pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.26877 · v2 · submitted 2025-10-30 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Metallicity Gradients in Modern Cosmological Simulations II: The Role of Bursty Versus Smooth Feedback at High-Redshift

Alex M. Garcia , Paul Torrey , Aniket Bhagwat , Xuejian Shen , Mark Vogelsberger , William McClymont , Jaya Nagarajan-Swenson , Sophia G. Ridolfo
show 17 more authors
Peixin Zhu Dhruv T. Zimmerman Oliver Zier Sarah Biddle Arnab Sarkar Priyanka Chakraborty Ruby J. Wright Kathryn Grasha Tiago Costa Laura Keating Rahul Kannan Aaron Smith Enrico Garaldi Ewald Puchwein Benedetta Ciardi Lars Hernquist Lisa J. Kewley
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 02:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords metallicity gradientsstellar feedbackhigh-redshift galaxiescosmological simulationsbursty feedbacksmooth feedbackgas-phase metalsgalaxy evolution
0
0 comments X

The pith

Galaxies with bursty stellar feedback develop flatter metallicity gradients than those with smooth feedback at high redshifts.

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

This paper compares cosmological simulations spanning bursty time-variable stellar feedback and smooth steady feedback to see how each mode affects the radial distribution of gas-phase metals in galaxies at redshifts from 3 to 11. It finds that bursty feedback produces systematically flatter gradients by factors of roughly 2 to 10, especially above stellar masses of 10^9 solar masses, because the resulting turbulence mixes metals outward before steep gradients can build. A sympathetic reader would care since the shape of these gradients encodes how feedback regulates early galaxy growth and chemical enrichment. If the distinction holds, then high-resolution observations of metallicity profiles become a direct way to test which feedback mode better matches reality.

Core claim

Across the FIRE-2, SPICE Bursty, Thesan Zoom, SPICE Smooth, and Thesan Box suites, galaxies with bursty feedback develop gas-phase metallicity gradients that are flatter by factors of approximately 2-10 than those produced under smooth feedback, with the difference most pronounced for galaxies above 10^9 solar masses. Bursty feedback injects sufficient turbulence to redistribute metals radially and suppress strong negative gradients, while smooth feedback permits less mixing and therefore preserves steeper gradients.

What carries the argument

The contrast between bursty (time-variable) and smooth (steady) stellar feedback and the turbulence each mode generates for radial metal redistribution.

If this is right

  • Bursty feedback supplies enough turbulence to prevent strong negative metallicity gradients from forming.
  • Smooth feedback does not enable efficient radial metal redistribution and therefore maintains steeper gradients.
  • High-resolution gas-phase metallicity observations at high redshift can serve as a discriminator between qualitatively different feedback implementations.
  • The majority of existing high-redshift gradient measurements are consistent with a bursty feedback picture, though a minority are not.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If bursty feedback is required to match observed gradients, then simulations that enforce smooth feedback may systematically under-predict metal mixing in the interstellar medium of early galaxies.
  • Future observations with instruments capable of resolving gradients inside individual high-redshift galaxies could test whether the bursty-smooth distinction persists across a wider mass range.
  • The same turbulence that flattens metallicity gradients may also influence other observable properties such as the spatial distribution of young stars or the kinematics of outflows.

Load-bearing premise

Differences in metallicity gradients arise mainly from the bursty versus smooth character of the feedback rather than from other differences in resolution, subgrid physics, or initial conditions across the simulation suites.

What would settle it

A set of high-redshift galaxies above 10^9 solar masses with steep observed metallicity gradients that also show clear signatures of bursty star-formation histories would directly contradict the reported trend.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.26877 by Aaron Smith, Alex M. Garcia, Aniket Bhagwat, Arnab Sarkar, Benedetta Ciardi, Dhruv T. Zimmerman, Enrico Garaldi, Ewald Puchwein, Jaya Nagarajan-Swenson, Kathryn Grasha, Lars Hernquist, Laura Keating, Lisa J. Kewley, Mark Vogelsberger, Oliver Zier, Paul Torrey, Peixin Zhu, Priyanka Chakraborty, Rahul Kannan, Ruby J. Wright, Sarah Biddle, Sophia G. Ridolfo, Tiago Costa, William McClymont, Xuejian Shen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Example (Specific) Star Formation His￾tories in Bursty and Smooth Feedback Models. The mass assembly of two galaxies with stellar mass log(M⋆ [M⊙]) = 9.64 at z ∼ 5.5 from Thesan Zoom (bursty; orange) and Thesan Box (smooth; blue). The solid lines are the specific star formation rate (sSFR) of the galaxy averaged over 10 Myr, the dashed lines represent the sSFR averaged over 150 Myr, and the shaded region r… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Example Bursty and Smooth Feedback Gradients. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Distribution of Gas-Phase Radial Metallicity Gradients in Bursty and Smooth Feedback Models at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Metallicity Gradient Evolution Broken into Four Stellar Mass Bins. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 13 Billion Years of Gas-Phase Metallicity Gradient Evolution in Cosmological Simulations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: SPT0311-58 E Mass and Redshift Analogs in FIRE and Thesan Box. Comparison of metallicity profiles from z = 7 galaxies with stellar masses greater than 1010 M⊙ (roughly corresponding to SPT0311-58 E Arribas et al. 2024) from FIRE (dark red lines) and Thesan Box (blue lines). The values on the ordinate are scaled to the central metallicity value of the profile for ease of comparison. As a reference, we also … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The distribution of gas-phase metals within galaxies encodes the impact of stellar feedback on galactic evolution. At high-redshift, when galaxies are rapidly assembling, feedback-driven outflows and turbulence can strongly reshape radial metallicity gradients. In this work, we use the FIRE-2, SPICE, Thesan and Thesan Zoom cosmological simulations -- spanning a range of stellar feedback from bursty (time-variable) to smooth (steady) -- to investigate how these feedback modes shape gas-phase metallicity gradients at $3<z\lesssim11$. Across all models, we find that galaxies with bursty feedback (FIRE-2, SPICE Bursty, and Thesan Zoom) develop systematically flatter (factors of $\sim2-10$) metallicity gradients than those with smooth feedback (SPICE Smooth and Thesan Box), particularly at stellar masses $M_\star > 10^{9}~{\rm M_\odot}$. These results demonstrate that bursty stellar feedback provides sufficient turbulence to prevent strong negative gradients from forming, while smooth stellar feedback does not generically allow for efficient radial redistribution of metals thereby keeping gradients steep. Finally, we compare with recent observations, finding that the majority -- but, notably, not all -- of the observed gradients may favor a bursty stellar feedback scenario. In all, these results highlight the utility of high-resolution observations of gas-phase metallicity at high-redshift as a key discriminator of these qualitatively different feedback types.

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

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper uses cosmological simulations from the FIRE-2, SPICE, and Thesan suites to examine gas-phase metallicity gradients at 3 < z ≲ 11. It claims that runs with bursty (time-variable) stellar feedback produce systematically flatter gradients than runs with smooth (steady) feedback by factors of ∼2–10, especially above M⋆ = 10^9 M⊙, because bursty feedback supplies enough turbulence to redistribute metals while smooth feedback does not. The abstract also notes a partial match to recent observations and concludes that high-redshift gradient measurements can discriminate between these feedback regimes.

Significance. If the attribution to feedback time-variability survives controls for resolution and sub-grid differences, the result would supply a concrete, observationally testable signature of bursty versus smooth feedback during the epoch of rapid galaxy assembly. This would strengthen the use of metallicity gradients as a diagnostic in galaxy-formation theory.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim attributes the factor ∼2–10 flattening exclusively to the bursty versus smooth character of stellar feedback, yet the abstract supplies no information on gradient measurement methods, sample selection, or any corrections for the known differences in numerical resolution, metal-diffusion implementations, star-formation sub-grid models, and cosmological initial conditions that exist across the FIRE-2, SPICE, and Thesan suites. Because the compared runs differ simultaneously in multiple non-feedback aspects, the reported difference cannot yet be isolated to feedback variability.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that “the majority—but, notably, not all—of the observed gradients may favor a bursty stellar feedback scenario” is left without reference to the specific observational datasets or quantitative comparison metrics used.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments and for recognizing the potential significance of our results. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim attributes the factor ∼2–10 flattening exclusively to the bursty versus smooth character of stellar feedback, yet the abstract supplies no information on gradient measurement methods, sample selection, or any corrections for the known differences in numerical resolution, metal-diffusion implementations, star-formation sub-grid models, and cosmological initial conditions that exist across the FIRE-2, SPICE, and Thesan suites. Because the compared runs differ simultaneously in multiple non-feedback aspects, the reported difference cannot yet be isolated to feedback variability.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract, as a concise summary, does not detail measurement methods or explicitly discuss cross-suite differences in resolution and sub-grid physics. The main text provides these details, including how gradients are measured and the sample selection. To address the concern, we will revise the abstract to briefly describe the gradient measurement approach and to note that the comparison spans independent suites with both bursty and smooth feedback variants (e.g., SPICE Bursty vs. SPICE Smooth; Thesan Zoom vs. Thesan Box). We maintain that the systematic trend across these implementations supports attribution to feedback time-variability rather than other differences, but we will add language acknowledging the multi-faceted nature of the suite comparisons. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct comparison of independent simulation outputs

full rationale

The paper reports a comparative result across distinct simulation suites (FIRE-2, SPICE variants, Thesan Box/Zoom) that are pre-classified by their feedback character (bursty vs. smooth). The claimed factor of ~2-10 difference in metallicity gradients at M⋆ > 10^9 M⊙ is presented as an observed outcome of running those external codes, not as a quantity fitted, redefined, or derived from within the present analysis. No equations, ansatzes, or self-citations appear in the available text that would reduce the reported gradients to the input classification by construction. The study is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and receives a score of 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no explicit list of free parameters or invented entities; the central claim rests on the domain assumption that feedback mode is the dominant driver of gradient differences.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Differences in metallicity gradients between simulation suites are attributable to the bursty versus smooth feedback implementation rather than other code-specific choices.
    The abstract contrasts FIRE-2, SPICE Bursty, Thesan Zoom against SPICE Smooth and Thesan Box and attributes the gradient difference to feedback style.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5875 in / 1268 out tokens · 34955 ms · 2026-05-18T02:44:24.323842+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The DREAMS Project: Disentangling the Impact of Halo-to-Halo Variance and Baryonic Feedback on Milky Way Dark Matter Density Profiles

    astro-ph.GA 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Milky Way-mass dark matter density profiles in IllustrisTNG are largely insensitive to astrophysics and cosmology variations, dominated by halo-to-halo variance instead.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

167 extracted references · 167 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 8 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    R., Federrath, C., et al

    Acharyya, A., Krumholz, M. R., Federrath, C., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3819, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1100

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1100 2020

  2. [2]

    S., Tumlinson, J., et al

    Acharyya, A., Peeples, M. S., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.06613, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.06613

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.06613 2024

  3. [3]

    J., Vulcani, B., et al

    Acharyya, A., Watson, P. J., Vulcani, B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.05335, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.05335

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.05335 2025

  4. [4]

    Galactic Centre region, longitudes 345 to 6

    Agertz, O., Teyssier, R., & Moore, B. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 1391, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17530.x Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Kereˇ s, D., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4698, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1517

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17530.x 2011

  5. [5]

    2024, A&A, 688, A146, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348824

    Arribas, S., Perna, M., Rodr´ ıguez Del Pino, B., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A146, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348824

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348824 2024

  6. [6]

    2024, MNRAS, 532, L14, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slae036

    Bassini, L., Feldmann, R., Gensior, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, L14, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slae036

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slae036 2024

  7. [7]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, 151, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx789

    Belfiore, F., Maiolino, R., Tremonti, C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 151, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx789

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx789 2017

  8. [8]

    A., Wetzel, A., Loebman, S

    Bellardini, M. A., Wetzel, A., Loebman, S. R., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 4586, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1606

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1606 2021

  9. [9]

    , keywords =

    Bhagwat, A., Costa, T., Ciardi, B., Pakmor, R., & Garaldi, E. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 3406, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1125

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1125 2024

  10. [10]

    , keywords =

    Quinn, T. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 1275, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21306.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21306.x 2012

  11. [11]

    D., Springel, V., Ostriker, E

    Burger, J. D., Springel, V., Ostriker, E. C., et al. 2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1720

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1720 2025

  12. [12]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 4293, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1343

    Carton, D., Brinchmann, J., Contini, T., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 4293, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1343

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1343 2018

  13. [13]

    2016, MNRAS, 457, 2605, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw064

    Ceverino, D., S´ anchez Almeida, J., Mu˜ noz Tu˜ n´ on, C., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 2605, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw064

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw064 2016

  14. [14]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  15. [15]

    K., Kereˇ s, D., Wetzel, A., et al

    Chan, T. K., Kereˇ s, D., Wetzel, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 906, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1153

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1153 2018

  16. [16]

    Best, P. N. 2025, ApJL, 978, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9a4d

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad9a4d 2025

  17. [17]

    A., & van de Voort, F

    Crain, R. A., & van de Voort, F. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 473, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-041923-043618

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-041923-043618 2023

  18. [18]

    2010, Nature, 467, 811, doi: 10.1038/nature09451

    Cresci, G., Mannucci, F., Maiolino, R., et al. 2010, Nature, 467, 811, doi: 10.1038/nature09451

    work page doi:10.1038/nature09451 2010

  19. [19]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 821, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3379

    Curti, M., Maiolino, R., Cirasuolo, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 821, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3379

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3379 2020

  20. [20]

    M., Ward-Thompson, D., & Andr \'e , P.\ 2005, , 360, 4, 1506

    Dale, J. E., Bonnell, I. A., Clarke, C. J., & Bate, M. R. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 291, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08806.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08806.x 2005

  21. [21]

    L., Tacchella, S., \”Ubler, H., et al

    Danhaive, A. L., Tacchella, S.,\”Ubler, H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.21863, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.21863 Dav´ e, R., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Narayanan, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2827, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz937

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.21863 2025

  22. [22]

    L., Gil-Pons, P., Lau, H

    Doherty, C. L., Gil-Pons, P., Lau, H. H. B., Lattanzio, J. C., & Siess, L. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1877

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1877 2014

  23. [23]

    2016, ApJ, 820, 131, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/131

    El-Badry, K., Wetzel, A., Geha, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 131, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/131

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/820/2/131 2016

  24. [24]

    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

  25. [25]

    N., et al

    Escala, I., Wetzel, A., Kirby, E. N., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2194, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2858

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2858 2018

  26. [26]

    M., Jørgensen, J

    Evans, Neal J., I., Dunham, M. M., Jørgensen, J. K., et al. 2009, ApJS, 181, 321, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/181/2/321

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/181/2/321 2009

  27. [27]

    Federrath, C., & Klessen, R. S. 2012, ApJ, 761, 156, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/156

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/761/2/156 2012

  28. [28]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 3831, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1205

    Feldmann, R., Quataert, E., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 3831, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1205

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1205 2023

  29. [29]

    F., Abadi, M

    Ferrero, I., Navarro, J. F., Abadi, M. G., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 4736, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2691

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2691 2017

  30. [30]

    K., Karakas, A

    Fishlock, C. K., Karakas, A. I., Lugaro, M., & Yong, D. 2014, ApJ, 797, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/1/44 Forouhar Moreno, V. J., Helly, J., McGibbon, R., et al. 2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1478 F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., Renzini, A., Mancini, C., et al. 2018, ApJS, 238, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aadd49

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/797/1/44 2014

  31. [31]

    M., et al

    Franchetto, A., Mingozzi, M., Poggianti, B. M., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2109.02656. https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.02656

    work page arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    1995, A&A, 301, 649

    Friedli, D., & Benz, W. 1995, A&A, 301, 649

    work page 1995

  33. [33]

    1994, ApJL, 430, L105, doi: 10.1086/187449

    Friedli, D., Benz, W., & Kennicutt, R. 1994, ApJL, 430, L105, doi: 10.1086/187449

    work page doi:10.1086/187449 1994

  34. [34]

    L., Tsujita, A., et al

    Fujimoto, S., Faisst, A. L., Tsujita, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.16116. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.16116

    work page arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    , keywords =

    Garaldi, E., Kannan, R., Smith, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 4909, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac257 —. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 3765, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae839

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac257 2022

  36. [36]

    M., Torrey, P., Hemler, Z

    Garcia, A. M., Torrey, P., Hemler, Z. S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 4716, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3749

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3749 2023

  37. [37]

    M., Torrey, P., Grasha, K., et al

    Garcia, A. M., Torrey, P., Grasha, K., et al. 2024a, MNRAS, 529, 3342, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae737

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae737

  38. [38]

    M., Torrey, P., Ellison, S., et al

    Garcia, A. M., Torrey, P., Ellison, S., et al. 2024b, MNRAS, 531, 1398, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1252

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1252

  39. [39]

    M., Torrey, P., Ellison, S

    Garcia, A. M., Torrey, P., Ellison, S. L., et al. 2025a, MNRAS, 536, 119, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2587

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2587

  40. [40]

    M., Torrey, P., Bhagwat, A., et al

    Garcia, A. M., Torrey, P., Bhagwat, A., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 989, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adea51 18Garcia et al

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adea51

  41. [41]

    S., et al

    Garrison-Kimmel, S., Wetzel, A., Bullock, J. S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 1709, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1710

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1710 2017

  42. [42]

    F., Wetzel, A., et al

    Garrison-Kimmel, S., Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 1380, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1317

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1317 2019

  43. [43]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Genel, S., Vogelsberger, M., Springel, V., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 175, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1654

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1654 2014

  44. [44]

    K., Pilkington, K., Brook, C

    Gibson, B. K., Pilkington, K., Brook, C. B., Stinson, G. S., & Bailin, J. 2013, A&A, 554, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321239

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321239 2013

  45. [45]

    L., Wetzel, A., Bailin, J., & Orr, M

    Graf, R. L., Wetzel, A., Bailin, J., & Orr, M. E. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.21377, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.21377

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.21377 2024

  46. [46]

    H., Battisti, A

    Grasha, K., Chen, Q. H., Battisti, A. J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 929, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5ab2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5ab2 2022

  47. [47]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 1939, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2382

    Grossi, M., Garc´ ıa-Benito, R., Cortesi, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 1939, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2382

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2382 2020

  48. [48]

    S., Torrey, P., Qi, J., et al

    Hemler, Z. S., Torrey, P., Qi, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 3024, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1803

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1803 2021

  49. [49]

    2011, ApJL, 743, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/743/2/L29

    Hennebelle, P., & Chabrier, G. 2011, ApJL, 743, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/743/2/L29

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/743/2/l29 2011

  50. [50]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 53, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv195 —. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 3387, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3306

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv195 2015

  51. [51]

    Galaxies on FIRE (Feedback In Realistic Environments): Stellar Feedback Explains Cosmologically Inefficient Star Formation

    Hopkins, P. F., Kereˇ s, D., O˜ norbe, J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 581, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1738

    work page Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1738 2014

  52. [52]

    FIRE-2 Simulations: Physics versus Numerics in Galaxy Formation

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Kereˇ s, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 800, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1690

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1690 2018

  53. [53]

    R., Scholtz, J., Danhaive, A

    Ivey, L. R., Scholtz, J., Danhaive, A. L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.14936, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.14936

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.14936 2025

  54. [54]

    1999, ApJS, 125, 439, doi: 10.1086/313278

    Iwamoto, K., Brachwitz, F., Nomoto, K., et al. 1999, ApJS, 125, 439, doi: 10.1086/313278

    work page doi:10.1086/313278 1999

  55. [55]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =

    Izzard, R. G., Tout, C. A., Karakas, A. I., & Pols, O. R. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 407, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07446.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07446.x 2004

  56. [56]

    Jijina, J., & Adams, F. C. 1996, ApJ, 462, 874, doi: 10.1086/177201

    work page doi:10.1086/177201 1996

  57. [57]

    S., Richard J., Jullo E., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/48 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...765...48J 765, 48

    Jones, T., Ellis, R. S., Richard, J., & Jullo, E. 2013, ApJ, 765, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/48

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/1/48 2013

  58. [58]

    B., et al

    Jones, T., Wang, X., Schmidt, K. B., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 107, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/3/107

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/149/3/107 2015

  59. [59]

    2025, ApJL, 978, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ada150

    Ju, M., Wang, X., Jones, T., et al. 2025, ApJL, 978, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ada150

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ada150 2025

  60. [60]

    , keywords =

    Kannan, R., Garaldi, E., Smith, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 4005, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3710

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3710 2022

  61. [61]

    M., Glover, S

    Kannan, R., Marinacci, F., Simpson, C. M., Glover, S. C. O., & Hernquist, L. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 2088, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3078

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3078 2020

  62. [62]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 117, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz287

    Kannan, R., Vogelsberger, M., Marinacci, F., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 117, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz287

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz287 2019

  63. [63]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.20437

    Kannan, R., Puchwein, E., Smith, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.20437, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.20437

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.20437 2025

  64. [64]

    Karakas, A. I. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1413, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16198.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16198.x 2010

  65. [65]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189 1998

  66. [66]

    J., Nicholls D

    Kewley, L. J., Nicholls, D. C., & Sutherland, R. S. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051832

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051832 2019

  67. [67]

    R., & Knebe, A

    Knollmann, S. R., & Knebe, A. 2009, ApJS, 182, 608, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/608

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/608 2009

  68. [68]

    2006, ApJ, 653, 1145, doi: 10.1086/508914

    Ohkubo, T. 2006, ApJ, 653, 1145, doi: 10.1086/508914

    work page doi:10.1086/508914 2006

  69. [69]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 1385, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3495

    Kretschmer, M., & Teyssier, R. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1385, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3495

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3495 2020

  70. [70]

    Science , author =

    Kroupa, P. 2002, Science, 295, 82, doi: 10.1126/science.1067524

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1067524 2002

  71. [71]

    , keywords =

    Lazar, A., Bullock, J. S., Boylan-Kolchin, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 2393, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2101

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2101 2020

  72. [72]

    A., Ellis, R

    Leethochawalit, N., Jones, T. A., Ellis, R. S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 84, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/84

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/820/2/84 2016

  73. [73]

    2014, ApJS, 212, 14, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/212/1/14

    Leitherer, C., Ekstr¨ om, S., Meynet, G., et al. 2014, ApJS, 212, 14, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/212/1/14

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/212/1/14 2014

  74. [74]

    D., et al

    Leitherer, C., Schaerer, D., Goldader, J. D., et al. 1999, ApJS, 123, 3, doi: 10.1086/313233

    work page Pith review doi:10.1086/313233 1999

  75. [75]

    2022, ApJL, 929, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac626f

    Li, Z., Wang, X., Cai, Z., et al. 2022, ApJL, 929, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac626f

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac626f 2022

  76. [76]

    2025c, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.12129, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.12129

    Li, Z., Cai, Z., Wang, X., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.12129, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.12129

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.12129 2025

  77. [77]

    J., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al

    Looser, T. J., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al. 2024, Nature, 629, 53, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07227-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07227-0 2024

  78. [78]

    A., Krumholz, M

    Lopez, L. A., Krumholz, M. R., Bolatto, A. D., Prochaska, J. X., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2011, ApJ, 731, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/2/91

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/731/2/91 2011

  79. [79]

    F., Feldmann, R., et al

    Ma, X., Hopkins, P. F., Feldmann, R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4780, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx034

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx034 2017

  80. [80]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 2001, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2404

    Ma, X., Quataert, E., Wetzel, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 2001, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2404

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2404 2020

Showing first 80 references.