Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The Formation of Dwarf Galaxy Disks

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that isolated dwarf galaxies grow into extended, large-radius systems not through bursty star-formation feedback puffing up their stars, but through the gradual build-up of rotation-supported stellar disks, and that this di

desk verdict Solid, honest simulation paper; the merger-built disk mechanism is plausible and the internal evidence is strong, but the main alignment statistic is partly circular and the claim's reach depends on a feedback model the authors themselves suspect is weaker than FIRE. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.26875 v2 pith:D6A6YBPZ submitted 2025-10-30 astro-ph.GA

Robel Geda , Akaxia Cruz , Anna C. Wright , Jenny E. Greene , Alyson Brooks , Thomas Quinn , James Wadsley , Ben Keller This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords dwarfgalaxiesgalaxyevolutionsizesstellardisksangularmomentummergerssize-sSFRrelationcosmologicalsimulations
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 paper argues that isolated dwarf galaxies grow into extended, large-radius systems not through bursty star-formation feedback puffing up their stars, but through the gradual build-up of rotation-supported stellar disks. Using high-resolution cosmological zoom-in simulations of 39 isolated dwarfs, it shows that these disks are triggered by gas-rich satellites on high-angular-momentum, spiraling-in orbits, which deposit angular momentum into the central galaxy's gas and reconfigure it into a disk. Star formation in that disk then accumulates stars on large, ordered orbits, secularly increasing the half-light radius beyond 2 kpc. This makes mergers, not feedback, the primary pathway to extended dwarf galaxies, and explains why some dwarfs remain compact.

What carries the argument

The central object is the specific angular momentum vector of gas and stars, quantified through a kinematic disk definition: a galaxy is a disk when the median z-component of its star particles' unit angular-momentum vectors exceeds 0.5. The key mechanism is angular-momentum transfer from an incoming gas-rich satellite on a non-radial, spiraling-in orbit, which 'stirs' the central gas into a disk. The paper introduces an alignment parameter, the cosine of the angle between the satellite's orbital angular momentum and the galaxy's present-day stellar angular momentum (set to zero for misaligned angles), to show that what matters is not the raw angular momentum of mergers but whether it is ali

What would settle it

A concrete test: measure the stellar specific angular momentum distribution of isolated dwarf galaxies with stellar masses around 10^8 to 10^9 solar masses. If most extended dwarfs are found to be pressure-supported rather than rotation-supported (median stellar j_z below 0.5), or if their gas disks are frequently misaligned with the stellar disk, the claim that disks are the main pathway to extended dwarfs would be falsified. Similarly, a simulation with a more bursty feedback model that, on the same initial conditions, fails to produce extended disks after high-angular-momentum mergers would

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the formation of rotation-supported stellar disks is the main route by which isolated dwarf galaxies become extended in size. In the simulated sample, dwarf galaxies initially form compact (Re < 2 kpc). About half later experience a period of gradual size growth at relatively stable specific star-formation rate, becoming 'extended.' The paper identifies the mechanism as gas-rich mergers on high-angular-momentum (spiraling-in) orbits: the satellite's gas deposits angular momentum into the central gas, which settles into a disk aligned with the orbital plane; star formation then builds up a population of high-angular-momentum stars that increase the half-light radius.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's conclusions rest on the assumed sub-grid feedback model being realistic enough that supernova feedback is not so bursty that it prevents low-mass galaxies from ever settling into disks; if real feedback is more bursty, the merger-driven disk pathway could be rare or absent in actual dwarfs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Extended dwarf galaxies at z=0 should predominantly host rotation-supported stellar disks, with gas and young stars aligned in the same plane.
  • The scatter in the dwarf size-mass relation is largely a record of merger configuration and gas supply, not just stellar mass or star-formation burstiness.
  • Gas-rich, high-angular-momentum mergers can create long-lived stellar disks even in low-mass halos (down to about 10^7.7 solar masses), setting a lower mass limit for disk formation that depends on feedback physics.
  • Misaligned major mergers at late times can shrink an extended dwarf back to compactness, implying a transient population of high-mass, compact, non-disk dwarfs.
  • If the pathway holds, extended disk dwarfs should show a characteristic two-population stellar structure: an old spheroid plus a young, high-angular-momentum disk built over several gigayears.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If correct, the morphology of isolated dwarfs is set primarily by the orbital angular momentum of their past mergers; the dwarf size-mass relation could be used as a statistical probe of merger orbital configurations in cold dark matter.
  • The authors note that their feedback model is less bursty than some other simulations; a natural test is to rerun the same initial conditions with a more bursty feedback prescription. If the extended disks dissolve, the claim's empirical reach is confined to feedback models of this type.
  • The mechanism predicts that young stars in extended dwarfs should be strongly concentrated in a disk plane, while older stars remain in a roughly spheroidal distribution; resolved stellar-population studies of nearby dwarfs could check this directly.
  • A corollary not pursued in the paper: the same angular-momentum transfer process may also explain the formation of some ultra-diffuse dwarfs in isolation, if they are simply extended disk dwarfs seen face-on, rather than products of tidal stirring or feedback expansion.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes 39 isolated dwarf galaxies (7.5 < log M*/M_sun < 9.1) from the Marvelous Massive Dwarfs zoom-in simulations to study the physical origin of extended dwarf galaxies. The authors find that most extended dwarfs (Re > 2 kpc) are rotation-supported stellar disks that formed gradually through the accumulation of angular-momentum-supported stars. They argue that gas-rich mergers on high-angular-momentum orbits spin up the central gas, create a disk, and trigger sustained star formation that secularly grows the half-light radius. The paper also quantifies that about 30% of cold gas at z=0 originates from merging satellites. They propose that disk formation is the main pathway for size growth, in contrast to feedback-driven expansion.

Significance. If correct, this paper offers a compelling merger-driven alternative to the commonly invoked feedback-driven expansion as the main mechanism for producing extended dwarf galaxies. The study benefits from a relatively large sample of high-resolution cosmological zooms, a clean particle-level case study in Appendix B, and a quantitative inventory of satellite gas contributions. However, the central causal inference is weakened by (i) an alignment statistic that is partly circular because it uses the final stellar AM as a fixed basis, and (ii) an admitted dependence of the disk-forming route on the subgrid feedback model. The paper is honest about these caveats but does not currently mitigate them, so the overarching claim that disk formation is the primary pathway remains model-dependent.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2.2, Eqs. (4)–(8)] The alignment statistic A_star·g is measured relative to the z=0 stellar angular-momentum vector of the main galaxy. Because a disk is an AM-supported structure, any merger that successfully builds a disk will, almost by construction, have its orbital AM aligned with the final stellar AM; galaxies that never form a disk have a stellar AM vector that is not a meaningful basis. The reported steep correlation between \bar{L}_{*·g} and R_e (log \bar{L}_{*·g} ∝ 1.99 log R_e) is therefore inflated by the definition of the statistic. I recommend redefining the alignment using a basis that does not use final information (e.g., the AM vector of the main galaxy's gas at the time just before each merger, or the satellite's orbital plane), or at least showing that the result is robust to using such a basis.
  2. [§5.3.1, Fig. 11] The paper acknowledges that weaker or less bursty feedback in Massive Dwarfs compared with FIRE-2 may be why disks form at lower stellar masses, and Fig. 11 shows that both disk and not-disk Massive Dwarfs are more concentrated than FIRE-2 dwarfs. Since Hopkins et al. (2023) identify central concentration as the key criterion for disk formation, the high-AM merger pathway described here may be enabled by the subgrid feedback choice. If real dwarfs have burstier feedback, most dwarfs might remain dispersion-dominated and the proposed pathway might be rare. The claim that disk formation is the 'primary' means by which isolated dwarfs become extended (Section 4, item 4 in Section 6) should either be qualified as specific to the Massive Dwarfs feedback model, or supported with a sensitivity test using a burstier feedback variant.
  3. [§4, Fig. 3] The paper's causal claim—that disk growth is the primary driver of size growth—rests on the observation that extended galaxies are almost all disks and that size grows secularly. However, the analysis does not quantify the fractional contribution of disk star formation relative to other processes that could redistribute existing stars or expand the galaxy (feedback-driven expansion, tidal stirring, etc.). A quantitative decomposition of the stellar mass growth in the disk component versus other components (e.g., bulge, halo) over time, similar to the particle-level but done for the full sample, would more directly support the 'primary pathway' claim. Without this, the conclusion is to some degree an interpretation of the correlation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 4 caption] The caption says axis ratios are measured at R_e, while the text in §4.1 says 'at 2R_e'. Please reconcile.
  2. [Section 5.1] Typo: '0.1−03 Gyr' should read '0.1–3 Gyr'.
  3. [Abstract] The phrase 'mergers with high orbital angular momentum satellites on high angular momentum (spiraling-in) orbits' is redundant; consider simplifying.
  4. [Section 2.6.2] The disk definition (median jz > 0.5) is a reasonable kinematic criterion, but the results should state how sensitive the disk fraction (64%) is to the chosen threshold.
  5. [Throughout] The terms 'half-light radius' and 'effective radius' are used interchangeably; please standardize.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

A⋆·g alignment statistic is partly self-referential (z=0 stellar AM basis), but particle-level case studies independently support the disk-growth pathway.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.2.2, Eqs. (3)-(8), Fig. 7; cf. Sec. 2.6.2]
    "We use the AM vector of the stars at z=0 as a basis. This allows us to focus on the cumulative impact of the mergers and probe how closely the final stellar AM distribution is aligned with the orbital plane of the satellites. ... We note that the alignment-weighted statistic, Lbar_star·g, is constructed to amplify alignment of mergers with the main galaxy's stellar AM at z=0."

    The disk criterion (Sec. 2.6.2: median j_z of star particles > 0.5) and the alignment parameter A_star·g (Eqs. 4-5) both key on the same z=0 stellar-AM direction. A disk galaxy has a well-defined stellar AM axis by construction, so any merger that built the disk scores A≈1; a not-disk galaxy has an isotropic or noisy stellar AM vector, suppressing A even for mergers with large orbital AM. Hence Lbar_star·g = mean(A_star·g * L_sat,g) separates disk from not-disk galaxies partly by construction, and the reported log Lbar_star·g ∝ 1.99 log R_e trend in Fig. 7 re-expresses the disk classification rather than independently testing the merger-size link. The particle-level tracking in Appendix B provides independent causal evidence, so the core claim is not wholly circular.

full rationale

The only substantive circularity concern is the z=0 stellar-AM reference used in A_star·g/Lbar_star·g: because disks are by definition AM-supported, the statistic is partly guaranteed to rank disk galaxies higher. I flag this as a self-referential diagnostic. However, the central claim that extended dwarfs grow by building rotation-supported disks does not reduce to that statistic: the authors show independent evolutionary evidence (r492/r642 case studies, Fig. 5, Appendix B) that a gas-rich high-AM merger creates a gas disk, young stars form in that disk, and the accumulating AM-supported stellar population increases R_e. The other citations to the same simulation suite (Cruz, Keith, Wright, etc.) are for simulation characteristics and comparisons, not to establish the mechanism, so they are not load-bearing. The admitted feedback-calibration dependence in Section 5.3.1 is a correctness/falsifiability risk, not circularity. Overall: one partially self-referential statistic, but the main derivation has independent content — score 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several sub-grid parameters inherited from earlier work (star formation efficiency, SN feedback energy, thresholds) and on analysis thresholds chosen by the authors (2 kpc split, disk criterion). These are not fitted to the target result, but the feedback strength in particular is load-bearing because the paper itself suggests it may explain why disks form in this suite but rarely in FIRE. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • star formation efficiency c*_0 = 0.1
    Eq. 1, Sec. 2.1: probability of forming stars; inherited from Christensen et al. (2012), not fitted to this paper, but it controls where stars form and hence the disk build-up rate.
  • SN feedback energy per event = 10^51 erg
    Sec. 2.1, superbubble model (Keller et al. 2014). Strength of feedback determines whether gas disks survive; the paper attributes the difference with FIRE to weaker/less bursty feedback.
  • star formation density/temperature threshold = T<1000 K, n>0.1 m_h cm^-3 (H2-based SF often at n>100)
    Sec. 2.1: controls the sites and timing of star formation in the disk vs spheroid; a sub-grid choice from Christensen et al. (2012).
  • gravitational softening length = 87 pc
    Sec. 2.1: resolution scale; affects how well AM transport and disk structure are resolved, and the paper acknowledges numerical AM loss can bias sizes at low resolution.
  • 2 kpc compact/extended cutoff = Re = 2 kpc
    Sec. 3.2: the division into sub-samples is made by this hand-chosen radius; conclusions are conditional on it, though the authors say a mass-size power-law split gives nearly identical grouping.
  • kinematic disk threshold = median j_z_hat > 0.5
    Sec. 2.6.2: disk definition; a galaxy is classified as a disk only if the median z-component of stellar AM unit vectors exceeds 0.5; changing this value would change the disk sub-sample.
  • stellar mass correction factor = 0.6
    Sec. 2.2: stellar masses are multiplied by 0.6 to match photometric stellar masses (Munshi et al. 2013); this shifts sSFR values and the mass range.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption ChaNGa SPH + superbubble feedback is an adequate model of dwarf galaxy ISM physics
    The central claim is a statement about real dwarfs, but the evidence comes from one simulation code with sub-grid recipes in Sec. 2.1; if these recipes are not faithful, disk formation may be artificial.
  • domain assumption The 39 isolated zoom-in systems are representative of the isolated dwarf population
    Sample selected from Romulus25 at z=0.1 with an isolation criterion (Sec. 2.7); conclusions are restricted to this selection, not to dwarfs in clusters or groups.
  • domain assumption Merger trees and halo finder correctly recover all gas-rich merger histories
    Merger histories (Sec. 2.3) use voter/graveyard parameters tuned by hand; missed mergers or spurious links would change the merger-count and AM statistics in Fig. 7.
  • domain assumption Half-light radii measured from mock face-on views are unbiased proxies for observed effective radii
    Sec. 2.5: face-on orientation uses gas AM within 2 kpc, which may differ from the stellar disk orientation; projection effects could affect the compact/extended split.
  • standard math Standard math of N-body dynamics and cosmological initial conditions
    Simulation framework, Sec. 2.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Formation of Dwarf Galaxy Disks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D6A6YBPZ

@misc{pith2026251026875,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Formation of Dwarf Galaxy Disks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D6A6YBPZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.26875}
}
abstract

Dwarf galaxies are dark matter-dominated systems that are sensitive to feedback and display a diversity of baryonic morphologies. This makes them excellent probes for understanding dark matter and galaxy evolution. This work investigates the physical processes that influence the sizes of isolated dwarf galaxies using high-resolution cosmological zoom-in simulations of $39$ dwarf galaxies drawn from the Marvelous Massive Dwarfs simulation suite ($7.5 < \log(M_{\star}/M_{\odot}) < 9.1$). Our simulations show that dwarf galaxies initially form as compact galaxies ($R_e < 2$ kpc). However, several of these galaxies ($54\%$) experience periods of gradual size growth at relatively stable sSFR, allowing them to become extended galaxies. We find that the growth of rotation-supported stellar disks is the primary means by which isolated dwarfs become extended in size. These stellar disks are formed by mergers with high orbital angular momentum satellites on high angular momentum (spiraling-in) orbits, which spin up the gas surrounding the central galaxy and contribute $\approx 30 \%$ of the cold gas mass at $z=0$. For these systems, star formation in the angular momentum supported gas and the gradual build up of stars in the disk result in secular size growth.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.26875 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The mass-size, mass-SFR, and size-sSFR relations of our final sample of galaxies at present day (z=0). We add a 2 kpc reference line in the mass-size panel (further discussed in Section 3.3). In the size-sSFR panel, we include galaxies from Patel et al. (2018) for reference. Mass-size measurements by Cruz et al. (2025) of our sample indicate that the Marvelous Massive Dwarfs simulations agree better with SPARC (Lell… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The evolution of galaxies in our compact (top row) and extended (bottom row) sub-samples. Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The evolution of half-light radii (top) and stellar masses (bottom) of galaxies in our final sample. We show these quantities up to z = 3. We do not filter out halo finder confusion in which mergers appear as spikes in size right before coalescence (usually appears before 6 Gyr). compact galaxies are shown in red and extended galaxies are in blue. We provide a histogram of both quantities at z=0 to the right of each… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Our disk and not-disk sub-samples. The first two panels from the left show the size-sSFR and size-j⋆ (where j⋆ ≡ |j⃗⋆|) relations. The last two panels show stellar axis ratios of our sample measured at Re (from Keith et al. 2025) as a function of size (A is the semi-ma…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution in galaxy properties for r492 (extended disk), r968 (compact disk), and r615 (disrupted disk). We show the absolute value of the median jˆx and jˆy components in gray and jˆz in solid blue for all the stars in the galaxy. We also include the absolute value of…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Median jˆz versus time since the highest AM merger for our disk (top) and not-disk (bottom) samples. Red, green, and blue curves show the gas within 20 kpc, stars younger than 100 Myr, and all stars, respectively. For the disk sub-sample, the median jˆz of the gas tend…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mergers with gas containing satellites as a function of size (Re). Top to bottom: The number of mergers with satellites that contain gas (Nmerg(Mg > 0)); The average alignment parameter of mergers (A¯⋆·g); The average AM of the gas in the merging satellites (L¯merg,g);…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mass fraction of z = 0 cold (blue), star-forming (red), and total virialized gas (black) in the main galaxy that was previously accreted from merging satellites (since z = 6). The panels show, from left to right, the satellite gas fraction as a function of galaxy size,…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The four columns show the evolution of the specific AM magnitudes (jc ≡ |j⃗c|) of dark matter (jdm) and stars (j⋆), gas fraction, and total gas mass over cosmic time. Both rows display the same galaxies: the top row shows disk systems (orange) and not-disk systems (bla…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Polar plots of the angular separation between gas and stellar AM vectors within 20 kpc as a function of cos￾mic time (radial axis) and separation angle θ (azimuth) for (A) disk galaxies, (B) not-disk galaxies, (C) extended disks, and (D) compact galaxies. Disk samples…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Vc,max/Vvir,200c, a proxy for halo concentration, as a function of stellar mass at z=0, and its probability den￾sity histogram, for the disk and not-disk sub-samples. The probabilities are normalized by sub-sample. The disk sub￾sample is in orange and the not-disk sub…

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. Morphologies of SAGAbg low-mass galaxies in Legacy Survey multi-band imaging: dependence on stellar masses, star-formation rates and low-redshift evolution

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

    Low-mass star-forming galaxies are disk-dominated; their light concentration increases with stellar mass and decreases with sSFR, with bulges emerging near log(M*/M_sun) ~ 9.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

123 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  2. [2]

    J., Oesch, P., et al

    Atek, H., Furtak, L. J., Oesch, P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 4464, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac360

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac360 2022

  3. [3]

    2014, ApJ, 789, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/96

    Atek, H., Kneib, J.-P., Pacifici, C., et al. 2014, ApJ, 789, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/96

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/789/2/96 2014

  4. [5]

    E., & Hernquist, L

    Barnes, J. E., & Hernquist, L. 1996, ApJ, 471, 115, doi: 10.1086/177957

    doi:10.1086/177957 1996

  5. [6]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 659, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01638-7

    Battaglia, G., & Nipoti, C. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 659, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01638-7

    doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01638-7 2022

  6. [7]

    2011, Computing in Science Engineering, 13, 31, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2010.118

    Behnel, S., Bradshaw, R., Citro, C., et al. 2011, Computing in Science Engineering, 13, 31, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2010.118

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2010.118 2011

  7. [8]

    S., Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., Wu, H.-Y., et al. 2013, ApJ, 763, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/18

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/763/1/18 2013

  8. [9]

    M., Cleary, C

    Bellovary, J. M., Cleary, C. E., Munshi, F., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 2913, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2842

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2842 2019

Show all 123 references
  1. [10]

    A., Sales, L

    Benavides, J. A., Sales, L. V., Abadi, M. G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 1033, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1053 —. 2024, ApJ, 977, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8de8

    2023 doi

  2. [11]

    A., Sales, L

    Benavides, J. A., Sales, L. V., Wetzel, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.00991, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.00991

    2025 doi arXiv

  3. [13]

    2008, ApJ, 674, 742, doi: 10.1086/525513

    Boselli, A., Boissier, S., Cortese, L., & Gavazzi, G. 2008, ApJ, 674, 742, doi: 10.1086/525513

    2008 doi

  4. [14]

    2022, A&A Rv, 30, 3, doi: 10.1007/s00159-022-00140-3

    Boselli, A., Fossati, M., & Sun, M. 2022, A&A Rv, 30, 3, doi: 10.1007/s00159-022-00140-3

    2022 doi

  5. [15]

    1997, PASP, 109, 745, doi: 10.1086/133941

    Bothun, G., Impey, C., & McGaugh, S. 1997, PASP, 109, 745, doi: 10.1086/133941

    1997 doi

  6. [16]

    2009, ApJ, 694, 396, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/1/396

    Wadsley, J. 2009, ApJ, 694, 396, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/1/396

    2009 doi

  7. [17]

    L., & Norman, M

    Bryan, G. L., & Norman, M. L. 1998, ApJ, 495, 80, doi: 10.1086/305262

    1998 doi

  8. [18]

    Cadiou, C., Pontzen, A., & Peiris, H. V. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 3459, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2858

    2022 doi

  9. [19]

    Greco, J. P. 2022, ApJ, 933, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6fd7

    2022 doi

  10. [20]

    G., Greene, J

    Carlsten, S. G., Greene, J. E., Greco, J. P., Beaton, R. L., & Kado-Fong, E. 2021, ApJ, 922, 267, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2581

    2021 doi

  11. [21]

    M., Navarro, J

    Celiz, B. M., Navarro, J. F., Abadi, M. G., & Springel, V. 2025, A&A, 699, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554847

    2025 doi

  12. [22]

    K., Kereˇ s, D., O˜ norbe, J., et al

    Chan, T. K., Kereˇ s, D., O˜ norbe, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2981, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2165

    2015 doi

  13. [23]

    K., Kereˇ s, D., Wetzel, A., et al

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

    2018 doi

  14. [25]

    J., Dutta, S

    Cox, T. J., Dutta, S. N., Di Matteo, T., et al. 2006, ApJ, 650, 791, doi: 10.1086/507474

    2006 doi

  15. [26]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.11800

    Cruz, A., Brooks, A., Lisanti, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.11800. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.11800

    2025

  16. [27]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.01884, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.01884

    Danieli, S., Kado-Fong, E., Huang, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.01884, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.01884

    2024 doi arXiv

  17. [28]

    1986, ApJ, 303, 39, doi: 10.1086/164050 Di Cintio, A., Brook, C

    Dekel, A., & Silk, J. 1986, ApJ, 303, 39, doi: 10.1086/164050 Di Cintio, A., Brook, C. B., Macci` o, A. V., Dutton, A. A., & Cardona-Barrero, S. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2535, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz985 Di Cintio, A., Brook, C. B., Macci` o, A. V., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 415, doi: 1...

    1986 doi

  18. [29]

    2021, MNRAS, 503, 2866, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab672

    Dumont, A., & Martel, H. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 2866, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab672

    2021 doi

  19. [30]

    2016, ApJ, 820, 131, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/131

    El-Badry, K., Wetzel, A., Geha, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 131, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/131

    2016 doi

  20. [31]

    R., et al

    Emami, N., Siana, B., Weisz, D. R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab211a

    2019 doi

  21. [32]

    2021, ApJ, 922, 217, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1f8d

    Emami, N., Siana, B., El-Badry, K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 217, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1f8d

    2021 doi

  22. [34]

    2000, MNRAS, 313, 291, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03209.x

    Ferrara, A., & Tolstoy, E. 2000, MNRAS, 313, 291, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03209.x

    2000

  23. [35]

    2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, staf016, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf016

    Geda, R., & Teyssier, R. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, staf016, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf016

    2025 doi

  24. [36]

    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

  25. [37]

    M., Hernquist, L., et al

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

    2015 doi

  26. [38]

    Gill, S. P. D., Knebe, A., & Gibson, B. K. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 399, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07786.x 26

    2004

  27. [39]

    F., Gilbert, K

    Girardi, L., Williams, B. F., Gilbert, K. M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 724, 1030, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/2/1030

    2010 doi

  28. [40]

    2004, ApJ, 607, 688, doi: 10.1086/383516

    Governato, F., Mayer, L., Wadsley, J., et al. 2004, ApJ, 607, 688, doi: 10.1086/383516

    2004 doi

  29. [42]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 792, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2720

    Governato, F., Weisz, D., Pontzen, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 792, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2720

    2015 doi

  30. [43]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  31. [44]

    2019, ApJ, 880, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab113e

    Hirtenstein, J., Jones, T., Wang, X., et al. 2019, ApJ, 880, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab113e

    2019 doi

  32. [45]

    F., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Cox, T. J., Younger, J. D., & Hernquist, L. 2009, ApJ, 691, 1168, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1168

    2009 doi

  33. [46]

    F., Kereˇ s, D., O˜ norbe, J., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Kereˇ s, D., O˜ norbe, J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 581, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1738

    2014 doi

  34. [47]

    F., Wetzel, A., Kereˇ s, D., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Kereˇ s, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 800, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1690

    2018 doi

  35. [48]

    F., Gurvich, A

    Hopkins, P. F., Gurvich, A. B., Shen, X., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2241, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1902

    2023 doi

  36. [49]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  37. [50]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 959, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3329

    Ivkovic, M., & Teyssier, R. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 959, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3329

    2022 doi

  38. [51]

    G., Tacchella, S., Genel, S., et al

    Iyer, K. G., Tacchella, S., Genel, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 430, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2150

    2020 doi

  39. [52]

    A., Martin, G., Kaviraj, S., et al

    Jackson, R. A., Martin, G., Kaviraj, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 5568, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa970 —. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 4262, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab077

    2020 doi

  40. [53]

    V., & Quinn, T

    Jetley, P., Gioachin, F., Mendes, C., Kale, L. V., & Quinn, T. 2008, in 2008 IEEE International Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing, 1–12, doi: 10.1109/IPDPS.2008.4536319

    2008

  41. [54]

    Quinn, T. R. 2010, in SC ’10: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM/IEEE International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, 1–11, doi: 10.1109/SC.2010.49

    2010 doi

  42. [55]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 5272, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1499

    Jiang, F., Dekel, A., Freundlich, J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 5272, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1499

    2019 doi

  43. [56]

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

    Joshi, G. D., Pontzen, A., Agertz, O., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 3792, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf276

    2025 doi

  44. [57]

    E., Huang, S., et al

    Kado-Fong, E., Greene, J. E., Huang, S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abacc2

    2020 doi

  45. [58]

    2021, ApJ, 920, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac15f0

    Kado-Fong, E., Petrescu, M., Mohammad, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac15f0

    2021 doi

  46. [59]

    Katz, N., & White, S. D. M. 1993, ApJ, 412, 455, doi: 10.1086/172935

    1993 doi

  47. [61]

    M., et al

    Keith, B., Munshi, F., Brooks, A. M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.16317, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.16317

    2025 doi arXiv

  48. [62]

    W., Wadsley, J., Benincasa, S

    Keller, B. W., Wadsley, J., Benincasa, S. M., & Couchman, H. M. P. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 3013, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1058

    2014 doi

  49. [63]

    2001, MNRAS, 325, 845, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04532.x

    Knebe, A., Green, A., & Binney, J. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 845, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04532.x

    2001

  50. [64]

    B., Cornell, M

    Kormendy, J., Fisher, D. B., Cornell, M. E., & Bender, R. 2009, ApJS, 182, 216, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/182/1/216

    2009 doi

  51. [65]

    P., Robotham, A

    Lange, R., Driver, S. P., Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 2603, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2467

    2015 doi

  52. [66]

    S., Schombert, J

    Lelli, F., McGaugh, S. S., Schombert, J. M., & Pawlowski, M. S. 2016, ApJL, 827, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/827/1/L19

    2016 doi

  53. [67]

    S., et al

    Liao, S., Gao, L., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 5182, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2969

    2019 doi

  54. [68]

    K., & Binggeli, B

    Lisker, T., Grebel, E. K., & Binggeli, B. 2006, AJ, 132, 497, doi: 10.1086/505045

    2006 doi

  55. [69]

    2024, MNRAS, 530, 4988, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae925 Mac Low, M.-M., & Ferrara, A

    Luo, Y., Leauthaud, A., Greene, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 4988, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae925 Mac Low, M.-M., & Ferrara, A. 1999, ApJ, 513, 142, doi: 10.1086/306832

    2024 doi

  56. [70]

    H., Dekel, A., & Somerville, R

    Maller, A. H., Dekel, A., & Somerville, R. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 423, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.04983.x

    2002

  57. [71]

    2008, A&A, 482, 883, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078467

    Marigo, P., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., et al. 2008, A&A, 482, 883, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078467

    2008 doi

  58. [72]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2206

    Marinacci, F., Vogelsberger, M., Pakmor, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2206

    2018 doi

  59. [73]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 2266, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1936

    Pichon, C. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2266, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1936

    2018 doi

  60. [74]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 796, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz356

    Martin, G., Kaviraj, S., Laigle, C., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 796, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz356

    2019 doi

  61. [75]

    2012, ApJL, 755, L35, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/755/2/L35

    Mashchenko, S. 2012, ApJL, 755, L35, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/755/2/L35

    2012 doi

  62. [77]

    McQuinn, K. B. W., van Zee, L., & Skillman, E. D. 2019, ApJ, 886, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c37

    2019 doi

  63. [78]

    McQuinn, K. B. W., Skillman, E. D., Cannon, J. M., et al. 2010a, ApJ, 724, 49, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/49 —. 2010b, ApJ, 721, 297, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/297 27

    doi

  64. [79]

    McQuinn, K. B. W., Adams, E. A. K., Cannon, J. M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9285

    2022 doi

  65. [80]

    2015, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 2, 1, doi: 10.1186/s40668-015-0007-9 M´ erida, R

    Menon, H., Wesolowski, L., Zheng, G., et al. 2015, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 2, 1, doi: 10.1186/s40668-015-0007-9 M´ erida, R. M., P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., S´ anchez-Bl´ azquez, P., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc7a3

    2015 doi

  66. [81]

    2022, AJ, 164, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac6f5f

    Michea, J., Pasquali, A., Smith, R., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac6f5f

    2022 doi

  67. [82]

    C., & Hernquist, L

    Mihos, J. C., & Hernquist, L. 1994, ApJL, 425, L13, doi: 10.1086/187299

    1994 doi

  68. [83]

    J., Greene, J

    Mintz, A., Setton, D. J., Greene, J. E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.16510, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.16510

    2025 doi

  69. [84]

    M., et al

    Munshi, F., Governato, F., Brooks, A. M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 766, 56, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/56

    2013 doi

  70. [85]

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

    Naiman, J. P., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1206, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty618

    2018 doi

  71. [86]

    V., H¨ außler, B., Marchesini, D., et al

    Nedkova, K. V., H¨ außler, B., Marchesini, D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 928, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1744

    2021 doi

  72. [87]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040 O˜ norbe, J., Garrison-Kimmel, S., Maller, A

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040 O˜ norbe, J., Garrison-Kimmel, S., Maller, A. H., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 1894, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2020

    2018 doi

  73. [88]

    A., Navarro, J

    Oman, K. A., Navarro, J. F., Fattahi, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 3650, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1504

    2015 doi

  74. [89]

    2023, ApJ, 945, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb938

    Lorenz, B. 2023, ApJ, 945, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb938

    2023 doi

  75. [90]

    Abramson, L. E. 2018, ApJL, 866, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aae524

    2018 doi

  76. [91]

    2020, ApJL, 896, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9815

    Pelliccia, D., Mobasher, B., Darvish, B., et al. 2020, ApJL, 896, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9815

    2020 doi

  77. [92]

    R., Brooks, A

    Piacitelli, D. R., Brooks, A. M., Christensen, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.08861, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.08861

    2025 doi

  78. [93]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Hernquist, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321591

    2018 doi

  79. [94]

    2012, MNRAS, 421, 3464, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20571.x

    Pontzen, A., & Governato, F. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 3464, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20571.x

    2012

  80. [95]

    S., et al

    Pontzen, A., Roˇ skar, R., Stinson, G. S., et al. 2013, pynbody: Astrophysics Simulation Analysis for Python

    2013

  81. [96]

    2008, MNRAS, 390, 1349, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13782.x

    Pontzen, A., Governato, F., Pettini, M., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 1349, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13782.x

    2008

  82. [97]

    L., Brooks, A

    Riggs, C. L., Brooks, A. M., Munshi, F., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8b1e

    2024 doi

  83. [99]

    M., Cruz, A., et al

    Ruan, D., Brooks, A. M., Cruz, A., et al. 2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1099

    2025 doi

  84. [100]

    Santos-Santos, I. M. E., Dom ´ ınguez-Tenreiro, R., Granato, G. L., Brook, C. B., & Obreja, A. 2017, A&A, 603, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629426

    2017 doi

  85. [101]

    Santos-Santos, I. M. E., Navarro, J. F., Robertson, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 58, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1072

    2020 doi

  86. [102]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 2521, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2453

    Sauvaget, T., Hammer, F., Puech, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 2521, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2453

    2018 doi

  87. [103]

    J., White, S

    Shen, S., Mo, H. J., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 978, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06740.x

    2003

  88. [104]

    2010, MNRAS, 407, 1581, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17047.x

    Shen, S., Wadsley, J., & Stinson, G. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 1581, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17047.x

    2010

  89. [105]

    C., Peeples, M

    Simons, R. C., Peeples, M. S., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.17244, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.17244

    2024 doi arXiv

  90. [106]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 5404, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2586

    Sotillo-Ramos, D., Pillepich, A., Donnari, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 5404, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2586

    2022 doi

  91. [107]

    2005, MNRAS, 361, 776, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x

    Springel, V., Di Matteo, T., & Hernquist, L. 2005, MNRAS, 361, 776, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x

    2005

  92. [108]

    2005, ApJL, 622, L9, doi: 10.1086/429486

    Springel, V., & Hernquist, L. 2005, ApJL, 622, L9, doi: 10.1086/429486

    2005 doi

  93. [109]

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

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

    2018 doi

  94. [110]

    R., Bullock, J

    Stewart, K. R., Bullock, J. S., Wechsler, R. H., Maller, A. H., & Zentner, A. R. 2008, ApJ, 683, 597, doi: 10.1086/588579

    2008 doi

  95. [111]

    2006, MNRAS, 373, 1074, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11097.x

    Stinson, G., Seth, A., Katz, N., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 1074, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11097.x

    2006

  96. [112]

    S., Dalcanton, J

    Stinson, G. S., Dalcanton, J. J., Quinn, T., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 1455, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14555.x

    2009

  97. [113]

    Teyssier, R., Pontzen, A., Dubois, Y., & Read, J. I. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 3068, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts563

    2013 doi

  98. [114]

    J., et al

    Toloba, E., Boselli, A., Cenarro, A. J., et al. 2011, A&A, 526, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015344

    2011 doi

  99. [115]

    2015, ApJ, 799, 172, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/172

    Toloba, E., Guhathakurta, P., Boselli, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 172, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/172

    2015 doi

  100. [116]

    2009, ARA&A, 47, 371, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101650

    Tolstoy, E., Hill, V., & Tosi, M. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 371, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101650

    2009 doi

  101. [117]

    1972, ApJ, 178, 623, doi: 10.1086/151823

    Toomre, A., & Toomre, J. 1972, ApJ, 178, 623, doi: 10.1086/151823

    1972 doi

  102. [118]

    Tremmel, M., Governato, F., Volonteri, M., & Quinn, T. R. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 1868, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1060 28

    2015 doi

  103. [119]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 1121, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1160 Van Nest, J

    Tremmel, M., Karcher, M., Governato, F., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 1121, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1160 Van Nest, J. D., Munshi, F., Wright, A. C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac43b7 Van Rossum, G., & Drake, F. L. 2009, Python 3 Reference Manual (Scotts Valley...

    2017 doi

  104. [120]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  105. [121]

    A., Kravtsov, A

    Vitvitska, M., Klypin, A. A., Kravtsov, A. V., et al. 2002, ApJ, 581, 799, doi: 10.1086/344361

    2002 doi

  106. [122]

    W., Keller, B

    Wadsley, J. W., Keller, B. W., & Quinn, T. R. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 2357, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1643

    2017 doi

  107. [123]

    W., Stadel, J., & Quinn, T

    Wadsley, J. W., Stadel, J., & Quinn, T. 2004, NewA, 9, 137, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2003.08.004

    2004 doi

  108. [124]

    2024, TomWagg/software-citation-station: v1.2, v1.2, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13225824

    Wagg, T., Broekgaarden, F., & G¨ ultekin, K. 2024, TomWagg/software-citation-station: v1.2, v1.2, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13225824

    2024 doi

  109. [125]

    Wagg, T., & Broekgaarden, F. S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.04405. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.04405

    2024

  110. [126]

    R., Dalcanton, J

    Weisz, D. R., Dalcanton, J. J., Williams, B. F., et al. 2011, ApJ, 739, 5, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/739/1/5

    2011 doi

  111. [127]

    C., Brooks, A

    Wright, A. C., Brooks, A. M., Tremmel, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.21231. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.21231

    2025 arXiv

  112. [128]

    C., Tremmel, M., Brooks, A

    Wright, A. C., Tremmel, M., Brooks, A. M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 5370, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab081

    2021 doi

  113. [129]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.02051, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.02051

    Wu, X., Zhu, L., Chang, J., Zeng, G., & Lei, Y. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.02051, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.02051

    2025 doi arXiv

  114. [130]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 3301, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2294

    Zeng, G., Wang, L., & Gao, L. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 3301, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2294

    2021 doi

  115. [131]

    2024, MNRAS, 532, 2558, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1651

    Zeng, G., Wang, L., Gao, L., & Yang, H. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 2558, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1651

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.