unsharp masks when the code reports none, a different threshold would shift every formation time and fraction this paper reports.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The b/p fraction as a function of redshift becomes a clock for bar evolution: in these simulations the 45 per cent at $z=0$ falls to 20 per cent at $z=0.5$ and to zero by $z\sim1$, so high-redshift surveys should see a steep drop.
  • A b/p bulge is not permanent once formed: bars can buckle, build a peanut, lose its detectable signal, and rebuild it after a later buckling, so single-snapshot classifications miss an important part of the population.
  • Because the delay between bar and b/p formation is only 1.1–1.6 Gyr, most b/p-bearing bars in the local Universe should be older than roughly 2 Gyr, and young bars should almost never show a b/p.
  • The b/p radius tracks, and is about half of, the bar radius, so measurements of one put a constraint on the other; the observed $R_{\mathrm{bp}}/R_{\mathrm{bar}}$ ratios agree with this simulated value.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the $-0.51$ threshold was calibrated on the same nine galaxies it is applied to, the reported formation times and the 45 per cent fraction are partly circular; varying the threshold is a cheap check, and the paper's own appendix shows faint b/p signals may persist where the algorithm registers zero.
  • The universal buckling-first result may be a property of the Auriga galaxy formation model rather than of galaxies generally; the paper argues this model lacks massive central mass concentrations, so a simulation with a strong central concentration should produce a resonance-formed b/p without buckling.
  • The trend that b/p hosts have lower $\sigma_z/\sigma_r$ about 1 Gyr after bar formation suggests a quantitative threshold could separate future b/p hosts from non-hosts; that is a direct, testable extension to a larger sample of haloes.
  • If disc heating indeed suppresses buckling, then variations in feedback strength that make discs thinner should raise the b/p fraction toward the 69–80 per cent values reported by some observational studies.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses the Auriga cosmological zoom-in simulations to study the formation and evolution of boxy/peanut (b/p) bulges. The authors develop an automated b/p detection method based on the second derivative of a normalized vertical-height profile, identify a sample of nine barred galaxies with b/p structures, and measure formation times relative to bar formation, b/p fractions as a function of redshift, b/p sizes, and the timing of buckling episodes. They report that b/p bulges form 1.1-1.6 Gyr after bar formation, always following a buckling event, that 45% of barred galaxies host a b/p at z=0 with the fraction declining to zero by z~1, and that b/p sizes are roughly half the bar length, with some galaxies showing b/p 'dissolution' and re-emergence.

Significance. If the central results hold, this is a valuable step in placing b/p bulge formation in a cosmological context, complementing earlier isolated-galaxy simulations and observational work. The paper is carefully structured and uses multiple independent diagnostics (visual inspection, Z-peak detection, A_buck, and Theta_tilt) that broadly agree, and the underlying Auriga data are public. The main quantitative claims, however, rest on a single detection threshold whose calibration is not independent of the measurements it produces, and the paper's own Appendix D concedes that faint b/p signals remain visible when the code reports no detection. These issues affect the headline formation times, the redshift evolution of the b/p fraction, and the interpretation of 'dissolution' events. The direction and qualitative conclusions are likely robust, but the reported numbers need additional sensitivity analysis before they can be accepted as quantitative predictions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.3(v), footnote 3, and Appendix D] The detection threshold d^2Z/dr^2 < -0.51 is calibrated by visually inspecting the same nine galaxies whose formation times and fractions it is then used to measure (footnote 3), and Appendix D states that during intervals when the code reports zero b/p strength, unsharp masks show a faint peanut signal near the bar ends. Because this single threshold defines t_c_bp, the b/p fraction curve in Fig. 6, and the 'dissolution' episodes in Au10 and Au17, the paper should provide a sensitivity analysis, for example by varying the threshold or by using the visual weak detection times as an alternative criterion, before the quantitative claims (median 1.1-1.6 Gyr delay, 45% z=0 fraction, decline to zero at z~1) can be taken at face value.
  2. [Sec. 3.1 and Fig. 6] The code-based b/p fraction is a direct function of the same -0.51 threshold, while the 'visual' b/p fraction shown as the thin blue line in Fig. 6 is not described quantitatively: there is no explicit protocol for what constitutes a visually detected b/p at each redshift, nor a consistency criterion between the visual and code counts. Without such a protocol, the claimed decline to zero at z~1 is not robust to the detection threshold, especially given the faint signals noted in Appendix D.
  3. [Sec. 3 and Appendix D] The claim that b/p structures 'dissolve' (abstract, Sec. 3, Sec. 7) is stronger than the evidence supports. The authors themselves state in Appendix D that the unsharp masks show a faint peanut signal during the code's zero-strength intervals, which means the structure weakens below the detection threshold rather than demonstrably vanishing. This phrasing should be revised, or the strength criterion should be calibrated to the visually persistent feature, so that 'dissolution' is not an artifact of the threshold choice.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption reads 'the formation time of the formation time of the bar'; the duplicate phrase should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. 6.1 and Fig. 5] The quoted median delay of 1.1 Gyr for 'first appearance' is not clearly defined: Table 2 lists t_vw,1 only for Au13 and Au18 (and t_vw,2 for Au18), so the set of galaxies used to compute this median should be stated explicitly to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Sec. 3.1] The text refers to 'IllsutrisTNG50' instead of 'IllustrisTNG50'.
  4. [Sec. 5 and Fig. 12] There is an inconsistency between the text of Sec. 5, which describes Au17's first buckling as spanning roughly 8.7-6 Gyr and the second as 3.8-0 Gyr, and the caption of Fig. 12, which quotes intervals of 8.09-7.62 Gyr and 2.79-0.34 Gyr; please reconcile these numbers.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

The automated b/p detection threshold is visually calibrated on the same galaxies and then used to define formation times and code-based fractions; Appendix D admits faint peanut signals remain when the code reports none, so the headline timescales and fraction decline are partly threshold-imposed.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.3(v), footnote 3; Section 3.1; Appendix D]
    "we developed an automatised algorithm to detect the presence of a b/p and its strength which gives us a good match to the visual classification of b/p bulges ... When this parameter drops below a threshold3 of d2Z(r)/dr2 < -0.51, and remains below it consistently (for at least 5 snapshots), we define this instant as marking the formation time of the b/p bulge, denoted as tc_bp. Footnote 3: The threshold was determined by visually inspecting when a b/p appears in edge-on images of the galaxy."

    The formation time of the b/p is not an independent measurement: the single number that decides whether a b/p exists is chosen by visually inspecting the same nine galaxies it is then used to analyze. Every headline quantity that comes from the code (median 1.6 Gyr delay, code-based b/p fraction curve, the 'dissolution' and re-emergence episodes in Au10 and Au17) is a direct function of this one threshold. Appendix D itself concedes that during intervals where the code reports zero strength the unsharp mask still shows a faint peanut signal, so the threshold is acting as an ontological cut between 'present' and 'absent' rather than tracing an independently defined structure.

full rationale

This is a measurement study of Auriga simulations, not a first-principles derivation, so most of the paper is not circular. Bar sizes, A2-based bar fractions, Rbp/Rbar ratios, velocity-dispersion ratios, and buckling diagnostics (Abuck, Theta_tilt) are computed from the simulations with methods that do not depend on the b/p detection threshold. The circular content is localized to the automated b/p detection: the threshold d2Z/dr2 < -0.51 was set by visually inspecting the same galaxies, and is then used to define formation times, the code-based b/p fraction, and the apparent disappearance/re-appearance of b/p structures. Appendix D's admission that a faint peanut signal remains when the code reports no strength confirms that the zero-fraction points and 'dissolution' events are threshold-imposed. The visual-method fraction and the size comparison with Erwin & Debattista (2017) provide independent content, which prevents a higher score, but the central formation-time and fraction claims are partly constructed from the calibration.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on several chosen thresholds and cuts. The b/p detection threshold (-0.51) is the most consequential because it sets the time at which a b/p is considered present; it was calibrated by eye on the same snapshots it is later used to classify. The bar strength threshold (0.25) and the radial selection window (0.15-0.75 Rbar) also affect the measured fractions and sizes. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • b/p detection threshold d2Z/dr2 < -0.51 = -0.51
    Determined by visually inspecting when a b/p appears in edge-on images (Sec 2.3(v), footnote 3); all b/p formation times and fractions depend on this threshold.
  • Bar detection threshold A2,max > 0.25 = 0.25
    Standard threshold adopted from previous bar studies (Sec 2.2); determines which galaxies are counted as barred, affecting the b/p fraction denominator.
  • Detection radius window (0.15-0.75 Rbar,z0) = 0.15-0.75 Rbar,z0
    Chosen to exclude inner and outer radial regions when looking for the Z peak (Sec 2.3(iii)); affects measured Rbp and detection.
  • Star selection cuts |y|<0.8 kpc, |z|<2 kpc = 0.8 kpc, 2 kpc
    Chosen to isolate bar stars (Sec 2.3(i)); affects Z profile and thus b/p detection.
  • Disc cut |z|<5 kpc for A2 = 5 kpc
    Used to define disc particles for bar strength (Sec 2.2); authors note this choice changes bar ages by about 11 percent compared to a 0.8 kpc cut (footnote 1).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Auriga suite's galaxy formation model (Grand et al. 2017) is an acceptable representation of real galaxy formation.
    The paper uses Auriga outputs as ground truth for galaxy evolution; if the feedback/ISM model is unrealistic, the b/p properties could be biased.
  • domain assumption A peak in the normalized median |z| profile (Z) is a reliable tracer of a boxy/peanut bulge.
    The method assumes the b/p signal appears as a local maximum in Z; validated only against the authors' visual classifications (Sec 2.3).
  • domain assumption Visual classification of b/p and buckling is a valid ground truth.
    The automated threshold and buckling intervals are calibrated using visual inspection; this is subjective and not reproducible from first principles.
  • standard math The bar's m=2 Fourier mode and its strength threshold are standard and reliable.
    Fourier decomposition (Eq. 1-2) is a standard tool in bar studies (Athanassoula et al. 2013).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Formation and evolution of boxy/peanut bulges in the Auriga cosmological simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HXQFSNVU

@misc{pith2026250513590,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Formation and evolution of boxy/peanut bulges in the Auriga cosmological simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HXQFSNVU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13590}
}
abstract

Boxy/peanut (b/p) or X-shaped bulges have been extensively explored with theory and numerical simulations of isolated galaxies. However, it is only recently that advances in hydrodynamical cosmological simulations have made it possible to explore b/p bulges in a cosmological setting, with much remaining to be understood about their formation and evolution. By using the Auriga magneto-hydrodynamical cosmological zoom-in simulations, we characterise the structural parameters of b/p bulges and how they form and evolve throughout cosmic history. We develop a method for estimating the b/p strength that allows us to identify the formation time and size of these structures. We find that b/p bulges in Auriga form between $\sim 1.1-1.6\, \mathrm Gyr$ after bar formation, following a `buckling' episode; some galaxies undergo multiple bucklings and events of b/p growth, with some b/p structures `dissolving' between buckling events. We find that at $z=0$, the b/p bulges have an extent of almost half the bar length. Finally, we analyse the evolution of the b/p fraction over redshift, finding that at $z=0$, two thirds of galaxies host a bar, and of these, $45$ per cent have a b/p. This b/p fraction is within the observed range at $z=0$, although on the low end as compared to some observational studies. The b/p fraction decreases to $20$ per cent at $z=0.5$, and falls to zero at $z \sim 1$; this is in line with the observed trend of declining b/p fraction with redshift. We discuss possible culprits for the apparent mismatch in b/p occurrence between observations and cosmological simulations, what causes them to form (or not) in these simulations, and what this might reveal about models of galaxy formation and evolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13590 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Correlation between two of the definitions for the formation time of the b/p bulge: the visual ones (visual strong in colours and the visual weak in grey) versus the one obtained from the peak-detection code. The diagonal dashed line corresponds to the identity line. All the times are lookback times in Gyr. 0.75 𝑅 𝑧=0 bar . In order to facilitate peak detection we have smoothed the profiles with a Butterworth filter… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Upper panel: Stellar surface density in the edge-on projection (𝑥𝑧 plane) for the simulated galaxy Au23 at 𝑧 = 0. Middle panel: Unsharp mask of the surface density in the edge-on projection. Lower panel: Radial profile of the median absolute value of the stellar heights, normalised by the central value evaluated at 𝑧 = 0, Z (solid black line), and the second derivative of Z (dashed violet curve with dots). The verti… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Radial (cylindrical) profiles of the median of the absolute value of the 𝑧-positions of stars normalised by the central value. The different colours are the lookback time measured since bar formation (𝑡bar) until 𝑡lb = 0 Gyr. The code peak-detected time formation of the b/p bulge (𝑡 c bp) is indicated with a red line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of the strength of the b/p bulge, obtained from the peak of the distribution of Z as a function of the cylindrical radius 𝑟. The profiles start at the lookback time 𝑡bar of each galaxy. The dashed line is the lookback time formation of the b/p bulge according…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Time interval between the formation time of the b/p bulge with respect to the formation time of the formation time of the bar as determined by visual inspection of a weak structure (square), a very weak structure for Au18 (square with thick lines), and according to the…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: B/p fraction (left y-axis in blue) and bar fraction (right y-axis in pink) as function of redshift, considering the 30 galaxies in the simulation. Two methods were used to obtain the fractions in each case: a code-based count method (thick lines) based on the strength …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left y-axis: b/p size as a function of lookback time (solid line) and bar size normalized by its size at 𝑧 = 0 (dashed line). Right y-axis: evolution in lookback time of the ratio between the b/p size and the bar size. The shaded regions indicate the lookback times at …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Histogram of the ratio between the b/p bulge radius and the bar radius at 𝑧 = 0 (pink) and 𝑧 = 0.2 (green). The dashed-dotted vertical lines indicate the median values for each redshift. The dashed vertical lines show the range of ratios measured by Erwin & Debattista…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evolution of the buckling amplitude, 𝐴buck, and the meridional tilt angle, Θtilt, for the galaxies in our sample. The buckling amplitude is represented by black lines with values marked on the left 𝑦-axis, while the tilt angle is shown by green lines with values indic…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Stellar density distribution and unsharp mask in the edge-on projection, for two buckling episodes recorded for the simulated galaxy Au17. For the first buckling we display the interval going from 8.09 − 7.62 Gyr in lookback time, and for the second buckling from 2.79…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Bar strength as a function of lookback time from 𝑡bar to 𝑡lb = 0 Gyr. The vertical lines are the different formations times for the b/p bulge: peak￾detection method (dashed line, 𝑡 c bp), visual strong (dashed-dotted line, 𝑡 vs bp), visual weak (thick dotted line, 𝑡 v…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. GalPort: Investigation of the bar in action-angle space

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    GalPort computes multi-timescale action-angle variables and orbital classifications for evolving barred galaxy simulations, with specialised bar phase-space analysis tools.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    G., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469.1054A 469, 1054

    Algorry D. G., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469.1054A 469, 1054

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1008 2017

  2. [2]

    R., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3271 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.2919A 527, 2919

    Anderson S. R., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3271 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.2919A 527, 2919

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3271 2024

  3. [3]

    Araki S., 1985, PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    1985

  4. [4]

    Athanassoula E., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08872.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.358.1477A 358, 1477

    arXiv 2005

  5. [5]

    Athanassoula E., Martinez-Valpuesta I., 2007, Formation and evolution of bulges ( @eprint arXiv 0710.1518 )

    work page Pith review arXiv 2007

  6. [6]

    Springer Berlin Heidelberg, p

    Athanassoula E., Martinez-Valpuesta I., 2008, Boxy/peanut bulges: formation, evolution and properties. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, p. 77–83, @doi 10.1007/978-3-540-75826-6_7 , http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75826-6_7

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-75826-6_7 2008

  7. [7]

    Athanassoula E., Misiriotis A., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05028.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.330...35A 330, 35

    arXiv 2002

  8. [8]

    Athanassoula E., Machado R. E. G., Rodionov S. A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts452 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.429.1949A 429, 1949

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts452 2013

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    Athanassoula E., Laurikainen E., Salo H., Bosma A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2231 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.3843A 454, 3843

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    A., Prantzos N., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw255 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467L..46A 467, L46

    Athanassoula E., Rodionov S. A., Prantzos N., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw255 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467L..46A 467, L46

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    Baba J., Kawata D., Sch \"o nrich R., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac598 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.2850B 513, 2850

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    H., Shlosman I., Fricke K

    Berentzen I., Heller C. H., Shlosman I., Fricke K. J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01836.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998MNRAS.300...49B 300, 49

    1998

  5. [13]

    A., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/113874 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985AJ.....90.1681B 90, 1681

    Binggeli B., Sandage A., Tammann G. A., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/113874 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985AJ.....90.1681B 90, 1681

    1985 doi

  6. [14]

    Binney J., Petrou M., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/214.4.449 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985MNRAS.214..449B 214, 449

    1985 doi

  7. [15]

    Binney J., Tremaine S., 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    2008

  8. [16]

    Bl \'a zquez-Calero G., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.1800B 491, 1800

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    Bureau M., Athanassoula E., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307675 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...522..686B 522, 686

    1999 doi

  10. [18]

    C., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300922 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999AJ....118..126B 118, 126

    Bureau M., Freeman K. C., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300922 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999AJ....118..126B 118, 126

    1999 doi

  11. [19]

    Butterworth S., 1930, Experimental Wireless & the Wireless Engineer, 7, 536

    1930

  12. [20]

    H., 1981, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981A&A....96..164C 96, 164

    Combes F., Sanders R. H., 1981, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981A&A....96..164C 96, 164

    1981

  13. [21]

    Combes F., Debbasch F., Friedli D., Pfenniger D., 1990, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990A&A...233...82C 233, 82

    1990

  14. [22]

    Costantin L., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-023-06636-x , 623, 499–501

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    Cuomo V., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3047 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.2300C 518, 2300

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    P., Carollo C

    Debattista V. P., Carollo C. M., Mayer L., Moore B., 2005, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/431292 , 628, 678–694

    2005 doi

  17. [25]

    P., Mayer L., Carollo C

    Debattista V. P., Mayer L., Carollo C. M., Moore B., Wadsley J., Quinn T., 2006, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/504147 , 645, 209–227

    2006 doi

  18. [26]

    P., Ness M., Gonzalez O

    Debattista V. P., Ness M., Gonzalez O. A., Freeman K., Zoccali M., Minniti D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx947 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469.1587D 469, 1587

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    P., Liddicott D

    Debattista V. P., Liddicott D. J., Khachaturyants T., BeraldoSilva L., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa2568 , 498, 3334

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    Dey A., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d , 157, 168

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/825/2/L30 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...825L..30E 825, L30

    Erwin P., Debattista V. P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/825/2/L30 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...825L..30E 825, L30

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    P., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx620 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.2058E 468, 2058

    Erwin P., Debattista V. P., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx620 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.2058E 468, 2058

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    B., et al., 2000, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/301203 , 119, 536

    Eskridge P. B., et al., 2000, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/301203 , 119, 536

    2000 doi

  24. [32]

    Fragkoudi F., Di Matteo P., Haywood M., G \'o mez A., Combes F., Katz D., Semelin B., 2017, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201630244 , 606, A47

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    Fragkoudi F., et al., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa1104 , 494, 5936–5960

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    Fragkoudi F., Grand R. J. J., Pakmor R., Springel V., White S. D. M., Marinacci F., Gomez F. A., Navarro J. F., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140320 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...650L..16F 650, L16

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    arXiv:2406.09453

    Fragkoudi F., Grand R., Pakmor R., G \'o mez F., Marinacci F., Springel V., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2406.09453 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240609453F p. arXiv:2406.09453

    2024 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    D., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2536 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.5742G 489, 5742

    Gargiulo I. D., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2536 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.5742G 489, 5742

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    D., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac629 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.2537G 512, 2537

    Gargiulo I. D., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac629 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.2537G 512, 2537

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    Ghosh S., Fragkoudi F., Di Matteo P., Saha K., 2024, @doi [Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347831 , 683, A196

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    Grand R. J. J., Springel V., G \'o mez F. A., Marinacci F., Pakmor R., Campbell D. J. R., Jenkins A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw601 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459..199G 459, 199

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    Grand R. J. J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx071 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467..179G 467, 179

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    Grand R. J. J., Fragkoudi F., G \'o mez F. A., Jenkins A., Marinacci F., Pakmor R., Springel V., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2401.08750 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240108750G p. arXiv:2401.08750

    2024 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    arXiv:2409.06100

    Guo Y., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.06100 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240906100G p. arXiv:2409.06100

    2024 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    Jogee S., et al., 2004, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/426138 , 615, L105

    2004 doi

  36. [44]

    Kraljic K., Bournaud F., Martig M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/60 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...757...60K 757, 60

    2012 doi

  37. [45]

    J., Erwin P., Debattista V

    Kruk S. J., Erwin P., Debattista V. P., Lintott C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2877 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490.4721K 490, 4721

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    H., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19283.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.418.1452L 418, 1452

    Laurikainen E., Salo H., Buta R., Knapen J. H., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19283.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.418.1452L 418, 1452

    2011

  39. [47]

    A., et al., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae921 , 530, 1984–2000

    Le Conte Z. A., et al., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae921 , 530, 1984–2000

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    Li X., Shlosman I., Pfenniger D., Heller C., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad076 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.1243L 520, 1243

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    L., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039425 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...642L..12L 642, L12

    okas E. L., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039425 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...642L..12L 642, L12

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    D., Scannapieco C., Cora S

    L \'o pez P. D., Scannapieco C., Cora S. A., Gargiulo I. D., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae576 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529..979L 529, 979

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    Astrophys

    Lütticke R., Dettmar R.-J., Pohlen M., 2000, @doi [Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. Ser.] 10.1051/aas:2000354 , 145, 405

    2000 doi

  44. [52]

    A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac599 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.1371M 512, 1371

    Marchuk A. A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac599 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.1371M 512, 1371

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    245, Formation and Evolution of Galaxy Bulges

    Martinez-Valpuesta I., Athanassoula E., 2008, in Bureau M., Athanassoula E., Barbuy B., eds, Vol. 245, Formation and Evolution of Galaxy Bulges. pp 103--106 ( @eprint arXiv 0710.4054 ), @doi 10.1017/S1743921308017390

    2008 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Martinez-Valpuesta I., Shlosman I., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/424876 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...613L..29M 613, L29

    2004 doi

  47. [55]

    Martinez-Valpuesta I., Shlosman I., Heller C., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/498338 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...637..214M 637, 214

    2006 doi

  48. [56]

    S., Norman C

    May A., van Albada T. S., Norman C. A., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/214.2.131 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985MNRAS.214..131M 214, 131

    1985 doi

  49. [57]

    Melvin T., et al., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt2397 , 438, 2882

    2014 doi

  50. [58]

    H., Scoville N

    Menéndez-Delmestre K., Sheth K., Schinnerer E., Jarrett T. H., Scoville N. Z., 2007, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/511025 , 657, 790

    2007 doi

  51. [59]

    A., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...425..551M 425, 551

    Merritt D., Sellwood J. A., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...425..551M 425, 551

    1994 doi

  52. [60]

    Nelson D., et al., 2018, The IllustrisTNG Simulations: Public Data Release, @doi 10.48550/arxiv.1812.05609

    2018 doi arXiv

  53. [61]

    Ness M., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/22 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...756...22N 756, 22

    2012 doi

  54. [62]

    J., Ohlmann S

    Pakmor R., Springel V., Bauer A., Mocz P., Munoz D. J., Ohlmann S. T., Schaal K., Zhu C., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv2380 , 455, 1134–1143

    2015 doi

  55. [63]

    Pfenniger D., Friedli D., 1991, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991A&A...252...75P 252, 75

    1991

  56. [64]

    Pillepich A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2338 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490.3196P 490, 3196

    2019 doi

  57. [65]

    Planck Collaboration XVI 2014, @doi [Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321591 , 571, A16

    2014 doi

  58. [66]

    C., 2002, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/341753 , 124, 722

    Quillen A. C., 2002, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/341753 , 124, 722

    2002 doi

  59. [67]

    C., Minchev I., Sharma S., Qin Y.-J., Di Matteo P., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt1972 , 437, 1284

    Quillen A. C., Minchev I., Sharma S., Qin Y.-J., Di Matteo P., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt1972 , 437, 1284

    2013 doi

  60. [68]

    A., James R

    Raha N., Sellwood J. A., James R. A., Kahn F. D., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1038/352411a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991Natur.352..411R 352, 411

    1991 doi

  61. [69]

    Rosas-Guevara Y., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3180 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.2547R 491, 2547

    2020 doi

  62. [70]

    Scannapieco C., Athanassoula E., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01291.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.425L..10S 425, L10

    2012

  63. [71]

    A., Athanassoula E., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/221.2.195 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986MNRAS.221..195S 221, 195

    Sellwood J. A., Athanassoula E., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/221.2.195 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986MNRAS.221..195S 221, 195

    1986 doi

  64. [72]

    A., Gerhard O., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa1336 , 495, 3175

    Sellwood J. A., Gerhard O., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa1336 , 495, 3175

    2020 doi

  65. [73]

    Sheth K., et al., 2008, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/524980 , 675, 1141

    2008 doi

  66. [74]

    D., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1817 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.3466S 445, 3466

    Simmons B. D., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1817 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.3466S 445, 3466

    2014 doi

  67. [75]

    Spinoso D., Bonoli S., Dotti M., Mayer L., Madau P., Bellovary J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2934 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.3729S 465, 3729

    2017 doi

  68. [76]

    Springel V., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130914 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ARA&A..48..391S 48, 391

    2010 doi

  69. [77]

    Springel V., Hernquist L., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06206.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.339..289S 339, 289

    2003

  70. [78]

    Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Publ

    Toomre A., 1966, Notes on the 1966 Summer Study Program in Geophysical Fluid Dynamics. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Publ. Vol. 1

    1966

  71. [79]

    Yoshino A., Yamauchi C., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu2249 , 446, 3749

    2014 doi

  72. [80]

    J., Buta R

    de Vaucouleurs G., de Vaucouleurs A., Corwin Herold G. J., Buta R. J., Paturel G., Fouque P., 1991, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies

    1991

  73. [81]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.