arxiv: 2604.26066 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-28 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

Blueberry and Green Pea galaxies live in low density environments

Maitrayee Gupta , Ji\v{r}\'i Svoboda , Konstantinos Kouroumpatzakis , Nicolas Peschken , Peter G. Boorman , Abhijeet Borkar

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 15:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA

keywords Green Pea galaxiesBlueberry galaxiesgalaxy environmentsstarburst galaxieslow-density environmentsgalaxy clusteringSDSS surveydwarf galaxies

0 comments

The pith

Green Pea and Blueberry galaxies predominantly reside in isolated, low-density environments.

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

Green Pea and Blueberry galaxies are low-mass compact systems with extreme specific star-formation rates. The study compares their large-scale environments to control samples from SDSS data, matched by stellar mass and specific star-formation rate. Neighbor counts within a 5 Mpc radius serve as the density measure. These galaxies show the lowest neighbor counts of any subsample examined. The isolation implies their starbursts are unlikely to result from mergers or other external triggers.

Core claim

GPs and BBs predominantly reside in isolated, low-density environments, suggesting that their intense starbursts are unlikely to be triggered by common environmental processes such as mergers or starburst cycles. Their low metallicities and weak clustering instead support scenarios in which recent starbursts are driven by internal processes or pristine gas accretion, reinforcing their role as nearby analogues of young, low-mass galaxies in the early Universe.

What carries the argument

Number of neighboring galaxies within a 5 Mpc radius, used as a proxy for environmental density after matching controls by stellar mass and specific star-formation rate with bootstrapping for robustness.

If this is right

Galaxy clustering depends strongly on star-formation activity, with passive galaxies more clustered than high star-formation rate counterparts.
GPs and BBs lie at the extreme low end of the clustering relation.
Nearest neighbors of BBs tend to have lower masses than those of other dwarf galaxies.
Low metallicities combined with weak clustering support internal or accretion-driven starburst scenarios.
The galaxies serve as local analogues for high-redshift reionizing systems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Star formation models for isolated dwarfs should prioritize internal feedback and gas accretion over interaction triggers.
Selecting for low neighbor density could improve identification of additional local analogues to early-universe galaxies.
Hydrodynamic simulations of isolated low-mass systems can be directly compared to these observed neighbor statistics.

Load-bearing premise

Counting neighbors within a fixed 5 Mpc radius after mass and sSFR matching fully captures the relevant large-scale environment without significant projection effects or incompleteness biases in the SDSS sample.

What would settle it

A spectroscopic survey showing GPs and BBs with neighbor counts equal to or higher than matched controls, after correcting for projection effects, would falsify the low-density claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.26066 by Abhijeet Borkar, Ji\v{r}\'i Svoboda, Konstantinos Kouroumpatzakis, Maitrayee Gupta, Nicolas Peschken, Peter G. Boorman.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: 3D distribution showing the parent sample of galaxies. view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Scatter plot showing the number density distribution of the stellar masses vs. sSFR for the 3 redshift samples. BBs are view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Histogram showing the redshift distribution of the 9 control samples and the GP and BB samples. The number of objects in view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Pair-matching and bootstrapping mechanism. (a) The GP view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Box plot showing the average number of neighbours within 5 Mpc for the 500 bootstrapped samples for each class of object view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Distribution of the metallicity of objects in di view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Histogram showing mass of the nearest neighbour for view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Little is currently known about the large-scale environments of Green Pea (GP) and Blueberry (BB) galaxies, which are low-mass, compact systems with extreme specific star-formation rates (sSFR). Their environments are inherently linked to their formation mechanism, and they may serve as crucial local analogues for high-redshift, reionizing galaxies. This paper aims to investigate the clustering properties of GPs and BBs, leveraging large-scale survey data to quantify their spatial distribution relative to the broader galaxy population. We here investigate a sample of these galaxies, consisting of 339 GPs $\rm (0.1 < z \le 0.33)$ and 56 BBs $\rm (0 < z \le 0.1)$, whose clustering properties we analyse relative to an extensive control sample derived from the SDSS MPA-JHU DR8 catalogue, binned by stellar mass and sSFR. We use the number of neighbours within a 5 Mpc radius as a proxy for environmental density, i.e. clustering, and employ a pair-matching and bootstrapping methodology to ensure statistical robustness. We observe that galaxy clustering depends strongly on star-formation activity, with passive galaxies being more clustered than their high star-formation rate counterparts, with GPs and BBs lying at the extreme end of this relation, exhibiting the lowest neighbour counts among all subsamples. The nearest neighbours of BBs also tend to have lower masses than other classes of dwarf galaxies. GPs and BBs predominantly reside in isolated, low-density environments, suggesting that their intense starbursts are unlikely to be triggered by common environmental processes such as mergers or starburst cycles. Their low metallicities and weak clustering instead support scenarios in which recent starbursts are driven by internal processes or pristine gas accretion, reinforcing their role as nearby analogues of young, low-mass galaxies in the early Universe.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

GPs and BBs show the lowest 5 Mpc neighbor counts after mass and sSFR matching, but the data do not establish that mergers are unlikely triggers.

read the letter

The main result is that Green Pea and Blueberry galaxies sit in lower-density large-scale environments than mass- and sSFR-matched controls drawn from SDSS. The authors count neighbors inside a 5 Mpc radius for 339 GPs and 56 BBs, apply pair-matching plus bootstrapping, and place these objects at the extreme low end of the clustering distribution. They also note that BB nearest neighbors tend to be lower mass than those around other dwarfs. This is a clean, quantitative addition to the environmental picture for these extreme star-formers and their use as local reionization analogs.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes the large-scale environments of 339 Green Pea galaxies (0.1 < z ≤ 0.33) and 56 Blueberry galaxies (z ≤ 0.1) from SDSS data. Using a control sample matched in stellar mass and specific star formation rate, it finds that GPs and BBs have the lowest number of neighbors within a 5 Mpc radius, indicating they reside in isolated, low-density environments. The authors conclude that their intense starbursts are unlikely triggered by environmental processes like mergers, favoring internal mechanisms or gas accretion, and positioning them as local analogues for high-redshift reionizing galaxies.

Significance. If the findings hold after addressing methodological details, this work would provide valuable observational constraints on the environments of extreme star-forming dwarf galaxies. It strengthens the case for internal drivers of starbursts in these systems and supports their analogy to early Universe galaxies, which could inform models of galaxy formation and reionization. The use of public survey data with mass/sSFR-matched controls and bootstrapping is a positive aspect of the analysis.

major comments (3)

[Abstract] Abstract: The suggestion that starbursts are 'unlikely to be triggered by common environmental processes such as mergers' is not supported by the 5 Mpc neighbor count alone, since mergers and tidal interactions typically occur on scales << 1 Mpc (e.g., <200 kpc). No close-pair fractions, separation distributions, or small-scale statistics are reported to bridge this gap, undermining the central implication for formation mechanisms.
[Methods] Methods (control sample construction and neighbor counting): The manuscript lacks sufficient detail on redshift-dependent selection effects, completeness corrections for the SDSS MPA-JHU catalogue, and how these are handled across the different redshift ranges of GPs and BBs. This is critical for the validity of the neighbor count comparisons and the claim of lowest densities.
[Statistical analysis] Statistical analysis section: Details on the bootstrapping methodology, error propagation for neighbor counts, and the exact pair-matching procedure are not fully specified, making it difficult to assess the robustness of the claim that GPs and BBs exhibit the lowest neighbour counts among subsamples.

minor comments (2)

Ensure all figures clearly label the control samples, redshift bins, and error bars for easy comparison with the GP/BB samples.
Consider adding references to prior studies on GP/BB environments or merger rates in low-mass galaxies for better context.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. These have identified key areas where additional clarity and precision are needed. We respond to each major comment below, indicating the revisions we will make to strengthen the paper.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The suggestion that starbursts are 'unlikely to be triggered by common environmental processes such as mergers' is not supported by the 5 Mpc neighbor count alone, since mergers and tidal interactions typically occur on scales << 1 Mpc (e.g., <200 kpc). No close-pair fractions, separation distributions, or small-scale statistics are reported to bridge this gap, undermining the central implication for formation mechanisms.

Authors: We appreciate this important distinction. Our analysis demonstrates that GPs and BBs have the lowest large-scale neighbor densities (within 5 Mpc) among mass- and sSFR-matched samples, which we interpret as evidence that their environments are not conducive to the frequent interactions expected in denser regions. We agree that this does not constitute direct measurement of close-pair statistics on <<1 Mpc scales. In the revised manuscript we will adjust the abstract and conclusions to state that the observed low large-scale densities make triggering by environmental processes associated with dense environments (such as mergers in groups) unlikely, while explicitly noting that a dedicated close-pair analysis lies outside the scope of the present work but would be a valuable extension. revision: partial
Referee: [Methods] Methods (control sample construction and neighbor counting): The manuscript lacks sufficient detail on redshift-dependent selection effects, completeness corrections for the SDSS MPA-JHU catalogue, and how these are handled across the different redshift ranges of GPs and BBs. This is critical for the validity of the neighbor count comparisons and the claim of lowest densities.

Authors: We acknowledge that the Methods section would benefit from greater explicitness on these points. In the revised version we will expand the description to cover: (i) the redshift-dependent completeness and selection functions of the SDSS MPA-JHU DR8 catalogue, (ii) how the control samples are constructed separately within the BB (z ≤ 0.1) and GP (0.1 < z ≤ 0.33) redshift intervals to match stellar mass and sSFR while respecting these selection effects, and (iii) any handling of SDSS-specific biases (e.g., fiber collisions) in the neighbor-counting procedure. These details were present in our internal analysis but were not stated with sufficient clarity. revision: yes
Referee: [Statistical analysis] Statistical analysis section: Details on the bootstrapping methodology, error propagation for neighbor counts, and the exact pair-matching procedure are not fully specified, making it difficult to assess the robustness of the claim that GPs and BBs exhibit the lowest neighbour counts among subsamples.

Authors: We agree that full reproducibility requires these specifications. We will add a dedicated paragraph detailing: the bootstrapping implementation (including the number of resamples and the method for deriving uncertainties on the mean neighbor counts), the error propagation (combining Poisson counting errors with bootstrap variance), and the precise pair-matching tolerances (e.g., ±0.1 dex in log M* and ±0.2 dex in log sSFR). These additions will allow readers to evaluate the robustness of the result that GPs and BBs show the lowest neighbor counts. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Direct observational comparison with no circular derivations

full rationale

The paper performs a direct empirical comparison of neighbor counts within a 5 Mpc radius using public SDSS MPA-JHU DR8 data, after explicit mass and sSFR matching plus bootstrapping. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are invoked that reduce the reported neighbor counts or clustering conclusions to inputs by construction. The density proxy is chosen and applied uniformly to all subsamples, and the interpretation regarding merger triggers is presented as a suggestion rather than a derived result. The analysis is self-contained against external survey benchmarks with no self-referential loops.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard assumptions for converting redshifts to physical distances and on the representativeness of the SDSS catalog for control galaxies; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)

5 Mpc neighbor radius
Arbitrary but conventional scale chosen to probe large-scale environment; not fitted to the data.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Redshift provides a reliable distance measure for neighbor counting at z < 0.33
Invoked to define the 5 Mpc physical radius around each target galaxy.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5669 in / 1174 out tokens · 79219 ms · 2026-05-07T15:05:20.820486+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

N., Adelman-McCarthy, J

Abazajian, K. N., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Agüeros, M. A., et al. 2009, ApJS, 182, 543 Adamcová, B., Svoboda, J., Kyritsis, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A27

2009
[2]

2011, ApJS, 193, 29

Aihara, H., Allende Prieto, C., An, D., et al. 2011, ApJS, 193, 29

2011
[3]

B., Casey, C

Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Allen, N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 61

2023
[4]

D., Allende Prieto, C., et al

Alam, S., Albareti, F. D., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2015, ApJS, 219, 12

2015
[5]

J., & Scott, P

Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481

2009
[6]

L., Navarro, J

Balogh, M. L., Navarro, J. F., & Morris, S. L. 2000, ApJ, 540, 113

2000
[7]

G., Kocevski, D

Barro, G., Pérez-González, P. G., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 128

2024
[8]

N., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T

Best, P. N., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 25

2005
[9]

L., Watson, M

Birchall, K. L., Watson, M. G., & Aird, J. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 2268

2020
[10]

Blanton, M. R. & Moustakas, J. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 159

2009
[11]

S., Schlegel, D

Bolton, A. S., Schlegel, D. J., Aubourg, É., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 144

2012
[12]

G., Svoboda, J., Stern, D., et al

Boorman, P. G., Svoboda, J., Stern, D., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 157

2025
[13]

2024, A&A, 687, A137

Borkar, A., Grossová, R., Svoboda, J., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A137

2024
[14]

Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1151

2004
[15]

M., Satyapal, S., Abel, N

Cann, J. M., Satyapal, S., Abel, N. P., et al. 2019, ApJ, 870, L2

2019
[16]

2009, MNRAS, 399, 1191

Cardamone, C., Schawinski, K., Sarzi, M., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 1191

2009
[17]

The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys

Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2016
[18]

Chen, K., Li, Z., Inayoshi, K., & Ho, L. C. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.22600 Article number, page 9 A&A proofs:manuscript no. sample63

work page arXiv
[19]

2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.02801

Chen, X., Ichikawa, K., Akiyama, M., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.02801

work page arXiv
[20]

K., Best, P

Cochrane, R. K., Best, P. N., Sobral, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 3730

2018
[21]

L., Newman, J

Coil, A. L., Newman, J. A., Croton, D., et al. 2008, ApJ, 672, 153

2008
[22]

& Wechsler, R

Conroy, C. & Wechsler, R. H. 2009, ApJ, 696, 620

2009
[23]

L., Songaila, A., Hu, E

Cowie, L. L., Songaila, A., Hu, E. M., & Cohen, J. G. 1996, AJ, 112, 839

1996
[24]

J., Springel, V ., White, S

Croton, D. J., Springel, V ., White, S. D. M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 11 Davé, R. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 147

2006
[25]

1980, ApJ, 236, 351

Dressler, A. 1980, ApJ, 236, 351

1980
[26]

Dunn, O. J. 1964, Technometrics, 6, 241

1964
[27]

P., Cooper, M

Fillingham, S. P., Cooper, M. C., Pace, A. B., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 1916

2016
[28]

Gallazzi, A., Charlot, S., Brinchmann, J., White, S. D. M., & Tremonti, C. A. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 41

2005
[29]

2025, MNRAS, 536, 905

Ge, X., Gu, Y .-Z., Lei, C.-L., & Zhang, X.-H. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 905

2025
[30]

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

Geha, M., Blanton, M. R., Yan, R., & Tinker, J. L. 2012, ApJ, 757, 85

2012
[31]

Ghodsi, L., Man, A. W. S., Donevski, D., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 4393

2024
[32]

A., Heckman, T

Groves, B. A., Heckman, T. M., & Kauffmann, G. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 1559

2006
[33]

Gunn, J. E. & Gott, III, J. R. 1972, ApJ, 176, 1

1972
[34]

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

Hwang, H. S., Shin, J., & Song, H. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 339

2019
[35]

I., Guseva, N

Izotov, Y . I., Guseva, N. G., & Thuan, T. X. 2011, ApJ, 728, 161

2011
[36]

Jaskot, A. E. 2025, ARA&A, 63, 45

2025
[37]

M., White, S

Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 33

2003
[38]

Kauffmann, G., White, S. D. M., Heckman, T. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 713

2004
[39]

C., Tate, J., Wong, O

Keel, W. C., Tate, J., Wong, O. I., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 150

2022
[40]

Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189

1998
[41]

J., Malhotra, S., Rhoads, J

Kim, K. J., Malhotra, S., Rhoads, J. E., & Yang, H. 2021, ApJ, 914, 2

2021
[42]

D., Finkelstein, S

Kocevski, D. D., Finkelstein, S. L., Barro, G., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 126

2025
[43]

2024, A&A, 688, A159

Kouroumpatzakis, K., Svoboda, J., Zezas, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A159

2024
[44]

2023, A&A, 673, A16

Kouroumpatzakis, K., Zezas, A., Kyritsis, E., Salim, S., & Svoboda, J. 2023, A&A, 673, A16

2023
[45]

Kruskal, W. H. & Wallis, W. A. 1952, Journal of the American Statistical Asso- ciation, 47, 583

1952
[46]

E., Bezanson, R., et al

Labbe, I., Greene, J. E., Bezanson, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 92

2025
[47]

B., Tinsley, B

Larson, R. B., Tinsley, B. M., & Caldwell, C. N. 1980, ApJ, 237, 692

1980
[48]

C., Kennicutt, Jr., R

Lee, J. C., Kennicutt, Jr., R. C., Funes, S. J. J. G., Sakai, S., & Akiyama, S. 2009, ApJ, 692, 1305

2009
[49]

2002, MNRAS, 334, 673

Lewis, I., Balogh, M., De Propris, R., et al. 2002, MNRAS, 334, 673

2002
[50]

P., et al

Li, C., Kauffmann, G., Jing, Y . P., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 21

2006
[51]

2014, ApJ, 782, 33

Lin, L., Jian, H.-Y ., Foucaud, S., et al. 2014, ApJ, 782, 33

2014
[52]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.10659

Lin, X., Fan, X., Cai, Z., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.10659

work page arXiv
[53]

J., Schawinski, K., Slosar, A., et al

Lintott, C. J., Schawinski, K., Slosar, A., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 1179

2008
[54]

McDonough, B., Curtis, O., & Brainerd, T. G. 2025, ApJ, 978, 67

2025
[55]

2015, MNRAS, 446, 299

Melioli, C., Brighenti, F., & D’Ercole, A. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 299

2015
[56]

& Domínguez Sánchez, H

Mezcua, M. & Domínguez Sánchez, H. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 5252

2024
[57]

C., & White, S

Mo, H., van den Bosch, F. C., & White, S. 2010, Galaxy Formation and Evolution

2010
[58]

L., Cooper, M., et al

Mostek, N., Coil, A. L., Cooper, M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 89

2013
[59]

I., Croton, D

Muldrew, S. I., Croton, D. J., Skibba, R. A., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 2670

2012
[60]

2018, MNRAS, 475, 624

Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 624

2018
[61]

2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2

Nelson, D., Springel, V ., Pillepich, A., et al. 2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2

2019
[62]

J., Balogh, M

Old, L. J., Balogh, M. L., van der Burg, R. F. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 5987

2020
[63]

J., Kovaˇc, K., et al

Peng, Y .-j., Lilly, S. J., Kovaˇc, K., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 193

2010
[64]

2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077

Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., Nelson, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077

2018
[65]

F., Schaye, J., et al

Pizzati, E., Hennawi, J. F., Schaye, J., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 2910

2025
[66]

S., Kannappan, S

Polimera, M. S., Kannappan, S. J., Richardson, C. T., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 44

2022
[67]

C., Stierwalt, S., Patton, D

Privon, G. C., Stierwalt, S., Patton, D. R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, 74

2017
[68]

N., et al

Purkayastha, S., Kanekar, N., Chengalur, J. N., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, L11

2022
[69]

2024, ApJ, 977, 68

Purkayastha, S., Kanekar, N., Kumari, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 68

2024
[70]

K., Ko, J., et al

Rhee, J., Yi, S. K., Ko, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 111

2024
[71]

E., Wold, I

Rhoads, J. E., Wold, I. G. B., Harish, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, L14 Rihtaršiˇc, G., Biffi, V ., Fabjan, D., & Dolag, K. 2024, A&A, 683, A57

2023
[72]

2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1806.10149

Rong, Y ., Yang, H., Zhang, H.-x., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1806.10149

work page arXiv 2018
[73]

M., Charlot, S., et al

Salim, S., Rich, R. M., Charlot, S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 267

2007
[74]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.08678

Samonski, H., Salim, S., & Salzer, J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.08678

work page arXiv 2025
[75]

2022, A&A, 665, L4

Schaerer, D., Marques-Chaves, R., Barrufet, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, L4

2022
[76]

Scott, D. W. 1979, Biometrika, 66, 605

1979
[77]

S., Steinhardt, C

Speagle, J. S., Steinhardt, C. L., Capak, P. L., & Silverman, J. D. 2014, ApJS, 214, 15

2014
[78]

2010, MNRAS, 401, 791

Springel, V . 2010, MNRAS, 401, 791

2010
[79]

2019, ApJ, 880, 144

Svoboda, J., Douna, V ., Orlitová, I., & Ehle, M. 2019, ApJ, 880, 144

2019
[80]

& Cen, R

Tonnesen, S. & Cen, R. 2014, ApJ, 788, 133

2014

Showing first 80 references.