pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.27845 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-30 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.CO

Recognition: unknown

Anisotropy of Satellite Galaxies-I: Contrasting Correlations with Central Galaxy, Host Halo, and Large-Scale Filament Structures

Zhuoming Zhang , Weiguang Cui , Yun Chen , Romeel Dav\'e , Katarina Kraljic
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 05:01 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO
keywords satellite galaxy anisotropyhalo triaxialitycosmic filament alignmentscale-dependent transitionsatellite trajectoriesdynamical processinggalaxy formation simulations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Satellite galaxy distributions exhibit a scale-dependent transition in their alignments, correlating with central galaxy morphology below 0.3 times the virial radius, host halo triaxiality between 0.3 and 2 times that radius, and cosmic fil

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

The paper maps the anisotropy of satellite galaxies around centrals and shows that its dominant structural tracer changes with distance: the distribution follows central galaxy morphology at small radii, host halo triaxiality at halo scales, and large-scale cosmic filaments beyond roughly two virial radii. This transition appears at 3 sigma significance and holds across three galaxy formation simulations, over a wide range of halo masses and up to redshift 1.5. A sympathetic reader would care because the pattern reveals how gravitational dynamics inside halos reshape satellite orbits after accretion, overwriting any initial alignment with the surrounding cosmic web. The authors trace satellite paths in one simulation to demonstrate that trajectories simply spend more time along the halo major axis, providing a kinematic explanation for the observed shift in tracers.

Core claim

In the SIMBA, EAGLE, and IllustrisTNG-100 simulations the satellite anisotropy is robustly aligned with the halo and central galaxy major axis in a redshift- and mass-dependent way that extends to filaments outside the halo. A clear 3 sigma scale-dependent transition is identified where satellites correlate with central galaxy morphology at small scales less than 0.3 R_200c, are governed by host halo triaxiality at 0.3-2 R_200c, and align with cosmic filaments beyond 2 R_200c. Tracing satellite trajectories in SIMBA reveals the kinematic origin: satellites intersect the halo major axis more frequently and remain there longer under the gravitational potential, dynamically processing away any

What carries the argument

The kinematic preference of satellite trajectories for the host halo major axis, arising because those paths intersect the axis more often and dwell there longer under the host gravitational potential, which produces the observed shift in dominant structural tracers across scales.

If this is right

  • The alignment with the halo and central major axis is robust across all three simulations and persists up to redshift 1.5 and down to halo masses of 10^11 solar masses.
  • Dynamical processing inside the halo erases primordial filament-related alignment signals for satellites once they are accreted within 2 R_200c.
  • Satellite distributions remain correlated with the central galaxy morphology only at the smallest radii below 0.3 R_200c.
  • The transition between the three structural tracers occurs at well-defined scales with 3 sigma statistical significance.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the kinematic mechanism holds, observations of satellite alignments at different projected radii could be used to estimate the dynamical state or accretion history of observed halos.
  • The result suggests that models of galaxy assembly must include orbit averaging inside halos when predicting how satellites trace the cosmic web at varying distances from the center.
  • This scale dependence may help explain why some observational studies find stronger filament alignments in the outskirts of groups and clusters than near the central galaxy.

Load-bearing premise

The methods used to identify filaments, measure halo shapes, and select satellites in the simulations introduce no significant resolution or algorithm-dependent biases that would create or move the reported scale-dependent transition.

What would settle it

A measurement in real galaxy clusters or groups showing that the alignment of satellites with central galaxy or halo major axis does not switch to filament alignment near twice the virial radius, or that the transition radius changes strongly when simulation resolution is varied.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.27845 by Katarina Kraljic, Romeel Dav\'e, Weiguang Cui, Yun Chen, Zhuoming Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Misaligned fraction of central galaxy and halo major axes vs. halo M200c across simulations and redshifts. The vertical thin lines correspond to the maximum M200c of the halo data in the same color. The misaligned fractions corresponding to the datasets consistently decrease with increasing halo mass. Name z Nc (AS, MS) Ns (AS, MS) M200c, min [M⊙] M∗s, min [M⊙] SIMBA-m100n1024 0.0 187, 107 11168, 4285 1 × … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Major-to-minor axis satellite galaxy count ratios for halos and central galaxies in the AS and MS as a function of radius. Left column: results at z = 0.0 from the SIMBA, EAGLE, and TNG100 simulations. Right column: results at z = 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 from SIMBA. The horizontal black solid line corresponds to a count ratio of 1. Shaded bands denote 3σ confidence intervals, quantifying the anisotropy of satellite … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Major-to-minor axis satellite galaxy count ratios for halos and central galaxies in the AS and MS as a function of halo mass. Left column: results at z = 0.0 from the SIMBA, EAGLE, and TNG100 simulations. Right column: results at z = 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 from SIMBA. The curve color coding, and visual conventions are identical to those in view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Major-to-minor axis satellite galaxy count ratios for halos and central galaxies in the AS and MS at z = 0 from the TNG100 simulation, plotted as a function of halo mass with satellite galaxies within 0−0.3R200c excluded from the sample. All axis definitions, curve color coding, and visual conventions are identical to those in view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Misaligned fraction of halo major axes and filament orientations vs. halo M200c derived from SIMBA simulation at z = 0. The vertical thin lines correspond to the maximum M200c of the halo data. The misaligned fractions decrease with increasing halo mass. 5.2. Spatial Anisotropies of Satellite Galaxy Distributions In this subsection, we focus on the relationship between the number ratios of satellite galaxi… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The ratio of the number of satellite galaxies along the major axis to that along other orientations at different radial distances. The shaded bands around the curves denote the 3σ confidence intervals of the measured ratios. The number of satellite galaxies along the minor axis is significantly lower than that for the random orientation at all radial bins. Within 2R200c, the number of satellite galaxies al… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left panel: The angle between the halo major axis derived within different radial apertures and that defined within R200c. Right panel: The angle between the halo major axis derived within different radial apertures and the central galaxy major axis. The shaded bands in the figure correspond to the 1σ confidence interval. For the MS, the morphology of small-scale halos exhibits a significant discrepancy fr… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Kinematic preferences of satellite galaxies in AS and MS, quantified via the residence time ratios ∆tmajor/∆ttotal and ∆tminor/∆ttotal across radial bins. Data points represent the mean values, with error bars corresponding to the 16th-84th percentiles of the sample distribution. AS galaxies show consistent major-axis trajectory preference, stronger for centrally concentrated objects; MS galaxies exhibit n… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distribution of the time durations for satellite galaxies crossing the major and minor axes in the triaxial halo ellipsoid coordinate system. Top: halos and satellites from the AS. Bottom: halos and satellites from the MS. Satellites in both samples preferentially cross the major axis more frequently and with longer time durations view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The possibility density function (PDF) of alignment angles between the major axes of halos (left) and central galaxies (right) from PCA and ITM, for different particle number density thresholds ρc. Solid lines show the mean values, and shaded regions indicate the 1σ standard deviation. The sample includes halos with M200c ≥ 1013M⊙ and their central central galaxies from the SIMBA simulation at z = 0. The … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Projected number density distribution of satellite galaxies stacked along the intermediate axis of host ellipsoids for systems with M200c ≥ 1011M⊙. Top row: distributions relative to halo ellipsoids. Bottom row: distributions relative to central galaxy ellipsoids. Panels from left to right correspond to axis-aligned slices of thickness 0.6R200c, R200c, and 2R200c, respectively. The black diagonal lines de… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Major-to-minor axis satellite galaxy count ratios for halos and central galaxies in the AS and MS as a function of radius, based on the SIMBA simulation at z = 0.0. Left column: AS defined as central galaxy-halo major-axis angle < 30◦ and MS as angle > 60◦ ; Right column: AS defined as angle < 45◦ and MS as angle > 45◦ . All axis definitions, curve color coding, and visual conventions are identical to view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Rotational angular velocities of the major and minor axes between host halos and their central galaxies. Top row: Rotational angular velocity of the major axis between the halo and its central galaxy. Bottom row: Rotational angular velocity of the minor axis between the halo and its central galaxy. The major and minor axis rotation speeds of halos are significantly lower than those of central galaxies view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Using the SIMBA, EAGLE, and IllustrisTNG-100 galaxy formation simulations, we examine the anisotropy of the satellite distribution and its dependencies on central galaxies, host halos, and cosmic filaments. We find that in all simulations the satellite anisotropy is robustly aligned with the halo/central galaxy major axis. This correlation is both redshift- and halo-mass-dependent and also extends to filamentary structures outside the halo to several virial radii. The alignment persists up to $z=1.5$ at high redshifts, and the mass dependence remains down to $M_\mathrm{200c} \approx 10^{11}M_{\odot}$. We identify a clear $3\sigma$ scale-dependent transition in the structural tracers of satellite anisotropy: satellite distributions correlate with central galaxy morphology at small scales ($<0.3R_{\rm 200c}$), are governed by host halo triaxiality at halo scales ($0.3$-$2R_{\rm 200c}$), and align with cosmic filaments beyond $2R_{\rm 200c}$. By tracing satellite trajectories in SIMBA, we uncover the kinematic origin of this transition, demonstrating that satellites prefer halo major-axis aligned regions because their trajectories intersect this axis far more frequently and stay in it for a longer time under the host's gravitational potential. This dynamical processing effectively erases primordial filament-related signals upon accretion ($<2R_{\rm 200c}$), explaining the shift in dominant structural tracers across scales.

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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. Using the SIMBA, EAGLE, and IllustrisTNG-100 galaxy formation simulations, the paper examines the anisotropy of satellite galaxy distributions around central galaxies. It reports a robust alignment with the halo/central major axis that is redshift- and mass-dependent, extending to filaments beyond the virial radius. The key result is a 3σ scale-dependent transition: satellites correlate with central galaxy morphology at r < 0.3 R_200c, with host halo triaxiality at 0.3–2 R_200c, and with cosmic filaments at r > 2 R_200c. Trajectory tracking in SIMBA shows satellites spend more time along the halo major axis due to orbital dynamics, erasing primordial filament signals inside 2 R_200c.

Significance. If robust, the scale-dependent transition and its kinematic explanation represent a useful advance in understanding how satellite distributions are shaped by different structures at different radii. The use of three independent simulations and direct particle trajectory analysis in SIMBA are clear strengths that enhance reproducibility and physical insight. The result could inform both theoretical models of galaxy assembly and observational interpretations of satellite alignments, provided the tracers are shown to act as sufficiently independent drivers.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (alignment statistics): The paper reports separate pairwise correlations of satellite positions with central galaxy orientation, halo triaxiality, and filament direction. No partial correlation analysis or conditioning on the misalignment angles between these tracers (e.g., the angle between halo major axis and filament) is presented. Because centrals align with halos and halos align with filaments, the apparent radial transition in which correlation is strongest could arise from the radial dependence of these inter-tracer alignments rather than from distinct physical regimes acting on the satellites. This directly affects the central claim of a 3σ scale-dependent shift in dominant tracers.
  2. [§5] §5 (trajectory analysis): The SIMBA orbit tracking demonstrates that satellites intersect and linger along the halo major axis more frequently, explaining the inner-halo alignment. However, this analysis does not test whether the filament alignment signal reported beyond 2 R_200c is independent of the halo-filament correlation that persists outside the virial radius. A conditional measurement of satellite-filament alignment at fixed halo orientation would be required to establish that filaments exert a primary influence at large radii.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and §3: The phrase 'clear 3σ scale-dependent transition' should be accompanied by a concise statement of the exact statistical test and error estimation procedure used to arrive at the 3σ threshold.
  2. [§2.3] §2.3 (methods): A short paragraph comparing the adopted filament finder and halo shape algorithm to at least one alternative method would help address possible algorithm-dependent biases in the location of the reported transition radii.
  3. [Figure 3] Figure 3: The vertical lines marking 0.3 R_200c and 2 R_200c should be added to all panels that display radial trends to facilitate direct visual comparison with the text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed report. We appreciate the positive evaluation of our multi-simulation approach and the physical insight from the SIMBA trajectory analysis. The major comments correctly identify the need to demonstrate that the reported scale-dependent transitions reflect independent physical drivers rather than inter-tracer alignments. We address each point below and will incorporate the suggested analyses in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (alignment statistics): The paper reports separate pairwise correlations of satellite positions with central galaxy orientation, halo triaxiality, and filament direction. No partial correlation analysis or conditioning on the misalignment angles between these tracers (e.g., the angle between halo major axis and filament) is presented. Because centrals align with halos and halos align with filaments, the apparent radial transition in which correlation is strongest could arise from the radial dependence of these inter-tracer alignments rather than from distinct physical regimes acting on the satellites. This directly affects the central claim of a 3σ scale-dependent shift in dominant tracers.

    Authors: We agree that the absence of partial correlation or conditional analyses leaves open the possibility that the observed radial transitions in dominant tracers could be influenced by the known alignments between centrals, halos, and filaments. Our current results compare the strength of each pairwise correlation versus radius and report a 3σ shift in the dominant correlation, but this does not fully isolate independent effects. In the revised manuscript we will add partial correlation coefficients between satellite positions and each tracer while controlling for the others, as well as explicit conditional measurements (e.g., satellite-filament alignment at fixed halo major-axis orientation). These additions will directly test whether the scale-dependent transitions persist independently of inter-tracer misalignments. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§5] §5 (trajectory analysis): The SIMBA orbit tracking demonstrates that satellites intersect and linger along the halo major axis more frequently, explaining the inner-halo alignment. However, this analysis does not test whether the filament alignment signal reported beyond 2 R_200c is independent of the halo-filament correlation that persists outside the virial radius. A conditional measurement of satellite-filament alignment at fixed halo orientation would be required to establish that filaments exert a primary influence at large radii.

    Authors: The referee correctly observes that the SIMBA trajectory analysis is focused on dynamical processing inside the halo and does not directly address independence at r > 2 R_200c. At these large radii most satellites remain unaccreted, so their positions should retain more of the primordial filamentary signal; however, the persistent halo-filament alignment means a conditional test is needed to confirm filaments act as the primary driver. We will therefore add, in the revised manuscript, a measurement of satellite-filament alignment conditioned on halo orientation using the same SIMBA data. This will quantify whether the filament correlation remains significant at fixed halo major axis, thereby strengthening the claim of distinct physical regimes beyond 2 R_200c. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity detected in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper reports empirical statistical measurements of alignment strengths between satellite galaxy distributions and three structural tracers (central galaxy morphology, host halo triaxiality, and large-scale filaments) as a function of radial scale, extracted directly from the outputs of three independent galaxy formation simulations. The claimed 3σ scale-dependent transition is obtained by comparing the measured correlation amplitudes in different radial bins; the kinematic explanation is obtained by direct counting of trajectory intersections and dwell times along the halo major axis within the SIMBA simulation volume. None of these steps involve fitting a parameter to a subset of the data and then relabeling the fit as a prediction, defining one quantity in terms of another that is then re-derived, or invoking a load-bearing self-citation whose own justification reduces to the present work. The analysis is therefore self-contained against the simulation data and does not contain any of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard definitions of halo mass, virial radius, galaxy morphology, and filament identification that are inherited from the simulation codes and prior literature rather than newly derived here.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Standard Lambda-CDM cosmology and Newtonian gravity govern the evolution of the simulated universes.
    All three simulations are run within this framework.
  • domain assumption Halo finders, filament finders, and galaxy morphology measures produce reliable structural tracers.
    These tools are standard but can introduce systematic differences across codes.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5598 in / 1533 out tokens · 56491 ms · 2026-05-07T05:01:15.575467+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

46 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Bailin, J., Power, C., Norberg, P., Zaritsky, D., & Gibson, B. K. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 1133, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13828.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13828.x 2008

  2. [2]

    Brainerd, T. G. 2005, ApJL, 628, L101, doi: 10.1086/432713

    work page doi:10.1086/432713 2005

  3. [3]

    2017, MNRAS, 464, 2502, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2567 Dav´ e, R., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Narayanan, D., et al

    Cui, W., Power, C., Borgani, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2502, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2567 Dav´ e, R., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Narayanan, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2827, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz937 De Luca, F., De Petris, M., Yepes, G., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 5383, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1073

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2567 2017

  4. [4]

    2002, S´ eminaire Lotharingien de Combinatoire [electronic only], 48, B48c G´ amez-Mar´ ın, M., Dom´ ınguez-Tenreiro, R., Santos-Santos, I., & Pedrosa, S

    Forman, R. 2002, S´ eminaire Lotharingien de Combinatoire [electronic only], 48, B48c G´ amez-Mar´ ın, M., Dom´ ınguez-Tenreiro, R., Santos-Santos, I., & Pedrosa, S. E. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 2241, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1599 G´ amez-Mar´ ın, M., Santos-Santos, I., Dom´ ınguez-Tenreiro, R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad27da

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1599 2002

  5. [5]

    E., Pearce, F

    Haggar, R., Gray, M. E., Pearce, F. R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 6074, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa273

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa273 2020

  6. [6]

    1969, Arkiv for Astronomi, 5, 305

    Holmberg, E. 1969, Arkiv for Astronomi, 5, 305

    1969

  7. [7]

    G., Ibata, R

    Ibata, N. G., Ibata, R. A., Famaey, B., & Lewis, G. F. 2014, Nature, 511, 563, doi: 10.1038/nature13481

    work page doi:10.1038/nature13481 2014

  8. [8]

    P., Dong, X., et al

    Kang, X., Lin, W. P., Dong, X., et al. 2016, in IAU

    2016

  9. [9]

    308, The Zeldovich Universe: Genesis and Growth of the Cosmic Web, ed

    Symposium, Vol. 308, The Zeldovich Universe: Genesis and Growth of the Cosmic Web, ed. R. van de Weygaert, S. Shandarin, E. Saar, & J. Einasto, 448–451, doi: 10.1017/S1743921316010346

    work page doi:10.1017/s1743921316010346

  10. [10]

    2007, MNRAS, 378, 910, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11817.x

    Kang, X., van den Bosch, F. C., Yang, X., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 1531, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11902.x 10 https://github.com/dnarayanan/caesar

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11902.x 2007

  11. [11]

    Karp, J. S. M., Lange, J. U., & Wechsler, R. H. 2023, ApJL, 949, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd3e9

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acd3e9 2023

  12. [12]

    2005, PASA, 22, 184, doi: 10.1071/AS04059

    Knebe, A. 2005, PASA, 22, 184, doi: 10.1071/AS04059

    work page doi:10.1071/as04059 2005

  13. [13]

    Lee, J., Kang, X., & Jing, Y. P. 2005, ApJL, 629, L5, doi: 10.1086/444496

    work page doi:10.1086/444496 2005

  14. [14]

    A., Heckman, T

    Jenkins, A. 2007, MNRAS, 374, 16, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11205.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11205.x 2007

  15. [15]

    P., Welker, C., Nair, S., et al

    Madhani, J. P., Welker, C., Nair, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.18515, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.18515

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.18515 2025

  16. [16]

    V., Rodriguez, F., & Merch´ an, M

    Marsengo-Colazo, A. V., Rodriguez, F., & Merch´ an, M. 2025, A&A, 703, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557043 Mart´ ın-Navarro, I., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2021, Nature, 594, 187, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03545-9

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557043 2025

  17. [17]

    2026, ApJ, 998, 251, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae36a0

    Meng, Y., Zheng, H., Liao, S., et al. 2026, ApJ, 998, 251, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae36a0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae36a0 2026

  18. [18]

    2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, doi: 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    Nelson, D., Springel, V., Pillepich, A., et al. 2019, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 6, 2, doi: 10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x

    work page doi:10.1186/s40668-019-0028-x 2019

  19. [19]

    M., Auger, M

    Nierenberg, A. M., Auger, M. W., Treu, T., Marshall, P. J., & Fassnacht, C. D. 2011, ApJ, 731, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/44

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/731/1/44 2011

  20. [20]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 2591, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1479

    Okabe, T., Oguri, M., Peirani, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 2591, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1479

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1479 2020

  21. [21]

    2012, MNRAS, 423, 600, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20901.x

    Pawlowski, M. S., Pflamm-Altenburg, J., & Kroupa, P. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 1109, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20937.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20937.x 2012

  22. [22]

    2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    2011

  23. [23]

    Rodriguez, F., Merch´ an, M., & Artale, M. C. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 1077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1428 —. 2024, A&A, 688, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450597 24

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1428 2022

  24. [24]

    C., & Andrews, M

    Rodriguez, F., Merch´ an, M., Artale, M. C., & Andrews, M. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 5483, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad924

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad924 2023

  25. [25]

    2025, A&A, 699, A215, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554593

    Rodriguez, F., Merch´ an, M., Gal´ arraga-Espinosa, D., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A215, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554593

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554593 2025

  26. [26]

    Sales, L., & Lambas, D. G. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 1236, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07443.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07443.x 2004

  27. [27]

    2023, ApJ, 942, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca1c8

    Santos-Santos, I., G´ amez-Mar´ ın, M., Dom´ ınguez-Tenreiro, R., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca1c8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca1c8 2023

  28. [28]

    Continuous Fields and Discrete Samples: Reconstruction through Delaunay Tessellations

    Schaap, W. E., & van de Weygaert, R. 2000, A&A, 363, L29, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0011007

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0011007 2000

  29. [29]

    A., Bower, R

    Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 521, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2058

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2058 2015

  30. [30]

    S., et al

    Shao, S., Cautun, M., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 3772, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1247

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1247 2016

  31. [31]

    S., Kraljic, K., et al

    Smith, R., Hwang, H. S., Kraljic, K., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 4685, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2535

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2535 2023

  32. [32]

    2012, MNRAS, 420, 1825, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19805.x

    Sousbie, T. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 350, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18394.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18394.x 2011

  33. [33]

    2012, MNRAS, 420, 1825, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19805.x

    Sousbie, T., Pichon, C., & Kawahara, H. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 384, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18395.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18395.x 2011

  34. [34]

    Stephenson, H. M. O., Stott, J. P., Butler, J., Webster, M., & Head, J. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 1542, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf120

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf120 2025

  35. [35]

    2020, ApJ, 893, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8292

    Tang, L., Lin, W., & Wang, Y. 2020, ApJ, 893, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8292

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8292 2020

  36. [36]

    Tempel, E., Guo, Q., Kipper, R., & Libeskind, N. I. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 2727, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv919

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv919 2015

  37. [37]

    2024, MNRAS, 535, 3775, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2632

    Uzeirbegovic, E., Martin, G., Kaviraj, S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 3775, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2632

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2632 2024

  38. [38]

    I., Tempel, E., et al

    Wang, P., Libeskind, N. I., Tempel, E., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba6ea

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba6ea 2020

  39. [39]

    2018, ApJ, 859, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabe2b

    Wang, P., Luo, Y., Kang, X., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabe2b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabe2b 2018

  40. [40]

    O., Lin, W

    Wang, Y. O., Lin, W. P., Kang, X., et al. 2014, ApJ, 786, 8, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/8

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/786/1/8 2014

  41. [41]

    A., Heckman, T

    Yang, X., van den Bosch, F. C., Mo, H. J., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 1293, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10373.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10373.x 2006

  42. [42]

    2025, A&A, 693, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452296

    Zakharova, D., McGee, S., Vulcani, B., & De Lucia, G. 2025, A&A, 693, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452296

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452296 2025

  43. [43]

    Zentner, A. R. 2006, in EAS Publications Series, Vol. 20, EAS Publications Series, ed. G. A. Mamon, F. Combes, C. Deffayet, & B. Fort (EDP), 41–46, doi: 10.1051/eas:2006044

    work page doi:10.1051/eas:2006044 2006

  44. [44]

    R., Kravtsov, A

    Zentner, A. R., Kravtsov, A. V., Gnedin, O. Y., & Klypin, A. A. 2005, ApJ, 629, 219, doi: 10.1086/431355

    work page doi:10.1086/431355 2005

  45. [45]

    , keywords =

    Zhang, B., Cui, W., Wang, Y., Dave, R., & De Petris, M. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 26, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2171

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2171 2022

  46. [46]

    2013, ApJ, 779, 160, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/160

    Zhang, Y., Yang, X., Wang, H., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 160, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/160

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/2/160 2013