Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Born to be Starless: Revisiting the Missing Satellite Problem

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Starless subhalos are born, not made: their birth environments accrete too little matter to build self-shielding gas, so reionization heating prevents star formation before it begins.

desk verdict Careful, honest simulation work that confirms reionization suppresses faint satellites, but the 'born starless' framing runs ahead of the evidence and the reionization prescription is approximate. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09152 v1 pith:IMCPVXMM submitted 2025-06-10 astro-ph.GA

Seyoung Jeon , Sukyoung K. Yi , Emanuele Contini , Yohan Dubois , San Han , Katarina Kraljic , Sebastien Peirani , Christophe Pichon
show 1 more author
Jinsu Rhee
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords missingsatelliteproblemstarlesssubhalosreionizationself-shieldinggascosmologicalsimulationsdwarfgalaxiessupernovafeedback
topics Dark Matter
open problems 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

The long-standing 'missing satellite problem' is the gap between the many dark-matter subhalos that cosmological simulations predict around Milky Way-mass galaxies and the far fewer satellite galaxies actually seen. This paper argues that the gap closes through baryonic physics acting very early: subhalos born in regions where matter is accreted slowly never build gas dense enough to self-shield from the ultraviolet background that turns on at reionization, so their gas is heated and star formation never begins. Supernova feedback and stripping during orbital motion are shown to be secondary, since most starless subhalos never form stars at all and stripping removes gas but not stars. If the argument is right, a subhalo's observable fate is largely sealed before $z\sim7$; no exotic dark matter or destructive feedback is required, and galaxy occupation below about $10^9\,M_\odot$ is set by assembly history and birth environment rather than final halo mass.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is self-shielding of hydrogen gas against the uniform UV background that turns on at $z=10$. The simulations encode it analytically, via the corrected hydrogen density $n_{\mathrm{H,corr}} = n_\mathrm{H} / e^{n_\mathrm{H}/(0.01\ \mathrm{H\,cm^{-3}})}$, so that gas above the threshold $0.01\ \mathrm{H\,cm^{-3}}$ stops being radiatively heated and can cool, while gas below it is heated and its net temperature change flips from cooling to heating. Whether a subhalo sits on the cooling or heating side of that threshold at reionization is traced back to the matter accretion rate measured in a 100 comoving kpc box centered on its birthplace, using merger trees built from stable member particles. The supporting machinery is the gravo-turbulent star-formation criterion, which forms stars only where local gravity overcomes thermal and turbulent pressure in cells above density thresholds of $10\ \mathrm{H\,cm^{-3}}$ in NewHorizon and $5\ \mathrm{H\,cm^{-3}}$ in NewHorizon2, plus a reclassification step that uses star-formation histories to remove interloper stars and separate 'true' from 'false' starred and starless subhalos.

What would settle it

Run the same subhalo census with radiative transfer of ionizing photons, or in a control run with the UV background removed or delayed, and compare the starless fraction among subhalos in the common mass range $10^{8.4}$–$10^{8.9}\,M_\odot$. The claim predicts that low-accretion subhalos would cool and form stars once UV heating is absent or patchy reionization lets more of them self-shield; if many low-accretion subhalos remain starless under those conditions, reionization heating cannot be the decisive cause of the starless population.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Across 26 Milky Way-analog systems drawn from the NewHorizon and NewHorizon2 cosmological zoom-in simulations, the cumulative abundance of satellite galaxies matches Local Group observations while the underlying subhalo population vastly outnumbers them: 2,032 starless subhalos against 416 starred ones. Among subhalos selected to have comparable peak masses, the two classes hold similar amounts of gas but differ sharply in cold gas: starless subhalos contain essentially none, so stars never form. The paper rules out the two standard explanations: supernova feedback depletes cold gas in starred subhalos only mildly, and 93.8% of starless subhalos never experience a supernova at all; ram-pressure and tidal stripping remove gas from infalling subhalos but leave pre-existing stars intact, so they cannot convert a starred subhalo into a starless one. The decisive difference is the birthplace: starless subhalos form where dark-matter and baryon accretion rates are lower, and their gas stays below the self-shielding density of $0.01\ \mathrm{H\,cm^{-3}}$ as reionization completes at $z\sim7$, so UV heating prevents cooling to the star-formation threshold of $5$–$10\ \mathrm{H\,cm^{-3}}$. The paper's conclusion is in its title: starless subhalos are not made by feedback or stripping but born.

Load-bearing premise

The simulations model reionization with a uniform UV background switched on at $z=10$ plus a shielding formula, rather than actually tracking ionizing radiation from individual sources, so the conclusion depends on that simplification correctly deciding which halos keep gas cool enough to form stars.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The classical missing satellite problem is resolved within standard cold dark matter by reionization acting on low-accretion birth environments, with no need for warm or self-interacting dark matter to suppress subhalo formation.
  • Because the starless/starred divide is set before reionization completes, a subhalo's luminous fate can in principle be predicted from its early merger-tree accretion history alone.
  • Supernova feedback and ram-pressure or tidal stripping regulate gas and quench star formation in already-starred subhalos, but neither mechanism can turn a starred subhalo into a starless one.
  • Below the overlapping mass range near $10^9\,M_\odot$, galaxy occupation is governed by assembly history and birth environment rather than final halo mass, so a sharp mass threshold for galaxy formation is the wrong description.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If birth environment is decisive, the ratio of luminous satellites to dark subhalos should vary with the large-scale environment: systems forming along dense, fast-accreting filaments should retain more luminous satellites than systems in slower regions, a trend testable with the growing census of satellite systems around Milky Way-mass hosts.
  • The mechanism chains reionization timing directly to the faint end of the galaxy luminosity function: an earlier or stronger UV background should push the mass scale at which half the subhalos go starless to higher masses, while delayed or patchy reionization should lower it.
  • Because starless subhalos are not empty but contain warm, pristine gas, they may be detectable in absorption or line emission despite emitting no starlight, which would turn an apparently unobservable population into a probe of reionization physics.
  • A no-reionization control run would separate the 'born' effect of slow accretion from the 'heated' effect of UV radiation; if a large starless population persists without any UV background, the mechanism would have to be rebalanced toward the accretion environment itself.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses the high-resolution cosmological simulations NewHorizon and NewHorizon2 to study why most subhalos around Milky Way analogs are starless. After showing that their simulated satellite counts match Local Group observations, the authors classify subhalos into starless and starred populations and test supernova feedback and infall-related environmental effects as possible causes of starlessness, finding neither able to transform a star-forming subhalo into a starless one. The paper argues instead that starless subhalos are born in low-accretion environments whose gas never reaches the self-shielding density before the z=10 UV background turns on, so the gas is heated and cannot cool to form stars. The conclusion is that the missing satellite problem is naturally alleviated by reionization physics and that starless subhalos are 'born to be starless, not made.'

Significance. If the causal claim holds, the paper offers a baryonic, reionization-based resolution of the missing satellite problem that does not require modifying dark matter and identifies the early accretion environment as the key predictor of present-day starlessness. The paper's strengths include a relatively large sample of 26 Milky Way analogs, high spatial resolution (34 pc in NewHorizon), a dense snapshot cadence (about 15 Myr), and a careful subhalo classification with merger-tree validation and reclassification of false starless/starred systems. The main claim is falsifiable in principle: it predicts a correlation between the large-scale accretion environment at early times and the satellite occupation fraction. However, the robustness of this result against the simplified reionization and self-shielding treatment is not yet established, and one printed equation appears to invert the self-shielding correction.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix D, Eq. (D6)] Equation (D6) as printed defines n_H,corr = n_H / exp(-n_H/(0.01 H cm^-3)), which equals n_H * exp(+n_H/(0.01 H cm^-3)). As written, this boosts the effective density of the densest gas, which is the opposite of self-shielding. If the simulation code uses the literal formula, the central mechanism described in Section 3.2.3 is inverted in dense gas; if the code instead implements n_H,corr = n_H * exp(-n_H/0.01), please correct Eq. (D6) and explicitly state the implemented form. This is load-bearing because the 'born to be starless' dichotomy depends on the self-shielding prescription.
  2. [Section 4, reionization treatment] The central claim depends on the uniform UV background switched on at z=10 with an analytic self-shielding correction, rather than on radiative transfer with local ionizing sources. The manuscript itself notes in Section 4 the absence of radiative transfer and cites Zier et al. (2025) finding that differences are 'much more severe in low-mass halos,' which is exactly the population studied here. Because inhomogeneous or extended reionization can change which halos self-shield and when, the reported birth-environment dichotomy could be an artifact of the prescription. Please add robustness tests against plausible variations in the UV turn-on redshift, UV amplitude, or self-shielding threshold, or alternatively reframe the causal conclusion as conditional on the adopted reionization model.
  3. [Section 3.2.3, Figures 8 and 9] It is not clear whether the comparison in Figures 8 and 9 uses the peak-mass-matched subsample defined in Section 3.2. The mass functions in Figure 5(a) show that starred and starless subhalos have different final mass distributions; if the birth-environment comparison uses all subhalos, the higher accretion rates of starred subhalos could simply reflect their higher masses rather than a distinct birth environment. Please state explicitly which sample is used and, if the full sample is used, repeat the analysis on the matched subsample to verify that the accretion-rate difference persists.
  4. [Section 3.2.3 and Appendix D] The finding that starless subhalos never reach the self-shielding density is partly built into the model because the cooling tables impose a sharp transition at 0.01 H cm^-3 with a uniform UV background. The emergent part is which subhalos reach that density, and that part is interesting; however, the causal claim would be substantially stronger if the authors demonstrated that the correlation between early accretion and final starless fate persists when the self-shielding threshold or UV background model is varied within observationally allowed ranges.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1] The star formation density thresholds are given as '5 (NH2) or 10 H cm^-3 (NH)', which is easy to misread; please write out '5 H cm^-3 for NewHorizon2 and 10 H cm^-3 for NewHorizon'.
  2. [Figure 8] The background shading intended to indicate the reionization state is not defined in the caption or text; please add a legend or explicit description of the greyscale and the meaning of the epoch labels.
  3. [Sections 3.2.3 and 5] The term 'birthplace' is central to the argument but is used metaphorically; please define it operationally, for example as the position of the main progenitor at the first snapshot where it is identified in the merger tree.
  4. [Acknowledgments] The sentence 'We are particularly grateful to the referee for pointing us to numerous previous studies that were relevant to our investigation' is inappropriate for the published version and should be removed or rephrased.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the birth-environment result is emergent and the satellite counts are checked against external observations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: birth environment sets the matter accretion rate; lower accretion keeps gas below the 0.01 H cm^-3 self-shielding density before reionization; the uniform UV background then heats this diffuse gas, preventing cooling and star formation. The 0.01 H cm^-3 threshold is indeed an input to the cooling/heating tables (Eq. D6), and Figure D2 shows a sharp cooling-to-heating transition at that density. However, the paper does not present the threshold or the heating of sub-threshold gas as a derived prediction; it states it as the adopted subgrid prescription with a cited motivation (Rosdahl & Blaizot 2012). The emergent, testable content is which subhalos cross that density before z~7, and that is determined by the simulated accretion and gas dynamics, not by the input. The satellite abundance is compared directly to Local Group observations (Fig. 4a), providing an external benchmark, and no parameter is fitted to those counts. The paper also explicitly acknowledges that the key claims are not entirely novel and that the lack of radiative transfer 'could modify our results' (Section 4), which is an honest robustness caveat rather than a circular step. Self-citations to NewHorizon (Dubois et al. 2021) and NewHorizon2 (Yi et al. 2024) are normal simulation-description references; they do not carry a uniqueness argument or force the conclusion. One non-circular correctness concern is that Eq. D6 as printed divides by exp(-nH/0.01), which would boost the effective density in dense gas rather than suppress it; if implemented literally this would undermine the shielding mechanism, but this is an implementation/typo issue, not circularity. Overall, no claimed prediction reduces by construction to its inputs.

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

The central claim rests on the implemented subgrid physics, especially the uniform UV background, self-shielding threshold, and star formation criteria. These are inputs from prior work rather than derived here, and the conclusions are sensitive to their values. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Self-shielding density threshold = 0.01 H cm^-3
    Input from Rosdahl & Blaizot (2012) implemented in Eq. D6; determines whether gas is heated by the UV background. The paper's central mechanism depends on this threshold, since subhalos below it fail to self-shield.
  • UV background turn-on redshift = z = 10
    Uniform Haardt & Madau (1996) background switched on at z=10; the timing of reionization is critical for the before and after divergence between starless and starred subhalos.
  • Star formation density thresholds = 10 H cm^-3 (NewHorizon), 5 H cm^-3 (NewHorizon2)
    Cells must exceed these densities to form stars; directly affects which subhalos are classified as starred or starless.
  • Stellar feedback boost in NewHorizon2 = 50%
    NewHorizon2 uses a 50% boosted supernova feedback efficiency (Section 2.1); the two simulations are combined, so the result averages over different feedback strengths.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Lambda-CDM cosmology with Planck parameters
    The simulations assume standard cold dark matter cosmology; the missing satellite problem is framed within this model.
  • domain assumption Subgrid prescriptions for star formation, supernova feedback, and cooling from Dubois et al. (2021) are adequate for low-mass halos
    The starless and starred classification and gas evolution depend entirely on these prescriptions, which are not validated at the faint end in this paper.
  • domain assumption A uniform UV background without radiative transfer approximates reionization
    The paper's key mechanism is UV heating, but the simulation lacks radiative transfer; self-shielding is applied via Eq. D6. The authors acknowledge this limitation in Section 4.
  • ad hoc to paper The 100 comoving kpc box at the birthplace measures the relevant large-scale accretion environment
    The choice of box size and birthplace definition is specific to this analysis and not independently justified; the correlation may depend on this choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Born to be Starless: Revisiting the Missing Satellite Problem." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IMCPVXMM

@misc{pith2026250609152,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Born to be Starless: Revisiting the Missing Satellite Problem},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IMCPVXMM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09152}
}
read the original abstract

The massive Local Group galaxies both host substantially fewer satellites than the subhalos expected from the cold dark matter paradigm, and the recent investigations have highlighted the interplay between baryons and dark matter. We investigate the processes that make subhalos starless, using high-resolution cosmological simulations. We found that the number of satellites around Milky Way analogs closely aligns with observations, which accords with recent studies. In our simulations, the majority of subhalos are devoid of stars, i.e., "starless." We first examined supernova feedback and the environmental effects associated with subhalos' orbital motion as candidates of origin. However, neither seems to be the main driver. Supernova feedback causes a reduction of cold gas in "starred" subhalos, but its impact is not significant. In the case of starless subhalos, supernova feedback is irrelevant because most of them do not have in-situ star formation in the first place. The orbital motion in dense environments causes gas removal in all subhalos but is not enough to remove pre-existing stars. The key is found to be the effect of reionization instead. Starless subhalos are initially born in regions that are less efficient in accreting matter. This makes them lack sufficiently dense gas to self-shield from UV background heating, preventing their gas from cooling below the star formation threshold. This indicates that starless subhalos are not made but born.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09152 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Mass functions of identified galaxies (blue) and halos (grey) in NewHorizon and NewHorizon2 at z ≈ 0.17. The observed galaxy stellar mass functions are represented by black circles and diamonds (Li & White 2009; Baldry et al. 2012). Theoretical halo mass functions are shown in black solid and dashed lines (Sheth & Tormen 1999; Lapi et al. 2013). us to capture short timescale events (e.g., the reaction of surrounding… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of MWA systems and satellite statistics in our simulations. Panel (a) shows the large-scale distribution of DM (greyscale) and stars (reddish) in part of NewHorizon. The identified MWA systems are marked with yellow circles, indicating the virial radius R200,c and mass M200,c. Panel (b) zooms into a region within R200,c of one example system, illustrating the distribution of DM and subhalos. Yellow circles … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example starless and starred subhalos in our systems at z = 0.17, the final snapshot. Panels (a) and (b) show the images of sample starred and starless subhalos, respectively. The DM particles are shown as a smoothed density map in the background, and the stellar particles are overlaid in orange. White circles indicate Rvir computed from the halo finder. not use fainter satellite observations than those used in this… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Number and star formation rates of satellite galaxy samples. Panel (a) shows the cumulative number of satellite galaxies (blue) and subhalos (grey) in our MWA systems in NewHorizon and NewHorizon2, plotted with respect to the stellar mass of satellites and the virial m…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Structural and compositional differences between starless and starred subhalos in our systems at z = 0.17, the final snapshot. Panel (a) shows their mass functions. Arrows in the distribution indicate the 1 σ ranges. The overlapping range (grey band) of 108.4 ≲ Mvir/M⊙…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The first main possible scenario responsible for the removal of the cold gas in certain halos: supernova feedback. Panel (a) shows the supernova energy rate distribution from the starred (blue) and starless (red) subhalos. We also present the percentage of starless sub…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The second main possible scenario responsible for the removal of the cold gas in certain halos: the environmental effects associated with the orbital motion. Panel (a) illustrates the evolution of DM mass around the first infall into the proto-MWA systems. The x-axis i…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the initial evolution between starred (blue) and starless (red) subhalos, measured within a 100 comoving kpc box centered on their birthplace. Panel (a) shows the median mass evolution of DM (dashed), gas (solid), and cold gas (dotted). Shaded regions are…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Similar evolutionary information to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Extreme mass-ratio inspirals into Newtonian Proca stars

    gr-qc 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    For Newtonian Proca stars, a perturbing object on a circular orbit loses nearly the same energy in the vector ground state as in the scalar boson-star ground state (within ~20%), while the spherical excited Proca stat...

  2. Cosmological simulations of the same spiral galaxy: satellite properties, the role of baryonic physics and star formation history in shaping dark matter cores/cusps

    astro-ph.GA 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Satellites that form most of their stars early keep dark matter cusps, while late or continuous star formers develop oscillating cores, so the dwarf diversity problem may be explained by feedback history and tides wit...

  3. Tightening Bounds on Warm Dark Matter with High-Redshift Gamma-Ray Bursts

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Using the redshift distribution of 118 luminous Swift GRBs, warm dark matter particles are bounded to mx ≥ 1.3 keV at 95% CL (≥3.4 keV if GRBs exactly trace the SFR).

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

122 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    M., Christensen, C

    Applebaum, E., Brooks, A. M., Christensen, C. R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 906, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcafa Arjona-G´ alvez, E., Di Cintio, A., & Grand, R. J. J. 2024, A&A, 690, A286, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449439 NH Missing Satellites and Starless subhalos19

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abcafa 2021

  2. [2]

    2004, MNRAS, 352, 376, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07883.x

    Aubert, D., Pichon, C., & Colombi, S. 2004, MNRAS, 352, 376, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07883.x

    arXiv 2004

  3. [3]

    2015, Astronomy and Computing, 12, 33, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2015.05.006 Bah´ e, Y

    Baes, M., & Camps, P. 2015, Astronomy and Computing, 12, 33, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2015.05.006 Bah´ e, Y. M., & McCarthy, I. G. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 969, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2293

    doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2015.05.006 2015

  4. [5]

    L., McGee, S

    Balogh, M. L., McGee, S. L., Mok, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 4364, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2949

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2949 2016

  5. [6]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 4887, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2698 Ben ´ ıtez-Llambay, A., Frenk, C

    Benitez-Llambay, A., & Frenk, C. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 4887, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2698 Ben ´ ıtez-Llambay, A., Frenk, C. S., Ludlow, A. D., &

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2698 2020

  6. [7]

    Navarro, J. F. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 2387, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1890 Ben ´ ıtez-Llambay, A., Navarro, J. F., Abadi, M. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 4207, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv925

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1890 2019

  7. [8]

    2002, MNRAS, 333, 177, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05388.x

    Cole, S. 2002, MNRAS, 333, 177, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05388.x

    arXiv 2002

  8. [9]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 3406, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1125

    Bhagwat, A., Costa, T., Ciardi, B., Pakmor, R., & Garaldi, E. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 3406, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1125

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1125 2024

Show all 122 references
  1. [10]

    A., Helmi, A., & Tissera, P

    Bignone, L. A., Helmi, A., & Tissera, P. B. 2019, ApJL, 883, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab3e0e

    2019 doi

  2. [11]

    S., & Kaplinghat, M

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

    2011

  3. [12]

    M., Kuhlen, M., Zolotov, A., & Hooper, D

    Brooks, A. M., Kuhlen, M., Zolotov, A., & Hooper, D. 2013, ApJ, 765, 22, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/22

    2013 doi

  4. [13]

    S., Kravtsov, A

    Bullock, J. S., Kravtsov, A. V., & Weinberg, D. H. 2000, ApJ, 539, 517, doi: 10.1086/309279

    2000 doi

  5. [14]

    M., Cautun, M., Deason, A

    Callingham, T. M., Cautun, M., Deason, A. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 5453, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz365

    2019 doi

  6. [15]

    2020, Astronomy and Computing, 31, 100381, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2020.100381

    Camps, P., & Baes, M. 2020, Astronomy and Computing, 31, 100381, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2020.100381

    2020

  7. [16]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    2003 doi

  8. [17]

    2014, MNRAS, 437, 3787, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2174

    Contini, E., De Lucia, G., Villalobos, ´A., & Borgani, S. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 3787, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2174

    2014 doi

  9. [18]

    2020, ApJ, 889, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6730

    Contini, E., Gu, Q., Ge, X., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6730

    2020 doi

  10. [19]

    Contini, E., Jeon, S., Rhee, J., Han, S., & Yi, S. K. 2023, ApJ, 958, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfd25

    2023 doi

  11. [20]

    Contini, E., Rhee, J., Han, S., Jeon, S., & Yi, S. K. 2024, AJ, 167, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0894

    2024 doi

  12. [21]

    Courty, S., & Alimi, J. M. 2004, A&A, 416, 875, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031736

    2004 doi

  13. [22]

    2016, ApJ, 825, 113, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/113

    Darvish, B., Mobasher, B., Sobral, D., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, 113, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/113

    2016 doi

  14. [23]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 5698, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2716 Dav´ e, R., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Narayanan, D., et al

    Hartwig, T. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 5698, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2716 Dav´ e, R., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Narayanan, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2827, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz937

    2018 doi

  15. [24]

    1986, ApJ, 303, 39, doi: 10.1086/164050

    Dekel, A., & Silk, J. 1986, ApJ, 303, 39, doi: 10.1086/164050

    1986 doi

  16. [25]

    2008, A&A, 477, 79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078326

    Dubois, Y., & Teyssier, R. 2008, A&A, 477, 79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078326

    2008 doi

  17. [26]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 444, 1453, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1227

    Dubois, Y., Pichon, C., Welker, C., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 444, 1453, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1227

    2014 doi

  18. [27]

    2021, A&A, 651, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039429

    Dubois, Y., Beckmann, R., Bournaud, F., et al. 2021, A&A, 651, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039429

    2021 doi

  19. [28]

    1992, MNRAS, 256, 43P, doi: 10.1093/mnras/256.1.43P

    Efstathiou, G. 1992, MNRAS, 256, 43P, doi: 10.1093/mnras/256.1.43P

    1992 doi

  20. [29]

    2007, A&A, 468, 33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077525

    Elbaz, D., Daddi, E., Le Borgne, D., et al. 2007, A&A, 468, 33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077525

    2007 doi

  21. [30]

    L., & Mac Low, M.-M

    Emerick, A., Bryan, G. L., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1304, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2689

    2019 doi

  22. [31]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 4211, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2437

    Engler, C., Pillepich, A., Pasquali, A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 4211, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2437

    2021 doi

  23. [32]

    Federrath, C., & Klessen, R. S. 2012, ApJ, 761, 156, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/156

    2012 doi

  24. [33]

    D., et al

    Fitts, A., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Elbert, O. D., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 3547, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1757

    2017 doi

  25. [34]

    A., & Primack, J

    Flores, R. A., & Primack, J. R. 1994, The Astrophysical Journal, 427, L1, doi: 10.1086/187350

    1994 doi

  26. [35]

    C., Krumholz, M

    Forbes, J. C., Krumholz, M. R., Goldbaum, N. J., & Dekel, A. 2016, Nature, 535, 523, doi: 10.1038/nature18292

    2016 doi

  27. [36]

    Bolton, J. S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.06367, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.06367

    2025 doi arXiv

  28. [37]

    F., Wetzel, A., et al

    Garrison-Kimmel, S., Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 1380, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1317

    2019 doi

  29. [38]

    2013, MNRAS, 429, 633, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts364

    Geen, S., Slyz, A., & Devriendt, J. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 633, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts364

    2013 doi

  30. [39]

    H., et al

    Geha, M., Mao, Y.-Y., Wechsler, R. H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad61e7

    2024 doi

  31. [40]

    Gnedin, N. Y. 2000, ApJ, 542, 535, doi: 10.1086/317042 G¨ otz, M., & Sommer-Larsen, J. 2002, Warm Dark Matter and the Missing Satellites Problem (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands), 415–416, doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-3311-3 95

    2000 doi

  32. [41]

    Grcevich, J., & Putman, M. E. 2009, ApJ, 696, 385, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/385

    2009 doi

  33. [42]

    E., & Gott, J

    Gunn, J. E., & Gott, J. Richard, I. 1972, ApJ, 176, 1, doi: 10.1086/151605

    1972 doi

  34. [43]

    1996, ApJ, 461, 20, doi: 10.1086/177035 20Jeon et al

    Haardt, F., & Madau, P. 1996, ApJ, 461, 20, doi: 10.1086/177035 20Jeon et al

    1996 doi

  35. [44]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.14631, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.14631

    Han, S., Dubois, Y., Lee, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.14631, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.14631

    2024 doi arXiv

  36. [45]

    A., & Caproni, A

    Hazenfratz, R., Barai, P., Lanfranchi, G. A., & Caproni, A. 2024, ApJ, 969, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4700

    2024 doi

  37. [46]

    2019, PASJ, 71, 94, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz076

    Homma, D., Chiba, M., Komiyama, Y., et al. 2019, PASJ, 71, 94, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz076

    2019 doi

  38. [47]

    2000, Phys

    Hu, W., Barkana, R., & Gruzinov, A. 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett., 85, 1158, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.1158 Irˇ siˇ c, V., Viel, M., Haehnelt, M. G., et al. 2024, PhRvD, 109, 043511, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.043511 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 11...

    2000 doi

  39. [48]

    K., Yi, S

    Jang, J. K., Yi, S. K., Rey, S.-C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4d8a

    2024 doi

  40. [49]

    H., Cluver, M

    Jarrett, T. H., Cluver, M. E., Magoulas, C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/182

    2017 doi

  41. [50]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad245b

    Jung, M., Roca-F` abrega, S., Kim, J.-H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad245b

    2024 doi

  42. [51]

    2020, MNRAS, 494, 2200, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa639

    Katz, H., Ramsoy, M., Rosdahl, J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 2200, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa639

    2020 doi

  43. [52]

    F., et al

    Kawinwanichakij, L., Papovich, C., Quadri, R. F., et al. 2017, ApJ, 847, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b75

    2017 doi

  44. [53]

    Y., Peter, A

    Kim, S. Y., Peter, A. H. G., & Hargis, J. R. 2018, PhRvL, 121, 211302, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.211302

    2018 doi

  45. [54]

    2015, MNRAS, 451, 2900, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1211

    Kimm, T., Cen, R., Devriendt, J., Dubois, Y., & Slyz, A. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2900, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1211

    2015 doi

  46. [55]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 4617, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty126

    Kimm, T., Haehnelt, M., Blaizot, J., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 4617, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty126

    2018 doi

  47. [56]

    V., Valenzuela, O., & Prada, F

    Klypin, A., Kravtsov, A. V., Valenzuela, O., & Prada, F. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 522, 82, doi: 10.1086/307643

    1999 doi

  48. [57]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 2667, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1439

    Kravtsov, A., & Manwadkar, V. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 2667, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1439

    2022 doi

  49. [58]

    2013, ApJ, 772, 85, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/85

    Lapi, A., Salucci, P., & Danese, L. 2013, ApJ, 772, 85, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/85

    2013 doi

  50. [59]

    Larson, R. B. 1974, MNRAS, 169, 229, doi: 10.1093/mnras/169.2.229

    1974 doi

  51. [60]

    S., Lee, J., Shin, J., & Song, H

    Lee, G., Hwang, H. S., Lee, J., Shin, J., & Song, H. 2024, ApJ, 962, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5d

    2024 doi

  52. [61]

    Lewis, J. S. W., Ocvirk, P., Aubert, D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 4342, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1748

    2020 doi

  53. [62]

    Li, C., & White, S. D. M. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 2177, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15268.x

    2009

  54. [63]

    C., & Newman, J

    Licquia, T. C., & Newman, J. A. 2015, ApJ, 806, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/96

    2015 doi

  55. [64]

    R., Eke, V., Frenk, C

    Lovell, M. R., Eke, V., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 2318, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20200.x

    2012

  56. [65]

    1976, MNRAS, 174, 695, doi: 10.1093/mnras/174.3.695

    Lynden-Bell, D. 1976, MNRAS, 174, 695, doi: 10.1093/mnras/174.3.695

    1976 doi

  57. [66]

    H., et al

    Mao, Y.-Y., Geha, M., Wechsler, R. H., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abce58

    2021 doi

  58. [67]

    Marsh, D. J. E. 2016, PhR, 643, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2016.06.005

    2016 doi

  59. [68]

    E., Spavone, M., et al

    Martin, G., Bazkiaei, A. E., Spavone, M., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 1459, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1003

    2022 doi

  60. [69]

    G., Schaye, J., Bird, S., & Le Brun, A

    McCarthy, I. G., Schaye, J., Bird, S., & Le Brun, A. M. C. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2936, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2792

    2017 doi

  61. [70]

    McConnachie, A. W. 2012, Astronomical Journal, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/1/4

    2012 doi

  62. [71]

    1994, Nature, 370, 629, doi: 10.1038/370629a0

    Moore, B. 1994, Nature, 370, 629, doi: 10.1038/370629a0

    1994 doi

  63. [72]

    1999, ApJL, 524, L19, doi: 10.1086/312287

    Moore, B., Ghigna, S., Governato, F., et al. 1999, ApJL, 524, L19, doi: 10.1086/312287

    1999 doi

  64. [73]

    M., Applebaum, E., et al

    Munshi, F., Brooks, A. M., Applebaum, E., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1705.06286, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1705.06286

    2017 doi arXiv

  65. [74]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 4877, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty191

    Musso, M., Cadiou, C., Pichon, C., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 4877, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty191

    2018 doi

  66. [75]

    Nadler, E. O. 2025, ApJL, 983, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adbc6e

    2025 doi

  67. [76]

    O., Wechsler, R

    Nadler, E. O., Wechsler, R. H., Bechtol, K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 893, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab846a

    2020 doi

  68. [77]

    O., Drlica-Wagner, A., Bechtol, K., et al

    Nadler, E. O., Drlica-Wagner, A., Bechtol, K., et al. 2021, PhRvL, 126, 091101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.091101

    2021 doi

  69. [78]

    2022, ApJ, 936, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac83a4

    Nashimoto, M., Tanaka, M., Chiba, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac83a4

    2022 doi

  70. [79]

    C., Rushton, M., et al

    Natale, G., Popescu, C. C., Rushton, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 2339, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2771

    2022 doi

  71. [80]

    F., & Steinmetz, M

    Navarro, J. F., & Steinmetz, M. 1997, ApJ, 478, 13, doi: 10.1086/303763

    1997 doi

  72. [81]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 503, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1412 O˜ norbe, J., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Bullock, J

    Noh, Y., & McQuinn, M. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 503, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1412 O˜ norbe, J., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Bullock, J. S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2092, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2072

    2014 doi

  73. [82]

    G., et al

    Ocvirk, P., Aubert, D., Sorce, J. G., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 4087, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1266

    2020 doi

  74. [83]

    2008, MNRAS, 390, 920, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13830.x O’Leary, J

    Okamoto, T., Gao, L., & Theuns, T. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 920, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13830.x O’Leary, J. A., Steinwandel, U. P., Moster, B. P., Martin, N., & Naab, T. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 897, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad166

    2008

  75. [84]

    P., et al

    Pakmor, R., Springel, V., Coles, J. P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2539, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3620

    2023 doi

  76. [86]

    Boekholt, T. C. N. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 3263, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1961 NH Missing Satellites and Starless subhalos21

    2024 doi

  77. [87]

    J., Lilly, S

    Peng, Y. J., Lilly, S. J., Kovaˇ c, K., et al. 2010, Astrophysical Journal, 721, 193, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/193

    2010 doi

  78. [88]

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

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

    2023 doi

  79. [89]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V., Nelson, D., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    2018 doi

  80. [90]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 535, 1721, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2165 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al

    Pillepich, A., Sotillo-Ramos, D., Ramesh, R., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 535, 1721, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2165 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2024 doi

  81. [91]

    2011, Phys

    Polisensky, E., & Ricotti, M. 2011, Phys. Rev. D, 83, 043506, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.043506

    2011 doi

  82. [92]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 4128, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2951

    Rahmani, S., Lianou, S., & Barmby, P. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 4128, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2951

    2016 doi

  83. [93]

    I., & Erkal, D

    Read, J. I., & Erkal, D. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 5799, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1320

    2019 doi

  84. [94]

    P., Pontzen, A., Agertz, O., et al

    Rey, M. P., Pontzen, A., Agertz, O., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 1508, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1640

    2020 doi

  85. [95]

    2020, ApJS, 247, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7377

    Rhee, J., Smith, R., Choi, H., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7377

    2020 doi

  86. [96]

    K., Ko, J., et al

    Rhee, J., Yi, S. K., Ko, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5a83

    2024 doi

  87. [97]

    Richstone, D. O. 1976, ApJ, 204, 642, doi: 10.1086/154213

    1976 doi

  88. [98]

    2012, MNRAS, 423, 344, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20883.x

    Rosdahl, J., & Blaizot, J. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 344, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20883.x

    2012

  89. [99]

    2022, ARA&A, 60, 319, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-021022-043545

    Saintonge, A., & Catinella, B. 2022, ARA&A, 60, 319, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-021022-043545

    2022 doi

  90. [100]

    S., Fattahi, A., et al

    Sawala, T., Frenk, C. S., Fattahi, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 1931, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw145

    2016 doi

  91. [101]

    A., Bower, R

    Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 446, 521, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2058

    2015 doi

  92. [102]

    V., & Diemand, J

    Schneider, A., Anderhalden, D., Maccio, A. V., & Diemand, J. 2014, MNRAS, 441, L6, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu034

    2014 doi

  93. [103]

    K., & Tormen, G

    Sheth, R. K., & Tormen, G. 1999, MNRAS, 308, 119, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02692.x

    1999

  94. [104]

    M., Grand, R

    Simpson, C. M., Grand, R. J. J., G´ omez, F. A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 548, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty774

    2018 doi

  95. [105]

    F., Price, P

    Smercina, A., Bell, E. F., Price, P. A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad2d6

    2018 doi

  96. [106]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/109

    Smith, R., Choi, H., Lee, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/109

    2016 doi

  97. [107]

    Somerville, R. S. 2002, ApJL, 572, L23, doi: 10.1086/341444

    2002 doi

  98. [108]

    S., & Dav´ e, R

    Somerville, R. S., & Dav´ e, R. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 51, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951

    2015 doi

  99. [109]

    N., & Steinhardt, P

    Spergel, D. N., & Steinhardt, P. J. 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett., 84, 3760, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.3760

    2000 doi

  100. [110]

    N., Verde, L., Peiris, H

    Spergel, D. N., Verde, L., Peiris, H. V., et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 175, doi: 10.1086/377226

    2003 doi

  101. [111]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 5416, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1657

    Tacchella, S., Diemer, B., Hernquist, L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 5416, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1657

    2019 doi

  102. [112]

    2018, ApJ, 865, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad9fe

    Tanaka, M., Chiba, M., Hayashi, K., et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad9fe

    2018 doi

  103. [113]

    2002, A&A, 385, 337, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011817

    Teyssier, R. 2002, A&A, 385, 337, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011817

    2002 doi

  104. [114]

    A., & Weinberg, D

    Thoul, A. A., & Weinberg, D. H. 1996, ApJ, 465, 608, doi: 10.1086/177446

    1996 doi

  105. [115]

    2009, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 506, 647, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911787 van den Aarssen, L

    Tweed, D., Devriendt, J., Blaizot, J., Colombi, S., & Slyz, A. 2009, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 506, 647, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911787 van den Aarssen, L. G., Bringmann, T., & Pfrommer, C. 2012, PhRvL, 109, 231301, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.231301 Van Nest, J., Munshi,...

    2009 doi

  106. [116]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5e6c

    Vincenzi, M., Brout, D., Armstrong, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5e6c

    2024 doi

  107. [117]

    2016, MNRAS, 460, 1399, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1076

    Vogelsberger, M., Zavala, J., Cyr-Racine, F.-Y., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1399, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1076

    2016 doi

  108. [118]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 444, 1518, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1536

    Vogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Springel, V., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 444, 1518, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1536

    2014 doi

  109. [119]

    2011, MNRAS, 410, 1975, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17576.x

    Wadepuhl, M., & Springel, V. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 1975, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17576.x

    2011

  110. [120]

    R., Hopkins, P

    Wetzel, A. R., Hopkins, P. F., Kim, J.-h., et al. 2016, ApJL, 827, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/827/2/L23

    2016 doi

  111. [121]

    R., Tollerud, E

    Wetzel, A. R., Tollerud, E. J., & Weisz, D. R. 2015, ApJL, 808, L27, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/808/1/L27

    2015 doi

  112. [122]

    K., Jang, J

    Yi, S. K., Jang, J. K., Devriendt, J., et al. 2024, ApJS, 271, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad0e71

    2024 doi

  113. [123]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.02927, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.02927

    Zier, O., Kannan, R., Smith, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.02927, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.02927

    2025 doi arXiv

  114. [124]

    M., Willman, B., et al

    Zolotov, A., Brooks, A. M., Willman, B., et al. 2012, ApJ, 761, 71, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/71

    2012 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.