Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Energy-Space Analysis of Tidal Stripping in Stellar-Dark Matter Systems

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Tidal stripping cuts stars and dark matter at the same energy.

desk verdict Two-component tidal stripping in energy space looks like a real result, but 'regardless of initial profiles' is a stretch given the narrow grid and the untested binding criterion. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.16759 v1 pith:UE3X75H7 submitted 2025-08-22 astro-ph.GA

Bradley Arias , Nicole E. Drakos , James E. Taylor This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords tidalstrippingdwarfgalaxiesdarkmatter-deficientenergytruncationN-bodysimulationscusp-corestructureultra-diffusestellarkinematics
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper uses idealized N-body simulations of two-component dwarf galaxies—stars embedded in dark matter—orbiting in a fixed host potential, and asks whether tidal stripping removes particles by anything other than how tightly bound they were at infall. It claims that, in energy space, stars and dark matter are stripped identically: both components lose particles down to the same truncation energy, even when their inner density profiles are very different (cored versus cuspy). If this holds, the energy distribution of stars stripped from a disrupted dwarf is a direct readout of the dark matter structure and orbital history of the parent system, without assuming a particular dark matter profile. The paper also argues that a galaxy with cored dark matter and cuspy stars naturally becomes dark-matter-deficient through tides, matching the properties of NGC 1052-DF2 and similar systems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the initial energy-circularity plane. Each particle is tagged with its binding energy E normalized by the satellite's initial central potential, and its circularity epsilon_circ = L/L_max; at every snapshot the simulation keeps only particles with E < 0 computed iteratively from the satellite's own potential. The claim is carried by the truncation energy E_t—the energy at which 50% of the initial particles remain—which the paper shows is common to stars and dark matter in every run. Supporting this is the gamma profile, an (alpha,beta)=(1,4) double power law whose inner slope gamma encodes cuspiness, used to build all satellites.

What would settle it

Re-run the same orbits with a binding-energy criterion that includes the host's tidal potential (for example, the boosted-potential definition) and check whether stellar and dark-matter truncation energies still agree to within about one percent; if they separate, the matched cutoff is an artifact of the self-potential-only unbinding.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the level of the paper's own claims, the discovery is a statement of conservation: tidal stripping removes particles by a threshold in initial binding energy, and that threshold is identical for the stellar and dark-matter components. Across 16 simulations spanning mass ratios of 10:1 and 200:1, two different orbits, and the four combinations of cored or cuspy stellar and dark-matter profiles, the truncation energy—defined as the energy at which half of the initially bound particles remain—agrees between components to better than about 0.5 percent. The same pattern appears in a tailored model of NGC 1052-DF2, where the surviving stars are the most tightly bound material at infall. Consequ

Load-bearing premise

The iterative unbinding step keeps only particles with negative energy computed from the satellite's own potential, ignoring the host, and assumes this correctly identifies the physically bound remnant; if that step is biased, the matched truncation energies could be an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Single-component energy-truncation models extend to two-component galaxies: one number, E_t, describes the stripping of both stars and dark matter.
  • From observed stellar kinematics alone one can estimate E_t and, combined with an independent estimate of the orbital tidal field, infer the bound dark matter mass of a disrupted dwarf.
  • Stellar velocity dispersions must remain below the local escape speed, giving a lower bound on E_t and hence on the bound dark matter mass of any self-bound satellite.
  • Cored dark matter with a cuspy stellar profile is a natural tidal pathway to dark-matter-deficient galaxies, with the DMD phase lasting roughly one orbital period before disruption.
  • If either component is cuspy, it partially shields the other from complete disruption, so cuspy systems survive longer and may be over-represented among observed remnants.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The equality of truncation energies suggests tidal stripping is a purely gravitational selection on initial binding energy that does not care what particle species carries it; a natural extension is that globular clusters or satellite galaxies embedded in the same halo would be stripped at the same E_t.
  • The paper's DMD timeline implies dark-matter-deficient dwarfs are a transient phase lasting about one orbit; if so, their observed abundance could constrain how often such orbits actually occur in groups and clusters, not just the formation mechanism.
  • A testable extension is to rerun the analysis with baryonic feedback or a live, evolving host potential; if the common E_t survives those changes, the inference from stellar streams to dark matter mass becomes robust in real galaxies.
  • One could also measure E_t directly in a stellar stream by fitting the energy cutoff of stream stars in the dwarf's rest frame and comparing it with the dark matter mass inferred from the stream's orbit—an observation that would test the paper's central claim.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents 16 idealized N-body simulations of two-component (stellar + dark matter) satellites with gamma profiles embedded in a fixed NFW host potential. It reports that in initial binding-energy space, stars and dark matter are stripped to the same truncation energy to within typically 0.5%, across the explored inner slopes, mass/size ratios, and orbital configurations. It further finds that systems with a cuspy stellar component and a cored dark-matter halo evolve into dark-matter-deficient (DMD) galaxies and illustrates this with a model of NGC 1052-DF2. The authors advocate an energy-space framework for multi-component tidal stripping and suggest that observable stellar kinematics in tidal streams could constrain the dark-matter content and orbital history of disrupted dwarfs.

Significance. If the claimed energy-truncation equality holds beyond the simulated parameter space, it would be a genuinely useful simplifying principle: stripping of stars and dark matter would be organized by a single initial binding-energy threshold, independent of component density profile. The paper's strengths are that the simulations are clearly specified, equal-mass particles are used to avoid spurious heating, stability tests are shown, and the truncation-energy residuals are small and displayed. The central result is measured rather than fitted, so it is not circular in an obvious way. However, the strength of the claim currently exceeds the evidence: the bound-remnant definition is not cross-checked, the parameter grid is narrow, and the full survival functions are not compared between components. These issues are addressable but must be fixed before the universal statement can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.4, Eq. (10)] The iterative unbinding that defines the bound remnant uses only the satellite's spherical self-potential, explicitly neglecting the host potential. Since dark matter is more extended than the stars (rdark/rstar = 2 or 10), any bias from neglecting the tidal field and non-inertial frame is asymmetric between the components. The equality Et,star ≈ Et,dark in Fig. 9 could therefore be a property of the 'self-bound' definition rather than a physical stripping law. Please cross-check with a Jacobi/tidal-radius or boosted-potential binding criterion (e.g., Stücker et al. 2023), or quantify the host-tidal correction to Eq. (10). Without this, the central claim is not robustly established.
  2. [Abstract and §3.3, Fig. 9] The statement that stripping is identical 'regardless of initial profiles' is too broad for the explored grid: only γstar, γdark ∈ {0,1}, Mdark/Mstar ∈ {10,200}, rdark/rstar ∈ {2,10}, two orbits, and one host potential. All satellites are spherical and isotropic, and the M200 energy–circularity maps are not shown. The data support a statement such as 'for the range of two-component gamma-profile models explored here'. A universal law would require broader variation, including continuous slopes, anisotropy, orbital families, and host concentrations. This matters because the abstract's strongest claim is universality.
  3. [§3.3, Figs. 7–9] The 'identical stripping' conclusion is based on a single scalar, the 50% truncation energy Et. However, Figs. 7 and 8 show a gradual transition in the survival fraction and a noticeable circularity dependence, and the residual analysis compares only Et. For the M200 runs, no energy–circularity maps are shown, so it is unknown whether the full survival function—not just the median contour—is identical for stars and dark matter. Please report a quantitative comparison of survival functions (e.g., the width and circularity dependence of the truncation transition) for each component, or explicitly restrict the claim to Et.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.3] The definition of tunit appears to have a typo: 'tunit = sqrt(r_s^3/(G M_sat^3))' should be sqrt(r_s^3/(G M_sat)); the printed expression has incorrect dimensions.
  2. [§3.3, Fig. 8] The text says 'As with M10 01A' when discussing M10 10B, but the figure caption compares with M10 00A. Please clarify which simulation is the reference.
  3. [Fig. 9] The x-axis is labeled 't' but the text says 'as a function of tunit'. Label the axis as 't/tunit' or note that t is in code units.
  4. [§3.3] The phrase 'The M200 simulations (not shown)' is misleading because M200 results appear in Fig. 9. Rephrase to indicate that only the energy–circularity maps are not shown.
  5. [§4, Fig. 11] The DF2 case study finds the DMD phase lasts only about one orbital period (~200 Myr) before disruption. This transient nature deserves more discussion if the model is to support the existence of observed DMD galaxies.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the two-component truncation-energy equality is measured from simulations, not fitted or defined into existence.

full rationale

The central claim—that stellar and dark matter particles are stripped to the same truncation energy—is an empirical result obtained from idealized N-body simulations, not a quantity derived from an input assumption or fit. The bound remnants are identified by the iterative self-binding procedure in Section 2.4, which removes particles with E < 0 using the satellite self-potential (Eq. 9–10). This is an operational definition of the remnant, not a parameter tuned to produce the claimed equality. The truncation energy E_t is then measured post hoc as the energy at which 50% of initially bound particles remain, computed separately for each component in Section 3.3 and Figure 9. No equation defines E_t in terms of the star/dark-matter equality, and no fitted constant is renamed as a prediction. The paper does cite the authors' earlier energy-truncation work (Drakos et al. 2017, 2020) for motivation and for numerical methods such as the potential estimator in Eq. 10, but the two-component result is not derived from those papers by construction; it is a new numerical finding. The concern that the self-potential-only unbinding criterion could bias the remnant and hence the measured truncation energies is a systematic-validity question, not circularity: it does not make the output equivalent to the input. The DF2 case study is likewise a simulation outcome rather than an inverse-fit. No self-referential or uniqueness-based argument forces the conclusion, and no known result is merely renamed. Therefore the paper is self-contained with respect to its main claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is built on a modest set of chosen parameters (inner slopes, mass and size ratios, orbital parameters) and standard domain assumptions of idealized collisionless dynamics. No new physical entities are introduced, and no free constants are fitted to data to produce the stripping result.

free parameters (6)
  • gamma_star (stellar inner slope) = 0 or 1
    Controls cuspiness of the stellar profile; only two values are tested.
  • gamma_dark (dark matter inner slope) = 0 or 1
    Controls cuspiness of the dark matter profile; only two values are tested.
  • Mass ratio Mdark:Mstar = 10:1 or 200:1
    Two chosen mass ratios define the satellite models.
  • Scale radius ratio rdark:rstar = 2:1 or 10:1
    Two chosen size ratios define the satellite models.
  • Orbital parameters (ra, rp, va) = A: ra=100, rp=63.3, va=1.4; B: ra=200, rp=27.0, va=0.5 (in runit and vunit)
    Two orbital configurations are tested.
  • Host mass and scale radius = Mhost(<50 runit)=200 Msat, rs,host=5 runit
    Fixed host potential parameters.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The satellite is spherical and isotropic.
    Stated in Section 2; used to construct distribution functions and the self-potential approximation.
  • domain assumption The host potential is fixed and static.
    Section 2.3; no dynamical friction or host response is modeled.
  • domain assumption The components are collisionless and baryonic effects are absent.
    Section 2 and Discussion; gas, feedback, and cosmic rays are ignored and acknowledged as limitations.
  • domain assumption The outer slope beta=4 of the gamma profile does not affect stripping.
    Section 2.1; justified by rapid stripping to a slope of -6, but not explicitly tested for this result.
  • domain assumption Initial energy and circularity are the relevant variables for stripping.
    The analysis assumes the energy-space framework from prior single-component models extends to two components; supported by Drakos et al. (2017, 2020).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Energy-Space Analysis of Tidal Stripping in Stellar-Dark Matter Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UE3X75H7

@misc{pith2026250816759,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Energy-Space Analysis of Tidal Stripping in Stellar-Dark Matter Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UE3X75H7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.16759}
}
read the original abstract

Observations reveal a striking diversity in dwarf galaxy structures, spanning a wide range of masses, inner density slopes, shapes, and sizes. Tidal stripping may play a crucial role in shaping the evolution of these galaxies, yet the underlying physical mechanisms remain poorly understood. Using idealized N-body simulations, we investigate the tidal evolution of two-component systems -- stellar and dark matter -- embedded in a host potential. We find that in terms of energy distributions, both stellar and dark matter particles are stripped identically, regardless of their initial profiles. This surprising result suggests that the energy distribution of stripped stars can provide direct constraints on the underlying dark matter structure. Furthermore, we show that systems with cored dark matter and cuspy stellar profiles naturally evolve into dark matter-deficient (DMD) galaxies, supporting tidal stripping as a viable DMD formation pathway. This energy-space analysis of multi-component systems offers new insights into the dynamical evolution of tidally stripped galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.16759 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. — Density profiles of the satellites after being evolved in isolation for t = 5000 tunit, with the M10 satellites in the first column and the M200 satellites in the second. The black, red, and blue solid lines indicate the total satellite, the stellar component, and the dark matter component, respectively. The dotted lines show the initial gamma profiles given by Equation 3. The gray dotted line shows the relaxation… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. — Simulation M10 10A. Plots show the binned density of particles in x and y-coordinates for time t/torb = 1 (top), torb = 3 (middle), and t/torb = 5 (bottom). Particles are removed in streams, and a bound center remains. where r and v are with respect to the satellite center. Assuming the system is spherical and isotropic, the self￾potential of the satellite, Φ, can be approximated as in Drakos et al. (2020): Φ(ri) … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. — Mass loss of M10 satellites. Mcomp,bound/Msat,total is shown on the left column and Mcomp,bound/Mcomp,total on the right, with black lines corresponding to the satellite (comp = sat), red to the stellar component (comp = star), and blue to the dark matter component (comp = dark). In satellites with cuspy components, particles are stripped more slowly, allowing bound remnants to survive longer. where rE is the radi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: — Mass-loss in simulations that result in stellar-dominated systems. Mcomp,bound/Msat,total is shown on the left column and Mcomp,bound/Mcomp,total on the right, with black lines corresponding to the satellite (comp = sat), red to the stellar component (comp = star), a…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: — Density profile evolution of M10 XXA simulations. The solid lines show ρ(r) for stellar particles (red), dark matter particles (blue), and the satellite total (black). The columns of plots correspond to different times (from t/torb = 1 to t/torb = 3). The plots show …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: — The residuals, defined as (ρcomp,0 − ρcomp,t)/ρcomp,0, for the stripped density profiles of M10 XXA simulations shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: — Energy-space stripping for M10 10A. We show a 2D histogram of particles in the initial energy–circularity plane, with normalized energy E on the x-axis and circularity ϵcirc on the y-axis. The color indicates the fraction of initially bound particles remaining. The h…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: — Energy-space stripping for M10 10B, shown for comparison with M10 00A in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: — The plots show the energy truncation Et, as a function of tunit and the component-wise residuals, Et − Et,star and Et − Et,dark. The left column of plots corresponds to M10 simulations, and the right column shows M200 simulations. The colors indicate the γ-pair combi…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: — The stability of the initial conditions (dotted lines) of the DF2 galaxy over t = 5000 tunit (solid lines). Red, blue, and black lines represent the stellar, dark matter, and total profiles, respectively. is required to confirm whether this protective effect is robu…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: — Stripping of DF2 satellite components based on initial circularity L0/Lmax and initial energy Einitial/[104 km2 s−2 ]. The colors indicate the percentage of particles that remain in the satellite. The top row shows the satellite total, the middle row shows the star …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The tidal evolution of satellite galaxies in cosmological simulations: insights from COLIBRE

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    COLIBRE satellite galaxies lose stars only after their subhalo is stripped below ~6% of its peak mass, following a two-phase tidal track that links stellar and dark-matter mass loss.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Amorisco, N. C. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2111.01148, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2111.01148

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2111.01148 2021

  2. [2]

    C., Monachesi, A., Agnello, A., & White, S

    Amorisco, N. C., Monachesi, A., Agnello, A., & White, S. D. M. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 4235, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty116

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty116 2018

  3. [3]

    J., & Du, X

    Benson, A. J., & Du, X. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 1398, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2750

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2750 2022

  4. [4]

    S., & Boylan-Kolchin, M

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

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

  5. [5]

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

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

    doi:10.1086/309560 1995

  6. [6]

    L., Forbes, D

    Buzzo, M. L., Forbes, D. A., Romanowsky, A. J., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453522

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453522 2025

  7. [7]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 382, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz383

    Carleton, T., Errani, R., Cooper, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 382, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz383

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz383 2019

  8. [8]

    D., & Katz, N

    Choi, J.-H., Weinberg, M. D., & Katz, N. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 1247, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15556.x

    arXiv 2009

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    2024, A&A, 690, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451271

    Contreras-Santos, A., Buitrago, F., Knebe, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451271

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    E., Taylor, J

    Drakos, N. E., Taylor, J. E., & Benson, A. J. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 2345, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx652 —. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 378, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa760 —. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 106, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2202 —. 2025, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2025, 049, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/...

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    C., et al

    Du, X., Benson, A., Zeng, Z. C., et al. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 023019, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.023019

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    Errani, R., & Navarro, J. F. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 18, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1215

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    F., Ibata, R., & Pe˜ narrubia, J

    Errani, R., Navarro, J. F., Ibata, R., & Pe˜ narrubia, J. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 6001, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac476

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    F., Pe˜ narrubia, J., Famaey, B., & Ibata, R

    Errani, R., Navarro, J. F., Pe˜ narrubia, J., Famaey, B., & Ibata, R. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 384, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3499

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 4591, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3349

    Errani, R., & Pe˜ narrubia, J. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 4591, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3349

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    Fensch, J., van der Burg, R. F. J., Jeˇ r´ abkov´ a, T., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834911

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    Y., & Zhao, H

    Gnedin, O. Y., & Zhao, H. 2002, MNRAS, 333, 299, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05361.x

    2002

  10. [18]

    B., & van den Bosch, F

    Green, S. B., & van den Bosch, F. C. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 2091, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2767

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357–362, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    F., Taylor, J

    Hayashi, E., Navarro, J. F., Taylor, J. E., Stadel, J., & Quinn, T. 2003, ApJ, 584, 541, doi: 10.1086/345788

    2003 doi

  13. [21]

    2025, ApJ, 981, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb383

    He, F., Han, J., & Li, Z. 2025, ApJ, 981, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb383

    2025 doi

  14. [22]

    1990, ApJ, 356, 359, doi: 10.1086/168845

    Hernquist, L. 1990, ApJ, 356, 359, doi: 10.1086/168845

    1990 doi

  15. [23]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  16. [24]

    1983, MNRAS, 202, 995, doi: 10.1093/mnras/202.4.995

    Jaffe, W. 1983, MNRAS, 202, 995, doi: 10.1093/mnras/202.4.995

    1983 doi

  17. [25]

    2004, ApJ, 601, 37, doi: 10.1086/380192

    Kazantzidis, S., Magorrian, J., & Moore, B. 2004, ApJ, 601, 37, doi: 10.1086/380192

    2004 doi

  18. [26]

    S., et al

    Koudmani, S., Rennehan, D., Somerville, R. S., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 1928, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf778

    2025 doi

  19. [27]

    R., & Chung, E

    Lee, J., Shin, E.-j., Kim, J.-h., Shapiro, P. R., & Chung, E. 2024, ApJ, 966, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2932

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 5614, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2615

    Obreschkow, D. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 5614, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2615

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    D., Schaye, J., Schaller, M., & Richings, J

    Ludlow, A. D., Schaye, J., Schaller, M., & Richings, J. 2019, MNRAS, 488, L123, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz110

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    W., Moore, B., Diemand, J., & Terzi´ c, B

    Merritt, D., Graham, A. W., Moore, B., Diemand, J., & Terzi´ c, B. 2006, AJ, 132, 2685, doi: 10.1086/508988

    2006 doi

  23. [31]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 5868, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3268

    Chaves-Montero, J. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 5868, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3268

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    1994, Nature, 370, 629, doi: 10.1038/370629a0

    Moore, B. 1994, Nature, 370, 629, doi: 10.1038/370629a0

    1994 doi

  25. [33]

    S., et al

    Moreno, J., Danieli, S., Bullock, J. S., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 496, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01598-4

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563, doi: 10.1086/177173 —. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493

    1996 doi

  27. [35]

    2020, ApJ, 893, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab792c

    Nusser, A. 2020, ApJ, 893, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab792c

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, L106, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly138

    Ogiya, G. 2018, MNRAS, 480, L106, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly138

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    C., & Burkert, A

    Ogiya, G., van den Bosch, F. C., & Burkert, A. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 2724, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3658

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    A., Navarro, J

    Oman, K. A., Navarro, J. F., Fattahi, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 3650, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1504 Pe˜ narrubia, J., Benson, A. J., Walker, M. G., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 1290, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16762.x Pe˜ narrubia, J., Navarro, J. F., McConnachie, A. W., & Mart...

    2015

  31. [39]

    2012, MNRAS, 421, 3464, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20571.x

    Pontzen, A., & Governato, F. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 3464, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20571.x

    2012

  32. [40]

    H., Shipp, N., Simpson, C

    Riley, A. H., Shipp, N., Simpson, C. M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.09144, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.09144

    2024 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    2024, ApJ, 971, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4c6e

    Rozier, S., & Errani, R. 2024, ApJ, 971, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4c6e

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    V., Wetzel, A., & Fattahi, A

    Sales, L. V., Wetzel, A., & Fattahi, A. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 897, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01689-w

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    H., Simpson, C

    Shipp, N., Riley, A. H., Simpson, C. M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.09143, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.09143 Sif´ on, C., van der Burg, R. F. J., Hoekstra, H., Muzzin, A., &

    2024 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 3747, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2648

    Herbonnet, R. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 3747, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2648

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    N., & Steinhardt, P

    Spergel, D. N., & Steinhardt, P. J. 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett., 84, 3760, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.3760

    2000 doi

  38. [46]

    2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 364, 1105, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x St¨ ucker, J., Angulo, R

    Springel, V. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 364, 1105, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x St¨ ucker, J., Angulo, R. E., & Busch, P. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 5196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2913 St¨ ucker, J., Ogiya, G., Angulo, R. E., Aguirre-Santaella, A., ...

    2005

  39. [47]

    J., van Dokkum, P

    Tang, Y., Romanowsky, A. J., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8cd0

    2025 doi

  40. [48]

    R., & White, S

    Tormen, G., Bouchet, F. R., & White, S. D. M. 1997, MNRAS, 286, 865, doi: 10.1093/mnras/286.4.865

    1997 doi

  41. [49]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 4841, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1895 van den Bosch, F

    Reina-Campos, M. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 4841, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1895 van den Bosch, F. C., & Ogiya, G. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 4066, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty084 van den Bosch, F. C., Ogiya, G., Hahn, O., & Burkert, A. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 3043, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2956 van Dokkum, P., ...

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    Romanowsky, A. J. 2019, ApJ, 874, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0d92 van Dokkum, P., Abraham, R., Brodie, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/828/1/L6 van Dokkum, P., Danieli, S., Cohen, Y., et al. 2018, Nature, 555, 629, doi: 10.1038/nature25767 van Dokkum, P...

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 This paper was built using the Open Journal of As- trophysics LATEX template. The OJA is a journal which provides fast and easy peer review for new papers in the as...

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.