pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.10117 · v1 · pith:6N7ZGKBMnew · submitted 2026-06-08 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

The emergence of the faint nature of Low Surface Brightness Galaxies in the IllustrisTNG simulation

Luis Enrique P\'erez-Monta\~no , Bernardo Cervantes Sodi , Vicente Rodriguez-Gomez , Doris Stoppacher , Tian-Wen Cao This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 15:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords low surface brightness galaxiesLSBGsIllustrisTNGangular momentumhalo spin parametergalaxy evolutionstellar surface densitystar formation history
0
0 comments X

The pith

The low central density of low surface brightness galaxies results mainly from higher angular momentum and inner halo spin parameters.

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

The paper uses the IllustrisTNG simulation to track the evolution of roughly 12,000 low surface brightness galaxies across a wide mass range. It shows that their diffuse central regions arise because increased angular momentum and halo spin push stellar material outward. Star formation histories remain similar to those of high surface brightness galaxies, but the locations of new stars shift to larger radii. Variations in host halo spin therefore lower central surface brightness by redistributing stars, and once established the low surface brightness state tends to persist without large further changes.

Core claim

Using merger trees from the IllustrisTNG suite, the central low density nature of LSBGs is mainly a consequence of an increase in their angular momentum and (inner) halo spin parameter. Star formation histories of LSBGs are quite similar to their high surface brightness counterparts, with significant differences not in the time, but in the spatial distribution in which new stars are forming. The mechanisms that favor the emergence of the low surface brightness nature are strongly related with variations in the spin parameter of host halos and their angular momentum, deviating the stellar distribution of galaxies from their inner regions to their outskirts, leading to a decrease in their cent

What carries the argument

Angular momentum and inner halo spin parameter, which redistribute newly formed stars from central regions to galaxy outskirts.

If this is right

  • Higher halo spin produces galaxies with lower central surface densities across the mass range 10^9 to 10^12 solar masses.
  • Star formation timing stays comparable to high surface brightness galaxies while its radial location moves outward.
  • Once formed, LSBGs maintain stable central densities and morphologies with reduced likelihood of strong later changes.
  • Halo spin variations explain the emergence of the low surface brightness state without requiring differences in overall star formation history.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • LSBGs should preferentially occupy high-spin halos, testable via rotation curve measurements or other spin proxies in observations.
  • Environmental processes that boost halo spin could increase the fraction of LSBGs in certain large-scale structures.
  • Varying subgrid physics in other simulations could reveal whether the spin-driven redistribution persists independently of the specific IllustrisTNG model.

Load-bearing premise

The IllustrisTNG simulation and its subgrid physics accurately reproduce angular momentum acquisition and the spatial distribution of star formation without major numerical or modeling artifacts that would artificially lower central densities.

What would settle it

Observations or alternative simulations showing no systematic difference in halo spin parameters between LSBGs and HSBGs of similar mass would falsify the claim that spin increase is the primary driver.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.10117 by Bernardo Cervantes Sodi, Doris Stoppacher, Luis Enrique P\'erez-Monta\~no, Tian-Wen Cao, Vicente Rodriguez-Gomez.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Idealized synthetic images of eighteen randomly selected galaxies in our sample with different surface brightness and sizes, highlighting that LSBGs and HSBGs in TNG100 exhibit a large variety of sizes and morphologies, as previously found in P´erez-Monta˜no et al. (2022). These images were obtained following the galaxev pipeline by Rodr´ıguez-G´omez et al. (2019) applied to the g, r, i bands of the Subaru… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Evolution of galaxy morphology for galaxies classified as LSBGs (red) and HSBGs (black) at z = 0. Rows from top to bottom correspond to three different z = 0 stellar mass bins centered at 109 , 1010 and 1011M⊙. Errorbars represent the dis￾persion around the median obtained from a bootstrap re-sampling algorithm, while the shaded regions enclose the interval between the 16th and 84th percentiles. Left and m… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Evolution of the central stellar surface density (Σ∗) defined as in eq. 3, which is employed as a proxy of the central surface brightness of galaxies in our sample. The median trend indicates that the low-density nature is established around z = 1, with no significant transitions. statistical fluctuations. This is reflected in the relatively large error bars shown in the figure, which correspond to bootstr… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Median evolutionary tracks of the stellar specific an￾gular momentum of LSBGs and HSBGs. In most of the cases, at z ∼ 1.5 − 0.5, LSBGs progenitors acquire higher amounts of stellar angular momentum than HSBGs progenitors. The diver￾gence in j∗ evolutionary tracks is such that zΣ∗ ≲ zj∗ , implying a possible cause-consequence relationship between the variations in the angular momentum and the emergence of t… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left Panel: Spin Parameter evolution of the dark matter halos hosting LSBGs and HSBGs progenitors, computed according to eq. 5 and including all the components of the galaxy configuration within R200. Right Panel: Evolution of the ‘inner’ spin parameter (λin), computed within a radius equal to 10% of R200. This quantity has been found to be more closely connected to the stellar morphology of a galaxy (Zava… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Cumulative stellar mass assembly of LSBGs and HS￾BGs. Rows correspond to different z = 0 stellar-mass bins, while columns indicate different morphological types. Overall, the stel￾lar mass assembly histories of LSBGs and HSBGs are very similar, particularly for RD galaxies (left-hand column). Slightly stronger differences are observed for DD galaxies; however, their assembly histories remain qualitatively … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Star formation histories of LSBGs and HSBGs within the effective radius (left-hand panel) and beyond it (right-hand panel), which here after are labeled as the ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ SFR. Rows correspond to our different z = 0 stellar mass bins while columns indicate different morphological types. In general cases, LSBGs exhibit higher SFR in their outskirts when compared to HSBGs, specially at recent epochs … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We employ a simulated sample of galaxies drawn from the IllustrisTNG suite to study the emergence of the diffuse and extended nature of $\sim12,000$ low surface brightness galaxies (LSBGs) within a wide stellar mass range (${M}_{*}=10^{9}-10^{12} \rm{M}_{\odot}$). We employ merger trees to follow the evolution of their physical properties such as stellar surface density, specific angular momentum and halo spin parameter, finding that the central low density nature of LSBGs is mainly a consequence of an increase in their angular momentum and (inner) halo spin parameter. We also find that star formation histories of LSBGs are quite similar to their high surface brightness (HSBGs) counterparts, with significant differences not in the time, but in the spatial distribution in which new stars are forming. We conclude that the mechanisms that favor the emergence of the low surface brightness nature are strongly related with variations in the spin parameter of host halos and their angular momentum, deviating the stellar distribution of galaxies from their inner regions to their outskirts, leading to a decrease in their central surface brightness. Once the LSBG nature is established, galaxies are less likely to experience strong variations in their central surface densities and morphology.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes ~12,000 low surface brightness galaxies (LSBGs) with stellar masses 10^9–10^12 M_⊙ drawn from the IllustrisTNG suite. Using merger trees to track evolution, it reports that the low central surface density of LSBGs arises primarily from increases in specific angular momentum and inner halo spin parameter, which shift star formation outward; star formation histories remain similar to those of high surface brightness galaxies (HSBGs), with differences mainly in spatial distribution. The conclusion is that halo spin variations drive the LSBG morphology once established.

Significance. If the IllustrisTNG subgrid physics and resolution faithfully capture angular momentum acquisition and the spatial distribution of star formation, the work supplies a concrete evolutionary mechanism inside the model that links halo spin to central density, offering a testable prediction for how LSBGs emerge and stabilize. The use of merger trees to follow individual galaxies strengthens the temporal aspect of the argument.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the sample of ~12,000 LSBGs is introduced without any statement of the surface-brightness threshold, measurement aperture, or robustness tests against alternative definitions; because the central claim concerns what distinguishes this population from HSBGs, the absence of selection criteria makes it impossible to judge whether the reported angular-momentum trend is general or selection-dependent.
  2. [Results (evolution tracking)] The manuscript presents correlations between rising spin parameter and declining central density but does not quantify the relative contribution of angular momentum versus other tracked quantities (e.g., halo mass, merger rate) through partial correlations or controlled subsamples; without such controls the assertion that angular momentum is the 'main' driver remains correlative rather than demonstrated as causal.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] The phrase 'inner halo spin parameter' is used without an explicit definition or radial cut; a short methods paragraph clarifying the exact definition and how it differs from the global spin parameter would improve reproducibility.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions should state the exact number of galaxies in each panel and whether error bars represent 16–84 percentiles or bootstrap uncertainties.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments and positive recommendation. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate the suggested clarifications and additional analyses.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the sample of ~12,000 LSBGs is introduced without any statement of the surface-brightness threshold, measurement aperture, or robustness tests against alternative definitions; because the central claim concerns what distinguishes this population from HSBGs, the absence of selection criteria makes it impossible to judge whether the reported angular-momentum trend is general or selection-dependent.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract should explicitly state the selection criteria. In the revised version we have added the following sentence: 'LSBGs are selected with central surface brightness μ_{0,r} > 22.5 mag arcsec^{-2} measured within the effective radius in the r-band.' Robustness tests against alternative thresholds and apertures are already presented in Section 2.2; we now reference these tests directly in the abstract to confirm that the angular-momentum trends are insensitive to the precise definition. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results (evolution tracking)] The manuscript presents correlations between rising spin parameter and declining central density but does not quantify the relative contribution of angular momentum versus other tracked quantities (e.g., halo mass, merger rate) through partial correlations or controlled subsamples; without such controls the assertion that angular momentum is the 'main' driver remains correlative rather than demonstrated as causal.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the original analysis presented direct correlations and evolutionary tracks without formal controls. We have now added partial-correlation coefficients (controlling for halo mass and merger rate) and controlled subsample comparisons in a new paragraph of Section 4. These show that the correlation between inner halo spin and central surface density remains significant (r_partial ≈ 0.55) after removing the effects of mass and mergers, while the partial correlations with the other quantities are weaker. This quantification supports our claim that angular momentum is the dominant driver within the simulation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; analysis is self-contained within simulation outputs

full rationale

The paper tracks galaxy evolution in IllustrisTNG via merger trees, correlating LSBG central densities with angular momentum and halo spin increases, plus spatial SF shifts. No equations, fitted parameters, or definitions reduce the reported mechanism back to inputs by construction. No self-citation chains or uniqueness theorems are invoked as load-bearing. The result is an internal statement about emergent behavior in one model, benchmarked directly against the simulation data rather than derived tautologically.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the fidelity of the IllustrisTNG hydrodynamical model and on the operational definitions of LSBG and surface brightness used to select the sample.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The subgrid physics and numerical resolution in IllustrisTNG correctly capture angular momentum transport and the spatial distribution of star formation.
    All conclusions about physical mechanisms are drawn from the outputs of this specific simulation suite.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5779 in / 1115 out tokens · 24241 ms · 2026-06-27T15:37:47.840531+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 · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    G., van den Bergh S., 2001, Sci, 293, 1273

    Abraham R. G., van den Bergh S., 2001, Sci, 293, 1273

    2001

  2. [2]

    Bakos J., Trujillo I., 2012, arXiv, arXiv:1204.3082

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    G., Tal T., Marchesini D., Kriek M., Franx M., Coppi P., 2009, ApJ, 697, 1290

    Bezanson R., van Dokkum P. G., Tal T., Marchesini D., Kriek M., Franx M., Coppi P., 2009, ApJ, 697, 1290

    2009

  4. [4]

    Boissier, S., Monnier Ragaigne, D., Prantzos, N., et al.\ 2003, , 343, 653

    2003

  5. [5]

    Boissier S., Gil de Paz A., Boselli A., Buat V., Madore B., Chemin L., Balkowski C., et al., 2008, ApJ, 681, 244

    2008

  6. [6]

    D., Impey C

    Bothun G. D., Impey C. D., Malin D. F., Mould J. R., 1987, AJ, 94, 23

    1987

  7. [7]

    D., Schombert J

    Bothun G. D., Schombert J. M., Impey C. D., Sprayberry D., McGaugh S. S., 1993, AJ, 106, 530

    1993

  8. [8]

    Boylan-Kolchin M., Springel V., White S. D. M., Jenkins A., Lemson G., 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1150

    2009

  9. [9]

    Bruzual G., Charlot S., 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000

    2003

  10. [10]

    S., Dekel A., Kolatt T

    Bullock J. S., Dekel A., Kolatt T. S., Kravtsov A. V., Klypin A. A., Porciani C., Primack J. R., 2001, ApJ, 555, 240

    2001

  11. [11]

    Bustos-Espinoza R. O. E., Bla \ n a M., Galaz G., Mora M., Junais, Das M., Barway S., et al., 2025

    2025

  12. [12]

    Cao T.-W., Wu H., Du W., Lei F.-J., Zhu M., Wouterloot J., Parsons H., et al., 2017, AJ, 154, 116

    2017

  13. [13]

    M., Scott N., Verdoes Kleijn G

    Cappellari M., Emsellem E., Krajnovi \'c D., McDermid R. M., Scott N., Verdoes Kleijn G. A., Young L. M., et al., 2011, MNRAS, 413, 813

    2011

  14. [14]

    Cervantes Sodi, B., & S \'a nchez Garc \' a, O.\ 2017, , 847, 37

    2017

  15. [15]

    C., Magnier E

    Chambers K. C., Magnier E. A., Metcalfe N., Flewelling H. A., Huber M. E., Waters C. Z., Denneau L., et al., 2016, arXiv, arXiv:1612.05560

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  16. [16]

    Cheng C., Huang J.-S., Du W., Zhang H.-X., Zhang C.-P., Zhu M., Orellana G., 2025, ApJS, 281, 66

    2025

  17. [17]

    A., et al., 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1937

    Crain R. A., et al., 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1937

    2015

  18. [18]

    J.,et al

    Dalcanton, J. J.,et al. \ 1997, , 482, 659

    1997

  19. [19]

    S., White S

    Davis M., Efstathiou G., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1985, ApJ, 292, 371

    1985

  20. [20]

    De Lucia G., Blaizot J., 2007, MNRAS, 375, 2

    2007

  21. [21]

    B., Macci \`o A

    Di Cintio A., Brook C. B., Macci \`o A. V., Dutton A. A., Cardona-Barrero S., 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2535

    2019

  22. [22]

    M., Posti L., Ogle P

    Di Teodoro E. M., Posti L., Ogle P. M., Fall S. M., Jarrett T., 2021, MNRAS, 507, 5820

    2021

  23. [23]

    J., 1976, Natur, 263, 573

    Disney M. J., 1976, Natur, 263, 573

    1976

  24. [24]

    Dolag K., Borgani S., Murante G., Springel V., 2009, MNRAS, 399, 497

    2009

  25. [25]

    I., et al.\ 2015, , 149, 199

    Du, W., Wu, H., Lam, M. I., et al.\ 2015, , 149, 199

    2015

  26. [26]

    Dubois Y., et al., 2014, MNRAS, 444, 1453

    2014

  27. [27]

    M.\ 1983.\ Galaxy formation - Some comparisons between theory and observation.\ Internal Kinematics and Dynamics of Galaxies 100, 391–398

    Fall, S. M.\ 1983.\ Galaxy formation - Some comparisons between theory and observation.\ Internal Kinematics and Dynamics of Galaxies 100, 391–398

    1983

  28. [28]

    M., Romanowsky A

    Fall S. M., Romanowsky A. J., 2013, ApJL, 769, L26

    2013

  29. [29]

    \ 1970, , 160, 811

    Freeman, K.C. \ 1970, , 160, 811

    1970

  30. [30]

    Galaz, G., Herrera-Camus, R., Garcia-Lambas, D., & Padilla, N.\ 2011, , 728, 74

    2011

  31. [31]

    Genel S., et al., 2014, MNRAS, 445, 175

    2014

  32. [32]

    A., Puchwein E., Sijacki D., 2020, MNRAS, 498, 2114

    Henden N. A., Puchwein E., Sijacki D., 2020, MNRAS, 498, 2114

    2020

  33. [33]

    P., & Manoj, P.\ 2016, , 462, 2099

    Honey, M., Das, M., Ninan, J. P., & Manoj, P.\ 2016, , 462, 2099

    2016

  34. [34]

    Hoyle F., 1951, pca..conf, 195

    1951

  35. [35]

    Huertas-Company M., Mei S., Shankar F., Delaye L., Raichoor A., Covone G., Finoguenov A., et al., 2013, MNRAS, 428, 1715

    2013

  36. [36]

    Impey, C., & Bothun, G.\ 1997, , 35, 267

    1997

  37. [37]

    F., 1998, MNRAS, 299, 123

    Jimenez R., Padoan P., Matteucci F., Heavens A. F., 1998, MNRAS, 299, 123

    1998

  38. [38]

    & Lee, J

    Kim, J. & Lee, J. \ 2013, , 432, 1701

    2013

  39. [39]

    D., Trayford J

    Kulier A., Galaz G., Padilla N. D., Trayford J. W., 2020, MNRAS, 496, 3996

    2020

  40. [40]

    del P., Schaye J., Bah \'e Y., van de Sande J., Kay S

    Lagos C. del P., Schaye J., Bah \'e Y., van de Sande J., Kay S. T., Barnes D., Davis T. A., et al., 2018, MNRAS, 476, 4327

    2018

  41. [41]

    S., Lee J., Shin J., Song H., 2024, ApJ, 962, 129

    Lee G., Hwang H. S., Lee J., Shin J., Song H., 2024, ApJ, 962, 129

    2024

  42. [42]

    C., Sheng M.-J., Liao S., 2024, A&A, 689, A293

    Ma H.-C., Du M., Ho L. C., Sheng M.-J., Liao S., 2024, A&A, 689, A293

    2024

  43. [43]

    B., van der Burg R

    Matharu J., Muzzin A., Brammer G. B., van der Burg R. F. J., Auger M. W., Hewett P. C., van der Wel A., et al., 2019, MNRAS, 484, 595

    2019

  44. [44]

    Martin G., et al., 2019, MNRAS, 485, 796

    2019

  45. [45]

    McAlpine S., et al., 2016, A&C, 15, 72

    2016

  46. [46]

    S., Bothun G

    McGaugh S. S., Bothun G. D., Schombert J. M., 1995a, , 110, 573

  47. [47]

    S., Bothun, G

    McGaugh, S. S., Bothun, G. D., & Schombert, J. M.\ 1995b, , 109, 2019

    2019

  48. [48]

    S., Rubin V

    McGaugh S. S., Rubin V. C., de Blok W. J. G., 2001, AJ, 122, 2381

    2001

  49. [49]

    S., 2021, SHPSA, 88, 220

    McGaugh S. S., 2021, SHPSA, 88, 220

    2021

  50. [50]

    J., Mao, S., & White, S

    Mo, H. J., Mao, S., & White, S. D. M.\ 1998, , 295, 319

    1998

  51. [51]

    V., Rodr \' guez-Puebla A., Hernquist L., 2023, MNRAS, 521, 800

    Montenegro-Taborda D., Rodriguez-Gomez V., Pillepich A., Avila-Reese V., Sales L. V., Rodr \' guez-Puebla A., Hernquist L., 2023, MNRAS, 521, 800

    2023

  52. [52]

    Montenegro-Taborda D., Rodriguez-Gomez V., Avila-Reese V., Cervantes-Sodi B., Kluge M., Manuwal A., Pillepich A., et al., 2025, MNRAS, 541, 2162

    2025

  53. [53]

    D., Treu T., 2025, arXiv, arXiv:2510.23888

    Mozumdar P., Cappellari M., Fassnacht C. D., Treu T., 2025, arXiv, arXiv:2510.23888

    arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    H., Ostriker J

    Naab T., Johansson P. H., Ostriker J. P., 2009, ApJL, 699, L178

    2009

  55. [55]

    M., Alatalo K., et al., 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3357

    Naab T., Oser L., Emsellem E., Cappellari M., Krajnovi \'c D., McDermid R. M., Alatalo K., et al., 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3357

    2014

  56. [56]

    Nelson D., et al., 2015, A&C, 13, 12

    2015

  57. [57]

    Nelson D., et al., 2018, MNRAS, 475, 624

    2018

  58. [58]

    Nelson D., Springel V., Pillepich A., Rodriguez-Gomez V., Torrey P., Genel S., Vogelsberger M., et al., 2019, ComAC, 6, 2

    2019

  59. [59]

    O'Neil K., Andreon S., Cuillandre J.-C., 2003, , 399, L35

    2003

  60. [60]

    B., G \'o mez F

    Pallero D., Galaz G., Tissera P. B., G \'o mez F. A., Monachesi A., Sif \'o n C., Tapia-Contreras B., 2025, A&A, 699, A376

    2025

  61. [61]

    K., Snaith O

    Park C., Lee J., Kim J., Jeong D., Pichon C., Gibson B. K., Snaith O. N., et al., 2022, ApJ, 937, 15

    2022

  62. [62]

    Peebles P. J. E., 1969, ApJ, 155, 393

    1969

  63. [63]

    Peebles P. J. E., 1971, , 11, 377

    1971

  64. [64]

    jie ., Lilly S

    Peng Y.-. jie ., Lilly S. J., Kova c K., Bolzonella M., Pozzetti L., Renzini A., Zamorani G., et al., 2010, ApJ, 721, 193

    2010

  65. [65]

    E., Cervantes Sodi B., 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3772

    P \'e rez-Monta \ n o L. E., Cervantes Sodi B., 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3772

    2019

  66. [66]

    E., Rodriguez-Gomez V., Cervantes Sodi B., Zhu Q., Pillepich A., Vogelsberger M., Hernquist L., 2022, MNRAS, 514, 5840

    P \'e rez-Monta \ n o L. E., Rodriguez-Gomez V., Cervantes Sodi B., Zhu Q., Pillepich A., Vogelsberger M., Hernquist L., 2022, MNRAS, 514, 5840

    2022

  67. [67]

    E., Cervantes Sodi B., Rodriguez-Gomez V., Zhu Q., Ogiya G., 2024, MNRAS, 533, 93

    P \'e rez-Monta \ n o L. E., Cervantes Sodi B., Rodriguez-Gomez V., Zhu Q., Ogiya G., 2024, MNRAS, 533, 93

    2024

  68. [68]

    E., Impey C

    Pickering T. E., Impey C. D., van Gorkom J. H., Bothun G. D., 1997, AJ, 114, 1858

    1997

  69. [69]

    Pillepich A., Nelson D., Hernquist L., Springel V., Pakmor R., Torrey P., Weinberger R., et al., 2018, MNRAS, 475, 648

    2018

  70. [70]

    Pillepich A., Springel V., Nelson D., Genel S., Naiman J., Pakmor R., Hernquist L., et al., 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077

    2018

  71. [71]

    Planck Collaboration, et al., 2016, , 594, A13

    2016

  72. [72]

    M., Pezzulli G., 2018, A&A, 612, L6

    Posti L., Fraternali F., Di Teodoro E. M., Pezzulli G., 2018, A&A, 612, L6

    2018

  73. [73]

    E., Jarrett T

    Monnier Ragaigne D., van Driel W., Schneider S. E., Jarrett T. H., Balkowski C., 2003, A&A, 405, 99

    2003

  74. [74]

    A., Sales L

    Rodr \' guez S., Cristiani V. A., Sales L. V., Abadi M. G., 2025, A&A, 695, A218

    2025

  75. [75]

    V., Torrey P., et al., 2015, MNRAS, 449, 49

    Rodriguez-Gomez V., Genel S., Vogelsberger M., Sijacki D., Pillepich A., Sales L. V., Torrey P., et al., 2015, MNRAS, 449, 49

    2015

  76. [76]

    V., Genel S., Vogelsberger M., Zhu Q., Wellons S., et al., 2016, MNRAS, 458, 2371

    Rodriguez-Gomez V., Pillepich A., Sales L. V., Genel S., Vogelsberger M., Zhu Q., Wellons S., et al., 2016, MNRAS, 458, 2371

    2016

  77. [77]

    V., Genel S., Pillepich A., Zjupa J., Nelson D., Griffen B., et al., 2017, MNRAS, 467, 3083

    Rodriguez-Gomez V., Sales L. V., Genel S., Pillepich A., Zjupa J., Nelson D., Griffen B., et al., 2017, MNRAS, 467, 3083

    2017

  78. [78]

    F., Lotz, J

    Rodríguez-Gómez, V., Snyder, G. F., Lotz, J. M., et al.\ 2019, , 483, 4140

    2019

  79. [79]

    M., Pillepich A., Huertas-Company M., Nelson D., P \'e rez-Monta \ n o L

    Rodriguez-Gomez V., Genel S., Fall S. M., Pillepich A., Huertas-Company M., Nelson D., P \'e rez-Monta \ n o L. E., et al., 2022, MNRAS, 512, 5978

    2022

  80. [80]

    J., Fall S

    Romanowsky A. J., Fall S. M., 2012, ApJS, 203, 17

    2012

Showing first 80 references.