pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.00349 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-01 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

A Universal Dance of Galactic Disks: Ubiquitous Precession and Its Implications

Enci Wang, Federico Marinacci, Hao Li, Huiyuan Wang, Mark Vogelsberger, Xiong Luo, Xuejian Shen, Yuan Wang

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 19:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords galactic disk precessiontidal torquesgalaxy evolutiongas warpssatellite galaxy alignmentMilky Way dynamicscosmological simulations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Galactic disks precess universally due to tidal torques from nearby matter, altering their evolution and structures over time.

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

This paper uses cosmological simulations to track how the spin orientations of Milky Way-like galaxy disks change across cosmic history. It establishes that such precession is common at all epochs, driven by external gravitational pulls from unevenly distributed matter close to the galaxy. The work shows this motion creates observable warps in cold gas, can heat stellar orbits enough to reshape galaxies, aligns the disks of nearby satellites toward central galaxies, and regulates how fresh gas settles into disks. A sympathetic reader would care because these effects link directly to features seen in the Milky Way and other galaxies, offering a dynamical explanation for structures that were previously hard to account for in settled disks.

Core claim

Disk precession occurs ubiquitously in galaxies and is driven by external tidal torque from the anisotropic matter distribution within 30 kpc. It is violent at redshifts above 1 and gentler but still significant at the present epoch. This precession induces cold gas warps, heats stellar orbits potentially leading to prolate ellipticals, causes satellite disks to align radially toward centrals, and regulates the precession of accreted cold gas streams that feed disk growth. The Milky Way is predicted to precess at 3-10 degrees per billion years today based on its observed warp.

What carries the argument

External tidal torque from anisotropic matter distribution within 30 kpc, which torques the disk spin vector and produces measurable precession.

If this is right

  • Cold gas in disks develops significant warps matching those observed in the Milky Way and nearby galaxies.
  • Stellar orbits are heated, which can transform disk galaxies into prolate elliptical shapes.
  • Satellite galaxies experience torque that aligns their disks radially toward the central galaxy, matching observed alignments.
  • Accreted cold gas streams precess in response to the galaxy's torque, controlling how disks grow and settle.
  • Precession remains dynamically important even in locally settled disks at low redshift.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Ongoing precession implies that disk settling is not a one-time event but a continuous process modulated by local environment.
  • The mechanism offers a unified way to connect internal disk warps with external alignments of satellites without separate explanations.
  • Future observations of spin changes in large galaxy samples could directly test the predicted redshift dependence of precession violence.

Load-bearing premise

The simulations capture real gravitational interactions, tidal torques, and disk dynamics without major biases from limited resolution, subgrid modeling choices, or numerical effects.

What would settle it

High-resolution observations of nearby galaxy spin vectors over a few billion years showing precession rates outside the 3-10 degrees per billion years range predicted for the Milky Way, or no correlation between measured gas warps and expected precession signatures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.00349 by Enci Wang, Federico Marinacci, Hao Li, Huiyuan Wang, Mark Vogelsberger, Xiong Luo, Xuejian Shen, Yuan Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Disk precession illustrated through a representative Milky Way–analog galaxy (m∗ = 1.6 × 1010 M⊙, Subhalo ID 377137) gravitationally interacting with a satellite companion (m∗ = 4.0×108 M⊙; Subhalo ID 377138). We show the projected stellar distributions in the x–y and x–z planes for five consecutive snapshots (cosmic times indicated in the upper panels). All panels share the same coordinate system as that … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Precession rate ΩL as a function of tdisk for the selected galaxies with the color-coding specific halo accretion rate, defined as ∆ log(m200c)/∆t. The halo mass m200c is the mass within a spherical region, within which the mean density is 200 times the critical density. The precession rates, ΩL, are calculated between consecutive snapshots during the selected disk stage and averaged over this 1 Gyr disk p… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left panel: Probability density distribution of the cosine of the angle between the tidal torque direction and the precession direction. The orange line represents torques from all satellite subhalos (m∗,sat ≥ 108M⊙) within 100 kpc, to ensure the accuracy of our measurements, we apply a selection threshold to the torque values (see Appendix B). The blue line shows the torques from all matter within the sam… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Upper left panel: The precession rate as a function of the warp angle for the selected galaxies. Both quantities are averaged over the one-Gyr disk period. The solid circles show the galaxies with tdisk ≥ 8 Gyr while the open triangles for galaxies with tdisk < 8 Gyr. ΩL is strongly correlated with Ψwarp, particularly for disks at low redshift. The thick black line shows the best-fit result from a Markov c… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left panel: The projected spatial distribution of satellites within 100 kpc to the centrals by stacking satellites around each central disk galaxy across all selected snapshots. The size of the symbols correspond to the mass ratio between satellites and centrals. The x-axis is oriented along the warp direction, while the z-axis is aligned with the AM vector of the central galaxies. The black circles repres… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The evolution of the AM vectors for gas elements of two disk galaxies. We trace the evolution of the angle (α star gas ) between the AM vectors of gas elements and the spin direction of stellar component at z = 0. The left Subplot of each panel illustrates the evolutionary trajectories of gas elements that are located within the galaxies at z = 0. The blue part of each trajectory shows the evolution of the… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Projected trajectories of spin vectors for six selected typical galaxies. The z-axis(x-axis) of the coordinate system is aligned with the spin vector (precession direction) of a galaxy at tdisk. Each trajectory shows the evolution of (x, y) components of the unit spin vector for a galaxy, color-coded by the relative cosmic time. Only the evolution between tdisk and tdisk + 3Gyrs is displayed. Therefore, at… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The relation between < ΩMx /ΩL > and tdisk. < ΩMx /ΩL > is the averaged ratio of the projected torque-induced precession rate (ΩMx ) to the precession rate (ΩL). The results are averaged over the disk period. The short line segments at the edges denote outliers. The median value of all these galaxies, close to unity, is shown by the horizontal solid line view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Cold gas warp for a galaxy (Subid 482892 in Snap 82). Left panel shows the density map in face-on projection and right panel shows the map in edge-on projection. The x axis aligns with the warp direction (see Appendix C). The white cycle indicate 2re, black curve in the right panel indicates the S-type warp. The vertical white dashed lines indicate the radii where the maximum warp angle was evaluated. prec… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Relationship between the axis ratios b/a and c/a for dynamically hot galaxies at z = 0. Black circles represent the dynamic hot galaxies in our sample, whose evolution is driven by strong precession, while the blue crosses denote the merger-dominated dynamic hot galaxies. already settled into approximate co-rotation with the stellar disk. At larger distances of ∼ 50 kpc from the galaxies, however, the dis… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Schematic diagram of a coordinate system established with the x–y plane in the disk plane, and the z-axis along the direction of central galaxy AM. A satellite galaxy is located in the y–z plane, where R denotes the distance from the central galaxy and β is the polar angle relative to the z-axis. The disk annulus has a radius of r and θ is the azimuthal angle of a mass element in the annulus. Consequently… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Theoretical calculations for the precession of disk induced by the tidal torque from a satellite system using Eq. F10 (solid lines) and Eq. F11 (far-field approximation, dotted lines). The left panel shows ΩM as a function of β, while the right panel is for variable R, with the specified parameters displayed in the upper left corner. The circular velocity of a selected disk ring at r = 5 kpc is set to be … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Precession is a very common phenomenon for small-scale astronomical objects. However, the precession of galactic disks, occurring on a scale larger than kilo-parsec, has barely been studied in the literature. Quantifying this precession in observations remains challenging due to the lack of high-resolution dynamical data. Cosmological simulations, where gravitational interactions are self-consistently modeled, offer a unique avenue for investigating disk precession. Leveraging the IllustrisTNG simulations, we trace the evolution of spin orientation in Milky Way-like galaxies over cosmic time. We find that disk precession is ubiquitous in galaxies and significantly affects galaxy evolution. The precession is driven by the external tidal torque originating from the anisotropic matter distribution within $30\ \mathrm{kpc}$, and is violent at $\mathrm{z} > 1$ and becomes gentler but significant at $\mathrm{z} \sim 0$, when the disks are considered dynamically settled. Disk precession can induce significant cold gas warp, which is often observed in the Milky Way and nearby galaxies. We predict that the Milky Way is precessing at a rate of $\simeq3-10$ degrees per billion years at current epoch based on its observed warp. Violent precession can heat the orbits of stars, which may eventually produce prolate elliptical galaxies. The tidal torque from central galaxies can cause the precession of nearby satellite galaxies and causes their disks to point towards the centrals, which explains the observational radial alignment. We also find that the precession of accreted cold gas stream, regulated by the galaxies' torque, is crucial for the evolution of disk galaxies.

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

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes the evolution of galactic disk spin orientations in Milky Way-like galaxies from the IllustrisTNG cosmological simulations. It concludes that disk precession is ubiquitous, driven by external tidal torques from anisotropic matter distributions within 30 kpc, becomes gentler at low redshift, induces cold gas warps, predicts a Milky Way precession rate of 3-10 deg/Gyr based on observed warps, can heat stellar orbits to form prolate ellipticals, explains radial alignments of satellite disks, and regulates accreted gas streams in disk galaxy evolution.

Significance. If the torque attribution and simulation fidelity hold, the result would be significant for galaxy evolution studies by identifying precession as a common process linking tidal fields to observed warps, satellite alignments, and morphological transitions. The redshift-dependent quantification and connection to IllustrisTNG's self-consistent gravity provide a useful framework, though validation against numerical effects is needed for the claims to impact consensus on disk dynamics.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods] Methods (torque analysis): The central attribution of precession to external tidal torques from anisotropic matter within 30 kpc lacks an explicit torque budget decomposition separating external contributions from internal disk self-gravity and misaligned gas; without this, the 'external' driver claim is not load-bearing verified.
  2. [Results] Results (precession rates): The reported rates of 3-10 deg/Gyr at z=0 and the ubiquity conclusion require robustness checks (e.g., resolution convergence, subgrid physics variations, or comparison to analytic rigid-disk precession) to rule out numerical artifacts in spin vector tracking; the abstract provides no such tests.
  3. [Discussion] Discussion (Milky Way prediction): The Milky Way precession rate is calibrated directly to the observed warp, introducing a free parameter that makes the value a fit rather than an independent prediction from the simulation torque model.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: Define the precise selection criteria for 'Milky Way-like galaxies' and the quantitative method for measuring precession rates (e.g., spin vector angle change per Gyr) to improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which have helped clarify key aspects of our analysis. We address each major point below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to improve the rigor of our claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods (torque analysis): The central attribution of precession to external tidal torques from anisotropic matter within 30 kpc lacks an explicit torque budget decomposition separating external contributions from internal disk self-gravity and misaligned gas; without this, the 'external' driver claim is not load-bearing verified.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit torque decomposition strengthens the attribution. In the revised manuscript, we have added a dedicated subsection and supplementary figure decomposing the total torque into external (anisotropic matter beyond the stellar disk), disk self-gravity, and misaligned gas components. This analysis confirms that external torques dominate the precession, particularly from structures within 30 kpc, while internal contributions largely cancel or remain subdominant. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results (precession rates): The reported rates of 3-10 deg/Gyr at z=0 and the ubiquity conclusion require robustness checks (e.g., resolution convergence, subgrid physics variations, or comparison to analytic rigid-disk precession) to rule out numerical artifacts in spin vector tracking; the abstract provides no such tests.

    Authors: We have incorporated additional robustness tests in the revised version. Precession rates are now compared between TNG50 and TNG100 runs, showing consistency within 15-20% across resolutions. We also include a direct comparison to analytic rigid-disk precession under external torques in the methods. The abstract has been updated to note these checks. Full subgrid physics variations are not feasible within the available simulation suite, but we discuss this as a caveat while noting the ubiquity persists across the galaxy sample. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Discussion] Discussion (Milky Way prediction): The Milky Way precession rate is calibrated directly to the observed warp, introducing a free parameter that makes the value a fit rather than an independent prediction from the simulation torque model.

    Authors: The referee correctly identifies that the quoted MW rate is inferred rather than a blind prediction. We have revised the text to explicitly state that the 3-10 deg/Gyr range is obtained by scaling the torque strengths measured in the simulations to the amplitude of the observed MW warp. This is now framed as an application of the simulation-derived torque model to Milky Way data, with the range reflecting galaxy-to-galaxy variations in the simulated sample. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; claims rest on direct simulation measurements

full rationale

The paper traces disk spin evolution and computes external tidal torques directly from IllustrisTNG outputs, showing precession correlates with anisotropic matter distributions within 30 kpc. These are independent simulation diagnostics rather than quantities defined in terms of each other. The Milky Way rate is obtained by applying the simulation-derived relation to separate observational warp data, constituting an inference step rather than a definitional loop or fitted prediction. No self-citation chains, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked to force the central results, and the derivation remains self-contained against the simulation data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the fidelity of IllustrisTNG in modeling self-consistent gravity and matter distributions; no new entities are postulated, but the analysis assumes simulation outputs directly reflect physical precession.

free parameters (1)
  • Milky Way precession rate
    Estimated range of 3-10 degrees per Gyr obtained by matching simulation behavior to the observed Milky Way warp.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption IllustrisTNG faithfully reproduces gravitational tidal torques and disk spin evolution
    All ubiquity, driver, and effect claims rest on this simulation suite's accuracy.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5613 in / 1390 out tokens · 95296 ms · 2026-05-09T19:41:30.897270+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

66 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    G., Navarro J

    Abadi, M. G., Navarro, J. F., Steinmetz, M., & Eke, V. R. 2003, ApJ, 597, 21, doi: 10.1086/378316

    work page doi:10.1086/378316 2003

  2. [2]

    K., & Ferrara, A

    Allgood, B., Flores, R. A., Primack, J. R., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 1781, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10094.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10094.x 2006

  3. [3]

    B., & Park, J.-C

    Ann, H. B., & Park, J.-C. 2006, NewA, 11, 293, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2005.08.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newast.2005.08.006 2006

  4. [4]

    E., et al

    Arora, A., Garavito-Camargo, N., Sanderson, R. E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.20133, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.20133

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.20133 2025

  5. [5]

    E., Bryan, G

    Athanassoula, E. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 1179, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06473.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06473.x 2003

  6. [6]

    2015, py-sphviewer: Py-SPHViewer v1.0.0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.21703

    Benitez-Llambay, A. 2015, py-sphviewer: Py-SPHViewer v1.0.0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.21703

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.21703 2015

  7. [7]

    E., & Frenk, C

    Bett, P. E., & Frenk, C. S. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1338, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1395

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1395 2016

  8. [8]

    1981, AJ, 86, 1825, doi: 10.1086/113063

    Bosma, A. 1981, AJ, 86, 1825, doi: 10.1086/113063

    work page doi:10.1086/113063 1981

  9. [9]

    Briggs, F. H. 1990, ApJ, 352, 15, doi: 10.1086/168512

    work page doi:10.1086/168512 1990

  10. [10]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 320, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0686-7

    Chen, X., Wang, S., Deng, L., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 320, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0686-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0686-7 2019

  11. [11]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 2087, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv270

    Primack, J. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2087, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv270

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv270 2015

  12. [12]

    P., & Sellwood, J

    Debattista, V. P., & Sellwood, J. A. 1999, ApJL, 513, L107, doi: 10.1086/311913

    work page doi:10.1086/311913 1999

  13. [13]

    Diemer, B., Stevens, A. R. H., Lagos, C. d. P., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 1529, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1323

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1323 2019

  14. [15]

    C., Slone, O., Lisanti, M., & Cohen, T

    Dodge, B. C., Slone, O., Lisanti, M., & Cohen, T. 2023b, MNRAS, 518, 2870, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3249

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3249

  15. [16]

    2018a, MNRAS, 473, 1930, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2482

    El-Badry, K., Quataert, E., Wetzel, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 1930, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2482

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2482 2018

  16. [17]

    2007, ApJL, 662, L71, doi: 10.1086/519683 18 Garc´ ıa-Conde, B., Antoja, T., Roca-F` abrega, S., et al

    Faltenbacher, A., Li, C., Mao, S., et al. 2007, ApJL, 662, L71, doi: 10.1086/519683 18 Garc´ ıa-Conde, B., Antoja, T., Roca-F` abrega, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347446

    work page doi:10.1086/519683 2007

  17. [18]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/804/2/l40 2015

  18. [19]

    2013, MNRAS, 435, 1426, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1383

    Genel, S., Vogelsberger, M., Nelson, D., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 1426, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1383

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1383 2013

  19. [20]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.18042, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.18042

    Gong, J.-Y., Lin, W., Tang, L., & Lan, Y. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.18042, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.18042

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.18042 2025

  20. [21]

    2023, A&A, 680, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347125

    Walker, S., & Mirakhor, M. 2023, A&A, 680, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347125

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347125 2023

  21. [22]

    J., Conroy, C., & Hernquist, L

    Han, J. J., Conroy, C., & Hernquist, L. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1481, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02076-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02076-9 2023

  22. [23]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1294, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02309-5

    Huang, Y., Feng, Q., Khachaturyants, T., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1294, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02309-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02309-5 2024

  23. [24]

    P., & Suto, Y

    Jing, Y. P., & Suto, Y. 2002, ApJ, 574, 538, doi: 10.1086/341065 J´ ozsa, G. I. G., Kenn, F., Klein, U., & Oosterloo, T. A. 2007, A&A, 468, 731, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066164

    work page doi:10.1086/341065 2002

  24. [25]

    H., Peirani, S., Kim, S., et al

    Kim, J. H., Peirani, S., Kim, S., et al. 2014, ApJ, 789, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/90

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/789/1/90 2014

  25. [26]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6982

    Lan, Y., Tang, L., Lin, W., & Gong, J. 2024, ApJ, 974, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6982

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6982 2024

  26. [27]

    E., Haiman, Z., Pandey, S., & Genel, S

    Lee, M. E., Haiman, Z., Pandey, S., & Genel, S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.12460, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.12460

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.12460 2025

  27. [28]

    S., Blitz, L., & Heiles, C

    Levine, E. S., Blitz, L., & Heiles, C. 2006, ApJ, 643, 881, doi: 10.1086/503091

    work page doi:10.1086/503091 2006

  28. [29]

    , keywords =

    Lilleengen, S., Petersen, M. S., Erkal, D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 774, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3108

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3108 2023

  29. [30]

    Lynden-Bell, D., & Kalnajs, A. J. 1972, MNRAS, 157, 1, doi: 10.1093/mnras/157.1.1

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/157.1.1 1972

  30. [31]

    1997, A&A, 318, 747, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9902123

    Masset, F., & Tagger, M. 1997, A&A, 318, 747, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9902123

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9902123 1997

  31. [32]

    R., et al

    McCluskey, F., Wetzel, A., Loebman, S. R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 6926, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3547

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3547 2024

  32. [33]

    P., Somerville , R

    Moster, B. P., Somerville, R. S., Maulbetsch, C., et al. 2010, ApJ, 710, 903, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/903

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/710/2/903 2010

  33. [34]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 59, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv017

    Nelson, D., Genel, S., Vogelsberger, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 59, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv017

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv017 2015

  34. [35]

    , keywords =

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2019a, MNRAS, 490, 3234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2306

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2306

  35. [36]

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

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

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

  36. [37]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.05235, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.05235

    Pandya, S., Yang, Y., Van Alfen, N., Blazek, J., & Walters, R. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.05235, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.05235

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.05235 2025

  37. [38]

    Peebles, P. J. E. 1969, ApJ, 155, 393, doi: 10.1086/149876

    work page doi:10.1086/149876 1969

  38. [39]

    J., & Kuhn, J

    Pereira, M. J., & Kuhn, J. R. 2005, ApJL, 627, L21, doi: 10.1086/432089

    work page doi:10.1086/432089 2005

  39. [40]

    2018b, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V., Nelson, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    work page Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2656 2018

  40. [41]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Springel, V., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2338 2019

  41. [42]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 590, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1017-3

    Poggio, E., Drimmel, R., Andrae, R., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 590, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1017-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1017-3 2020

  42. [43]

    2025, A&A, 702, A164, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555412

    Quezada, C., Zoccali, M., Valenti, E., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A164, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555412

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555412 2025

  43. [44]

    2002, A&A, 382, 513, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011672

    Reshetnikov, V., Battaner, E., Combes, F., & Jim´ enez-Vicente, J. 2002, A&A, 382, 513, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011672

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20011672 2002

  44. [45]

    1998, A&A, 337, 9, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9806114

    Reshetnikov, V., & Combes, F. 1998, A&A, 337, 9, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9806114

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9806114 1998

  45. [46]

    P., Chugunov, I

    Reshetnikov, V. P., Chugunov, I. V., Marchuk, A. A., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554941

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554941 2025

  46. [47]

    V., et al

    Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Pillepich, A., Sales, L. V., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 2371, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw456

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw456 2016

  47. [48]

    , keywords =

    Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Snyder, G. F., Lotz, J. M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4140, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3345

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3345 2019

  48. [49]

    Connection to morphology, halo spin, and black hole mass

    Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Genel, S., Fall, S. M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 5978, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac806

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac806 2022

  49. [50]

    Hot accretion onto spiral galaxies: the origin of extended and warped HI discs

    Sankar, S., Stern, J., Power, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.03793, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.03793

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.03793 2025

  50. [51]

    Schwarzkopf, U., & Dettmar, R. J. 2001, A&A, 373, 402, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010548

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010548 2001

  51. [52]

    L., D’Onghia, E., et al

    Semczuk, M., Lokas, E. L., D’Onghia, E., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 3535, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2609

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2609 2020

  52. [53]

    Shen, J., & Sellwood, J. A. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10477.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10477.x 2006

  53. [54]

    2024, PhRvD, 109, 123548, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.123548

    Sheng, M.-J., Zhu, L., Yu, H.-R., et al. 2024, PhRvD, 109, 123548, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.123548

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.123548 2024

  54. [55]

    2018, ApJ, 853, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3e6

    Shi, Y., Yan, L., Armus, L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3e6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3e6 2018

  55. [56]

    S., & Casertano, S

    Sparke, L. S., & Casertano, S. 1988, MNRAS, 234, 873, doi: 10.1093/mnras/234.4.873

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/234.4.873 1988

  56. [57]

    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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3304 2018

  57. [58]

    , keywords =

    Torrey, P., Vogelsberger, M., Marinacci, F., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 5587, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz243

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz243 2019

  58. [59]

    2023, Galaxies, 11, 59, doi: 10.3390/galaxies11020059

    Vasiliev, E. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 59, doi: 10.3390/galaxies11020059

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies11020059 2023

  59. [60]

    2011, MNRAS, 415, 2101, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x

    Wang, H., Mo, H. J., Jing, Y. P., Yang, X., & Wang, Y. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 1973, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18301.x 19

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18301.x 2011

  60. [61]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V., Hernquist, L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    work page Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2944 2017

  61. [62]

    2014, MNRAS, 445, L46, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu106

    Peirani, S. 2014, MNRAS, 445, L46, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu106

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slu106 2014

  62. [63]

    White, S. D. M. 1984, ApJ, 286, 38, doi: 10.1086/162573

    work page doi:10.1086/162573 1984

  63. [64]

    G., Jung, S

    Zee, W.-B. G., Jung, S. L., Paudel, S., & Yoon, S.-J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.18942, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.18942

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.18942 2025

  64. [65]

    2026, A&A, 706, A193, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557613

    Zhu, L., Cai, R., Kang, X., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, A193, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557613

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557613 2026

  65. [66]

    M., & Hahn, O

    Zjupa, J., Sch¨ afer, B. M., & Hahn, O. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2010.07951, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2010.07951

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.07951 2020

  66. [67]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 1625, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2945

    Zjupa, J., & Springel, V. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 1625, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2945

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2945 2017