pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.07613 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-08 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

Too Big to Quench? I. Constraining ISM Stripping of Dwarf Satellites in Milky Way-like Halos

Jingyao Zhu , Stephanie Tonnesen , Greg L. Bryan , Mary E. Putman
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords ram pressure strippingdwarf satellite galaxiesgalaxy quenchingMilky Way haloshydrodynamical simulationsinterstellar mediumstar formation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Ram pressure stripping efficiently quenches dwarf satellites only below about 10 million solar masses in Milky Way-like halos.

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

This paper runs high-resolution hydrodynamical simulations of dwarf galaxies falling into Milky Way-like halos to test when ram pressure from the host gas removes their interstellar medium and stops star formation. It shows that stripping works efficiently and quenches stars for satellites with stellar masses up to roughly 10 million solar masses but becomes highly inefficient above that threshold. A reader would care because this identifies a clear mass scale where simple environmental stripping alone cannot explain the observed mix of quenched and star-forming dwarfs, pointing to gaps in current models of galaxy evolution in dense environments.

Core claim

Using a suite of 20-pc resolution hydrodynamical wind tunnel simulations that include radiative cooling in a multiphase satellite ISM, star formation, and stellar feedback, and that vary both satellite masses and host halo gas densities along first-infall and post-pericentric orbits, the authors find that the degree of ISM stripping matches analytical predictions. Star formation quenches rapidly when ram pressure stripping is effective but can be mildly enhanced or temporarily quenched and then reignited when stripping is incomplete. ISM stripping is efficient for satellites with M⋆ ≲ 10^7 M⊙ (or M200 ≲ 10^10 M⊙) but highly inefficient above this scale, and this transitional mass is 0.5-1dex

What carries the argument

A suite of 20-pc resolution hydrodynamical wind-tunnel simulations modeling multiphase ISM, star formation, and stellar feedback while varying satellite masses and host gas densities along specified orbits.

If this is right

  • Star formation is rapidly quenched when ram pressure stripping is effective.
  • When ram pressure stripping is incomplete, star formation can be mildly enhanced or temporarily quenched and then reignited.
  • The simulated degree of ISM stripping is consistent with the analytical prediction by McCarthy et al. (2008).
  • Additional mechanisms such as tidal stripping of satellite dark matter or ram pressure from a clumpy gaseous halo are required to quench satellites above the 10^7 M⊙ scale.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Clumpy or inhomogeneous gas in real host halos could raise the effective mass threshold for efficient stripping compared with the smooth models used here.
  • Adding full tidal interactions and dark matter stripping to the simulations might shift the transitional mass or change how quickly quenching occurs.
  • Cosmological simulations that currently quench dwarfs at higher masses may need to incorporate these extra processes to match the observed satellite populations.

Load-bearing premise

The host halo gas is treated as smooth and uniform, with densities set only along chosen orbits and without tidal forces or dark matter stripping included in the setup.

What would settle it

Detection of a population of quenched dwarf satellites with stellar masses around 10^{7.5} M⊙ that show little evidence of tidal effects or clumpy halo gas would indicate that ram pressure can quench at higher masses than the smooth models allow.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.07613 by Greg L. Bryan, Jingyao Zhu, Mary E. Putman, Stephanie Tonnesen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Radial density profiles for the CGM of MW-like galaxies. We model a fiducial case (in yellow; “MW fidu￾cial”) based on Milky Way constraints, and a high-density case (in purple; “MW high”) where the enclosed CGM mass within R200 (MCGM; values annotated) is set to the upper limit for MW-like halos; see Section 2.2. Grey circles mark the host’s virial radius and the satellite orbit’s pericentric distance. Th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Dwarf satellite gas morphology under RPS by the MW fiducial wind ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Satellite gas mass evolution under RPS. Top panel: ram pressure measured near the satellite galaxy (solid line: MW fiducial, dashed line: MW high; see Section 2.2). Shaded region marks the initial ∼300 Myr before the wind first reaches the galaxy, and vertical lines note the time steps in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The evolution of satellite star formation under RPS, each column showing a dwarf galaxy model ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Dwarf satellite ISM surface density profiles under MW fiducial RPS at tpost (post pericenter; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: ISM surface density profiles for cases with incomplete stripping (Section 3.1), comparing different theoretical prescriptions. Panels show m6.8-DMp under the MW fiducial wind (left), m7.2 under the MW fiducial wind (middle), and m7.2 under the MW high wind (right). As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Gas projected density maps for the m6.8-DMp MW fiducial wind case. The arrows are density-weighted velocity streamlines, visualizing gas motion in the plane of the wind direction (+y, +z at a 45◦ angle). The four snapshots capture characteristic moments in the star formation (SF) evolution ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Gas radial velocity (vradial) profiles in the m6.8-DMp MW fiducial case. The colored error bars show the density-weighted averages and standard deviations of vradial at the four time steps in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Galaxy environment plays a crucial role in quenching star formation in dwarf galaxies. In Milky Way (MW)-like environments, dwarf satellite quenching is primarily driven by ram pressure stripping (RPS), the direct removal of satellite gas by the host halo gas. Using a suite of 20-pc resolution hydrodynamical wind tunnel simulations, we constrain the satellite mass scale at which the stripping of a dwarf galaxy's interstellar medium (ISM) becomes inefficient in MW-like halos. The simulations include radiative cooling in a multiphase satellite ISM, star formation, and stellar feedback, and vary both satellite masses ($M_{\star}=10^{6.2}, 10^{6.8}, 10^{7.2}\ M_{\odot}$) and host halo gas densities along a first-infall and post-pericentric orbit. We find that the degree of ISM stripping in our dwarf galaxies is consistent with the analytical prediction by McCarthy et al. (2008). Star formation is rapidly quenched when RPS is effective, but can be mildly enhanced or temporarily quenched and subsequently reignited when RPS is incomplete. ISM stripping is efficient for satellites with $M_{\star} \lesssim 10^{7}\ M_{\odot}$ (or $M_{200} \lesssim 10^{10}\ M_{\odot}$) but highly inefficient above this scale. This transitional mass ($M_{\star} \approx 10^{7}\ M_{\odot}$) is 0.5-1 dex lower than that found in observations and cosmological simulations, suggesting that additional mechanisms are needed to quench more massive satellites, such as tidal stripping of the satellite dark matter or RPS from a clumpy gaseous halo.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents results from a suite of high-resolution (20 pc) hydrodynamical wind-tunnel simulations investigating ram-pressure stripping (RPS) of the interstellar medium in dwarf satellite galaxies orbiting in Milky Way-like halos. Satellite stellar masses of 10^{6.2}, 10^{6.8}, and 10^{7.2} M_⊙ are considered, along with variations in host halo gas density corresponding to first-infall and post-pericentric orbits. The simulations incorporate radiative cooling in a multiphase ISM, star formation, and stellar feedback. The key finding is that ISM stripping is efficient below M⋆ ≈ 10^7 M_⊙ (M_{200} ≈ 10^{10} M_⊙) but highly inefficient above this transitional mass, in agreement with the analytical prediction of McCarthy et al. (2008). Star formation is rapidly quenched when stripping is effective but can be enhanced or temporarily affected when incomplete. The authors conclude that additional mechanisms, such as tidal stripping of dark matter or clumpy halo RPS, are required to explain quenching of more massive satellites, as the transitional mass is 0.5-1 dex lower than in observations and cosmological simulations.

Significance. This study offers a controlled, high-resolution numerical exploration of the mass dependence of RPS efficiency in dwarf galaxies, providing a clear benchmark for when this process alone becomes insufficient for quenching. The inclusion of multiphase gas physics, star formation, and feedback, combined with the direct comparison to the McCarthy et al. (2008) model, adds credibility to the results. If the transitional mass scale proves robust when tested against more complete physical setups, it would have significant implications for understanding environmental quenching in the Local Group and similar systems, motivating targeted investigations into tidal and substructure effects. The work is particularly valuable as the first in a series ('I.'), setting the stage for follow-up studies.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and Methods description] The wind-tunnel simulations treat the host halo gas as smooth and uniform, without including tidal forces or the satellite dark matter halo. This assumption underpins the reported transitional mass of M⋆ ≈ 10^7 M⊙; as the skeptic highlights, tidal stripping could alter the satellite potential and stripping efficiency at higher masses, potentially shifting the scale and affecting the conclusion that additional mechanisms are necessary to match observations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of the work's significance and for the constructive major comment. We address the point below and have updated the manuscript with additional discussion of the setup limitations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The wind-tunnel simulations treat the host halo gas as smooth and uniform, without including tidal forces or the satellite dark matter halo. This assumption underpins the reported transitional mass of M⋆ ≈ 10^7 M⊙; as the skeptic highlights, tidal stripping could alter the satellite potential and stripping efficiency at higher masses, potentially shifting the scale and affecting the conclusion that additional mechanisms are necessary to match observations.

    Authors: We agree that the wind-tunnel configuration isolates RPS by assuming a fixed satellite potential and a smooth, uniform host medium; this is a deliberate simplification to enable a clean comparison with the McCarthy et al. (2008) analytic model and to quantify the mass dependence of stripping efficiency alone. We acknowledge that adding the satellite dark-matter halo and tidal forces could shallow the potential at larger radii and thereby increase stripping efficiency at the upper end of our mass range, potentially moving the transitional mass upward by some amount. Our current results already show that RPS becomes inefficient above M⋆ ≈ 10^7 M⊙ and we explicitly list tidal stripping of the dark matter as one of the additional mechanisms required to match observations. Because this is Paper I, the follow-up work will incorporate tides and a live halo; we have expanded the discussion section to state this caveat more explicitly and to note that the reported transitional mass should be regarded as a lower limit for RPS-only quenching. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: transitional mass from direct hydro simulation outputs vs external analytic model

full rationale

The paper's central result (ISM stripping efficient below M⋆ ≈ 10^7 M⊙) is obtained from a suite of 20-pc resolution wind-tunnel hydro runs that explicitly evolve multiphase ISM, radiative cooling, star formation, and stellar feedback while varying satellite mass and host-gas density along specified orbits. These outputs are then compared for consistency against the independent analytic stripping criterion of McCarthy et al. (2008); the comparison is not used to derive the result. No equations reduce the reported mass scale to fitted parameters, no self-citations are load-bearing for the uniqueness or derivation, and the setup does not smuggle in an ansatz via prior work by the same authors. The chain is therefore self-contained and externally falsifiable.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard hydrodynamical assumptions and chosen simulation parameters rather than new invented entities or fitted constants.

free parameters (2)
  • satellite stellar masses
    Three discrete values (10^6.2, 10^6.8, 10^7.2 M_sun) selected to bracket the expected transition; not fitted to data.
  • host halo gas densities
    Varied along first-infall and post-pericentric orbits to sample realistic MW-like conditions.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Radiative cooling operates in a multiphase satellite ISM
    Invoked as part of the hydrodynamical simulation setup.
  • domain assumption Star formation and stellar feedback follow standard prescriptions
    Included without derivation in the simulation physics.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5625 in / 1627 out tokens · 59702 ms · 2026-05-10T17:10:55.865712+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

118 extracted references · 118 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    R., & Wynn, G

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

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02715.x 1999

  2. [2]

    2023, ApJ, 948, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbf4d

    Marasco, A. 2023, ApJ, 948, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbf4d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbf4d 2023

  3. [3]

    M., et al

    Akerman, N., Tonnesen, S., Poggianti, B. M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 9505, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3842

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3842 2024

  4. [4]

    B., Christensen, C

    Akins, H. B., Christensen, C. R., Brooks, A. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe2ab 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 Coll...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe2ab 2021

  5. [5]

    S., et al

    Augustin, R., Tumlinson, J., Peeples, M. S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 993, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0462

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae0462 2025

  6. [6]

    , keywords =

    Battaglia, G., Taibi, S., Thomas, G. F., & Fritz, T. K. 2022, A&A, 657, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141528

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141528 2022

  7. [7]

    , keywords =

    Behroozi, P., Wechsler, R. H., Hearin, A. P., & Conroy, C. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3143, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1182

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1182 2019

  8. [8]

    2014, MNRAS, 438, 444, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2216

    Bekki, K. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 444, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2216

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2216 2014

  9. [9]

    M., Tumlinson, J., Geha, M., et al

    Brown, T. M., Tumlinson, J., Geha, M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/91

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/796/2/91 2014

  10. [10]

    L., Norman, M

    Bryan, G. L., Norman, M. L., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 2014, ApJS, 211, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/19

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/19 2014

  11. [11]

    , keywords =

    Bullock, J. S., & Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 343, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055313 2017

  12. [12]

    1995, ApJL, 447, L25, doi: 10.1086/309560

    Burkert, A. 1995, ApJ, 447, L25, doi: 10.1086/309560 19

    work page doi:10.1086/309560 1995

  13. [13]

    2026, ELVES-Field: Isolated Dwarf Galaxy Quenched Fractions Rise Below$M *\approx 10ˆ7$ $M \odot$, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.16778

    Danieli, S. 2026, ELVES-Field: Isolated Dwarf Galaxy Quenched Fractions Rise Below$M *\approx 10ˆ7$ $M \odot$, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.16778

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.16778 2026

  14. [14]

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6fd7 2022

  15. [15]

    I., Guhathakurta, P., & Johnston, K

    Choi, P. I., Guhathakurta, P., & Johnston, K. V. 2002, AJ, 124, 310, doi: 10.1086/341041

    work page doi:10.1086/341041 2002

  16. [16]

    R., Brooks, A

    Christensen, C. R., Brooks, A. M., Munshi, F., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 236, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0c5a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0c5a 2024

  17. [17]

    Collins, M. L. M., & Read, J. I. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 647, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01657-4 de Blok, W. J. G. 2010, Advances in Astronomy, 2010, 789293, doi: 10.1155/2010/789293 de Blok, W. J. G., Walter, F., Brinks, E., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2648, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2648

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01657-4 2022

  18. [18]

    M., Grcevich, J., & Gatto, A

    Emerick, A., Low, M.-M. M., Grcevich, J., & Gatto, A. 2016, ApJ, 826, 148, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/148

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/826/2/148 2016

  19. [19]

    D., et al

    Engler, C., Pillepich, A., Joshi, G. D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 5946, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1357

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1357 2023

  20. [20]

    S., & Sternberg, A

    Faerman, Y., Pandya, V., Somerville, R. S., & Sternberg, A. 2022, ApJ, 928, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4ca6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4ca6 2022

  21. [21]

    Faerman, Y., Sternberg, A., & McKee, C. F. 2020, ApJ, 893, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7ffc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7ffc 2020

  22. [22]

    J., Ruszkowski, M., Tonnesen, S., & Holguin, F

    Farber, R. J., Ruszkowski, M., Tonnesen, S., & Holguin, F. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 5927, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac794

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac794 2022

  23. [23]

    P., Cooper, M

    Fillingham, S. P., Cooper, M. C., Pace, A. B., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 1916, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2131

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2131 2016

  24. [24]

    P., Cooper, M

    Fillingham, S. P., Cooper, M. C., Wheeler, C., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2039, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2058

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2058 2015

  25. [25]

    T., Peter, A

    Garling, C. T., Peter, A. H. G., Spekkens, K., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 365, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae014

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae014 2024

  26. [26]

    2017, MNRAS, 464, 3108, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2564

    Bardwell, E. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3108, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2564

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2564 2017

  27. [27]

    I., et al

    Gatto, A., Fraternali, F., Read, J. I., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 2749, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt896

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt896 2013

  28. [28]

    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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/1/85 2012

  29. [29]

    H., et al

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad61e7 2024

  30. [30]

    Ram Pressure Stripping in Clusters: Gravity Can Bind the

    Ghosh, R., Dutta, A., & Sharma, P. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 3445, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1345

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1345 2024

  31. [31]

    J., Krumholz, M

    Goldbaum, N. J., Krumholz, M. R., & Forbes, J. C. 2015, ApJ, 814, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/131

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/814/2/131 2015

  32. [32]

    J., Krumholz, M

    Goldbaum, N. J., Krumholz, M. R., & Forbes, J. C. 2016, ApJ, 827, 28, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/28

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/827/1/28 2016

  33. [33]

    Grcevich, J., & Putman, M. E. 2009, ApJ, 696, 385, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/385 Grønnow, A., Fraternali, F., Marinacci, F., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3009, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae073

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/696/1/385 2009

  34. [34]

    , year = 1972, month = aug, volume =

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

    work page doi:10.1086/151605 1972

  35. [35]

    2012, ApJ, 746, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/125

    Haardt, F., & Madau, P. 2012, ApJ, 746, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/125

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/2/125 2012

  36. [36]

    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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  37. [37]

    FIRE-2 Simulations: Physics versus Numerics in Galaxy Formation

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

    work page Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1690 2018

  38. [38]

    M., Geha, M., Guhathakurta, P., et al

    Howley, K. M., Geha, M., Guhathakurta, P., et al. 2008, ApJ, 683, 722, doi: 10.1086/589632

    work page doi:10.1086/589632 2008

  39. [39]

    Hu, C.-Y., Naab, T., Walch, S., Glover, S. C. O., & Clark, P. C. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3528, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw544

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw544 2016

  40. [40]

    A., & Elmegreen, B

    Hunter, D. A., & Elmegreen, B. G. 2004, AJ, 128, 2170, doi: 10.1086/424615

    work page doi:10.1086/424615 2004

  41. [41]

    A., Elmegreen, B

    Hunter, D. A., Elmegreen, B. G., & Madden, S. C. 2024, ARA&A, 62, 113, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052722-104109

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-052722-104109 2024

  42. [42]

    A., Ficut-Vicas, D., Ashley, T., et al

    Hunter, D. A., Ficut-Vicas, D., Ashley, T., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/5/134

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/144/5/134 2012

  43. [43]

    A., Elmegreen, B

    Hunter, D. A., Elmegreen, B. G., Goldberger, E., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd089

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd089 2021

  44. [44]

    Suntzeff, N. B. 1997, AJ, 113, 634, doi: 10.1086/118283

    work page doi:10.1086/118283 1997

  45. [45]

    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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abacc2 2020

  46. [46]

    and Evans, Neal J

    Kennicutt, R. C., & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610 2012

  47. [47]

    The Astronomical Journal , author =

    King, I. 1962, AJ, 67, 471, doi: 10.1086/108756 K¨ oppen, J., J´ achym, P., Taylor, R., & Palouˇ s, J. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 4367, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1610

    work page doi:10.1086/108756 1962

  48. [48]

    2023, ApJ, 954, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aceda3

    Kulier, A., Poggianti, B., Tonnesen, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aceda3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aceda3 2023

  49. [49]

    B., Tinsley, B

    Larson, R. B., Tinsley, B. M., & Caldwell, C. N. 1980, ApJ, 237, 692, doi: 10.1086/157917

    work page doi:10.1086/157917 1980

  50. [50]

    2014, A&A, 563, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322658

    Lelli, F., Fraternali, F., & Verheijen, M. 2014, A&A, 563, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322658

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322658 2014

  51. [51]

    E., Carlsten, S

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5b59 2024

  52. [52]

    Lucchini, S., D’Onghia, E., & Fox, A. J. 2021, ApJ, 921, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3338

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac3338 2021

  53. [53]

    Manwadkar, V., & Kravtsov, A. V. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 3944, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2452

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2452 2022

  54. [54]

    H., et al

    Mao, Y.-Y., Geha, M., Wechsler, R. H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad64c4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad64c4 2024

  55. [55]

    Mas-Ribas, L., McQuinn, M., & Prochaska, J. X. 2025, ApJ, 990, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf43b 20

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf43b 2025

  56. [56]

    , keywords =

    Mayer, L., Governato, F., Colpi, M., et al. 2001, ApJ, 547, L123, doi: 10.1086/318898

    work page doi:10.1086/318898 2001

  57. [57]

    Ram Pressure Stripping of Disc Galaxies: The Role of the Inclination Angle , shorttitle =

    Moore, B. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 1021, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10403.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10403.x 2006

  58. [58]

    R., Knigge, C., Drew, J

    McCarthy, I. G., Frenk, C. S., Font, A. S., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 593, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12577.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12577.x 2008

  59. [59]

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/144/1/4 2012

  60. [60]

    S., Schombert, J

    McGaugh, S. S., Schombert, J. M., & Lelli, F. 2017, ApJ, 851, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9790

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9790 2017

  61. [61]

    J., & Bregman, J

    Miller, M. J., & Bregman, J. N. 2015, ApJ, 800, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/14

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/800/1/14 2015

  62. [62]

    J., Krishnarao, D., et al

    Mishra, S., Fox, A. J., Krishnarao, D., et al. 2024, ApJL, 976, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8b9d

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad8b9d 2024

  63. [63]

    1975, PASJ, 27, 533, doi: 10.1093/pasj/27.4.533

    Miyamoto, M., & Nagai, R. 1975, PASJ, 27, 533, doi: 10.1093/pasj/27.4.533

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/27.4.533 1975

  64. [64]

    2000, ApJ, 538, 559, doi: 10.1086/309140

    Mori, M., & Burkert, A. 2000, ApJ, 538, 559, doi: 10.1086/309140

    work page doi:10.1086/309140 2000

  65. [65]

    M., Applebaum, E., et al

    Munshi, F., Brooks, A. M., Applebaum, E., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0db6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0db6 2021

  66. [66]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563, doi: 10.1086/177173

    work page doi:10.1086/177173 1996

  67. [67]

    Nulsen, P. E. J. 1982, MNRAS, 198, 1007, doi: 10.1093/mnras/198.4.1007

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/198.4.1007 1982

  68. [68]

    A., Brinks, E., et al

    Oh, S.-H., Hunter, D. A., Brinks, E., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 180, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/6/180

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/149/6/180 2015

  69. [69]

    B., Erkal, D., & Li, T

    Pace, A. B., Erkal, D., & Li, T. S. 2022, ApJ, 940, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac997b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac997b 2022

  70. [70]

    2025, ApJ, 985, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc992 Pe˜ narrubia, J., Navarro, J

    Patel, E., Garavito-Camargo, N., & Escala, I. 2025, ApJ, 985, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc992 Pe˜ narrubia, J., Navarro, J. F., & McConnachie, A. W. 2008, ApJ, 673, 226, doi: 10.1086/523686

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc992 2025

  71. [71]

    Perez, F., & Granger, B. E. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 21, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53 Pietrzy´ nski, G., Graczyk, D., Gallenne, A., et al. 2019, Nature, 567, 200, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-0999-4

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.53 2007

  72. [72]

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac024f 2021

  73. [73]

    2020, Adrn/Gala: V1.3,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4159870

    Price-Whelan, A., Sip˝ ocz, B., Lenz, D., et al. 2020, Adrn/Gala: V1.3,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4159870

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.4159870 2020

  74. [74]

    E., Peek, J

    Putman, M. E., Peek, J. E. G., & Joung, M. R. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 491, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125612

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125612 2012

  75. [75]

    E., Zheng, Y., Price-Whelan, A

    Putman, M. E., Zheng, Y., Price-Whelan, A. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe391

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe391 2021

  76. [76]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 3320, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae237 Ramos-Mart´ ınez, M., G´ omez, G

    Ramesh, R., & Nelson, D. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3320, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae237 Ramos-Mart´ ınez, M., G´ omez, G. C., & P´ erez-Villegas,´A. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3781, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty393

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae237 2024

  77. [77]

    I., Iorio, G., Agertz, O., & Fraternali, F

    Read, J. I., Iorio, G., Agertz, O., & Fraternali, F. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 3628, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1876

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1876 2016

  78. [78]

    I., Iorio, G., Agertz, O., & Fraternali, F

    Read, J. I., Iorio, G., Agertz, O., & Fraternali, F. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 2019, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx147

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx147 2017

  79. [79]

    H., Shipp, N., Simpson, C

    Riley, A. H., Shipp, N., Simpson, C. M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 542, 2443, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1350

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1350 2025

  80. [80]

    A., van de Voort, F., Hannington, A

    Rintoul, T. A., van de Voort, F., Hannington, A. T., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 4321, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1718 Rodr´ ıguez-Cardoso, R., Roca-F` abrega, S., Jung, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A303, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453639

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1718 2025

Showing first 80 references.