pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.16294 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-17 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

The hydrodynamical response of cold circumgalactic clouds to quasar radiation

Nicolas Ledos , Sebastiano Cantalupo , Titouan Lazeyras , Gabriele Pezzulli , Kentaro Nagamine , Shinsuke Takasao , Marta Galbiati , Andrea Travascio
show 3 more authors
Giada Quadri Weichen Wang Antonio Pensabene
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 07:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords circumgalactic mediumquasar radiationhydrodynamicsionization frontsLy alpha emissioncold gas cloudsrocket effect
0
0 comments X

The pith

An analytical framework identifies three evolutionary paths for cold circumgalactic clouds under quasar radiation, with ionization state depending on quasar brightness.

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

The paper develops an analytical model for the hydrodynamical evolution of cold 10^4 K gas clouds exposed to quasar EUV radiation. It introduces a radiation-shielding threshold that divides clouds into an optically thin regime of uniform ionization, a shielded regime with little change, or a rocket-effect regime where the ionization front compresses the far side and accelerates the surviving clump. A reader would care because the model shows that bright quasars fully ionize surrounding cold gas while faint ones leave most of it in the compressed rocket-effect state, altering expected Ly alpha luminosities by up to an order of magnitude. The framework is checked against radiation-hydrodynamic simulations of single clouds and then applied to rays through cloud populations and streams.

Core claim

We introduce a new threshold defining when a cloud becomes radiation-shielded and use it to predict three evolutionary paths: an optically thin regime in which radiation uniformly ionises the cloud, a radiation-shielded regime where the cloud remains largely unaffected, and a rocket-effect regime in which the ionisation front ionises the illuminated side while compressing the opposite side and later accelerating the surviving cold clump. In the rocket-effect regime the cloud's Ly alpha luminosity can reach up to ten times the optically thin value and as much as 70 percent of the fluorescent value without hydrodynamical response. Unless shielded, at least 50-60 percent of the Ly alpha arises,

What carries the argument

The radiation-shielding threshold that partitions cold clouds into optically thin, shielded, or rocket-effect evolutionary regimes under quasar EUV radiation.

If this is right

  • Bright quasars with L_nu,LL around 10^31.6 erg s^-1 Hz^-1 fully ionize the cold CGM.
  • Faint quasars with L_nu,LL around 10^28.6 erg s^-1 Hz^-1 leave most cold gas in the rocket-effect regime with compressed, accelerated clumps.
  • Rocket-effect clouds produce Ly alpha luminosities up to an order of magnitude higher than the optically thin case.
  • At least 50-60 percent of Ly alpha emission comes from recombination unless the cloud is shielded.
  • Physical properties of cold CGM must be derived with hydrodynamical response included, especially around faint quasars.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The predicted acceleration in the rocket-effect regime could produce observable high-velocity cold gas components in quasar fields.
  • Extending the model to include turbulence or magnetic fields would test whether the three regimes remain distinct in more realistic CGM conditions.
  • Ly alpha observations around faint quasars might reveal spatial offsets or velocity gradients matching the compressed far-side clumps.
  • The ionization predictions could revise estimates of cold-gas accretion rates onto galaxies in quasar environments.

Load-bearing premise

Cold clouds are assumed to start as static, uniform spheres with no magnetic fields, external turbulence, or full 3D geometric effects on ionization-front propagation.

What would settle it

A radiation-hydrodynamic simulation or observation of a cold cloud around a faint quasar showing no far-side compression and acceleration after ionization-front passage would falsify the rocket-effect regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.16294 by Andrea Travascio, Antonio Pensabene, Gabriele Pezzulli, Giada Quadri, Kentaro Nagamine, Marta Galbiati, Nicolas Ledos, Sebastiano Cantalupo, Shinsuke Takasao, Titouan Lazeyras, Weichen Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of the different evolutionary paths of the cloud illuminated by a quasar. Starting from an initial neutral cloud which is suddenly illuminated by extreme UV (EUV) radiation at an infinitesimal time δt. The Strömgren number St ∝ rc,0n 2 H,0 F −1 q (equation 2) defines the cloud’s evolution as described in Sec. 2. The cloud follows three characteristic regimes: an optically thin regime, a rocket… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: St (dotted-black) and Υ (dashed-grey) parameter contour lines for typical values of nH,0 and Fq in the CGM and a cloud radius of 50 pc. The left y-axis shows the corresponding quasar Lyman-Limit specific luminosities Lν,LL assuming a cloud at a distance of 10 pkpc from the quasar. Red dots represent the sim￾ulation’s initial parameters. 2014; Borisova et al. 2016; Arrigoni Battaia et al. 2018; Fossati et a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Temperature colour maps slices. Cloud evolution at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as Fig. 3, but for di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cold gas mean temperature (top) and number density evolution (bottom). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cold gas hydrogen number density PDFs weighted by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Resulting cold gas clumping factor due to the e [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Emission properties of the clouds as a function of St (x [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Properties of a cloud ensemble as a function of the hy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Recent simulations increasingly resolve the small-scale structure of the circumgalactic medium (CGM), but the dynamical impact of ionising radiation on its cold $10^4$ K component remains poorly understood. We investigate the evolution of cold gas structures exposed to quasars' EUV radiation. We develop an analytical framework to describe the evolution of such clouds, introducing a new threshold that defines when a cloud becomes radiation-shielded. The framework is validated using radiation-hydrodynamic simulations of single static clouds. It predicts three evolutionary paths: (i) an optically thin regime, in which radiation uniformly ionises the cloud; (ii) a radiation-shielded regime, where the cloud remains largely unaffected; and (iii) a rocket-effect regime, in which the propagation of the ionisation front ionises the illuminated side while compressing the opposite side, later accelerating the surviving cold clump. In the latter regime, the cloud's Ly$\alpha$ luminosity can be up to one order of magnitude higher than the optically thin case. Such luminosities are as high as $70\%$ of the values obtained from a fluorescent regime without considering hydrodynamical response. Unless the cloud is shielded, at least $\sim 50$-$60\,\%$ of Ly$\alpha$ emission arises from recombination. Applying this framework to both a ray crossing a population of clouds, and a ray propagating inside a cold stream, we find that the cold CGM around bright quasars ($L_{\mathrm{\nu,LL}} \sim 10^{31.6} \, \mathrm{erg\, s^{-1}\, Hz^{-1}}$) is likely fully ionised, whereas the one around faint quasars ($L_{\mathrm{\nu,LL}} \sim 10^{28.6} \, \mathrm{erg\, s^{-1}\, Hz^{-1}}$) predominantly experiences a rocket-effect regime. These results imply that the hydrodynamical response of cold CGM structures to quasar radiation must be considered when deriving their physical properties, particularly for faint quasars.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops an analytical framework for the hydrodynamical evolution of cold (10^4 K) circumgalactic clouds exposed to quasar EUV radiation, introducing a radiation-shielding threshold. The framework is validated against radiation-hydrodynamic simulations of single static, uniform clouds and predicts three regimes: (i) optically thin, with uniform ionization; (ii) radiation-shielded, with minimal effect; and (iii) rocket-effect, with ionization-front compression and acceleration of surviving clumps. In the rocket-effect regime, Lyα luminosity can increase by up to an order of magnitude relative to the optically thin case, with at least 50-60% arising from recombination unless shielded. Application to a ray through a cloud population or cold stream indicates that cold CGM around bright quasars (L_ν,LL ~ 10^31.6 erg s^{-1} Hz^{-1}) is likely fully ionized, while around faint quasars (L_ν,LL ~ 10^28.6 erg s^{-1} Hz^{-1}) the rocket-effect regime dominates.

Significance. If the idealized assumptions hold, the work supplies a parameter-free analytical framework (validated by RHD simulations) that cleanly delineates evolutionary regimes and quantifies the hydrodynamical boost to Lyα emission. This is a useful advance for interpreting quasar-CGM observations, particularly the previously under-considered dynamical response in faint-quasar environments. The direct mapping from single-cloud analytics to population/stream predictions is a strength.

major comments (1)
  1. [Application to populations and streams] Application to populations and streams (final paragraph of abstract and corresponding section): The central claim that bright quasars fully ionize cold CGM while faint quasars drive rocket-effect regimes rests on direct extrapolation of the radiation-shielding threshold and three regimes derived for initially static, uniform clouds. No robustness tests against subsonic turbulence or magnetic fields are reported; such effects could suppress ionization-front compression or alter cloud survival, shifting the luminosity thresholds that separate the regimes. This extrapolation is load-bearing for the observational conclusions.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / framework introduction] The abstract and framework section would benefit from an explicit statement of the radiation-shielding threshold (e.g., in terms of column density or optical depth) to make the regime boundaries immediately quantifiable.
  2. [Simulation validation] Simulation validation paragraph: provide the grid resolution, box size, and initial cloud density profile used in the RHD runs so readers can assess numerical convergence of the rocket-effect compression.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of the manuscript and for the constructive comment on the application to populations and streams. We address this point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Application to populations and streams (final paragraph of abstract and corresponding section): The central claim that bright quasars fully ionize cold CGM while faint quasars drive rocket-effect regimes rests on direct extrapolation of the radiation-shielding threshold and three regimes derived for initially static, uniform clouds. No robustness tests against subsonic turbulence or magnetic fields are reported; such effects could suppress ionization-front compression or alter cloud survival, shifting the luminosity thresholds that separate the regimes. This extrapolation is load-bearing for the observational conclusions.

    Authors: We agree that the mapping from single static uniform clouds to populations and streams constitutes an extrapolation of the derived thresholds. The analytical framework and the three regimes are explicitly developed and validated under the idealized conditions stated in the manuscript (initially static, uniform clouds). The application in the final paragraph of the abstract and the corresponding section is presented as an illustrative estimate of which regime dominates for given quasar luminosities, rather than a definitive prediction for realistic, turbulent, magnetized clouds. We have not performed robustness tests including subsonic turbulence or magnetic fields, as these would require a separate suite of simulations beyond the scope of the current work. In the revised manuscript we will add a new paragraph in the discussion section that explicitly lists these assumptions, notes that turbulence and magnetic fields could modify ionization-front compression and cloud survival, and states that the reported luminosity thresholds separating the regimes should therefore be regarded as indicative. We maintain that the core hydrodynamical response (rocket effect and associated Lyα boost) remains a relevant physical effect that must be considered even in more complex environments. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation from standard equations with independent validation

full rationale

The analytical framework is constructed from standard radiation-hydrodynamic equations for ionization-front propagation and cloud compression, then validated against separate RHD simulations of initially static uniform clouds. The three regimes (optically thin, shielded, rocket-effect) and the luminosity thresholds for bright vs. faint quasars are direct consequences of these equations and the shielding criterion, without any reduction to a fitted parameter renamed as prediction, self-citation load-bearing premise, or ansatz smuggled from prior author work. No load-bearing step equates output to input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 2 invented entities

The framework rests on standard radiation-hydrodynamics assumptions and introduces one new definitional threshold plus the rocket regime as a derived outcome; no free parameters are fitted to data in the central claims.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Ionization equilibrium and optically thin/thick approximations hold for the EUV radiation propagation through the cloud.
    Invoked when deriving the shielding threshold and ionization-front propagation.
  • domain assumption Initial clouds are static, uniform, and isolated with no external pressure gradients or magnetic support.
    Used to simplify the analytical evolution equations and single-cloud simulations.
invented entities (2)
  • Radiation-shielding threshold no independent evidence
    purpose: Defines the transition between optically thin and shielded regimes based on cloud properties and incident flux.
    Newly introduced quantity that organizes the three evolutionary paths.
  • Rocket-effect regime no independent evidence
    purpose: Describes the hydrodynamical acceleration and compression of the surviving cold clump by the propagating ionization front.
    Identified as a distinct outcome with enhanced Lyα output.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5729 in / 1618 out tokens · 68660 ms · 2026-05-10T07:29:47.049100+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

75 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

    work page

  3. [3]

    K., Prochaska , J

    Armillotta , L., Fraternali , F., Werk , J. K., Prochaska , J. X., & Marinacci , F. 2017, , 470, 114

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    F., Prochaska, J

    Arrigoni Battaia , F., Hennawi, J. F., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 482, 3162

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    2024, , 532, 2965

    Aung , H., Mandelker , N., Dekel , A., et al. 2024, , 532, 2965

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Bacon , R., Accardo , M., Adjali , L., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed. I. S. McLean , S. K. Ramsay , & H. Takami , 773508

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    1989, The Astrophysical Journal, 346, 735

    Bertoldi, F. 1989, The Astrophysical Journal, 346, 735

    work page 1989

  8. [8]

    & McKee, C

    Bertoldi, F. & McKee, C. F. 1990, The Astrophysical Journal, 354, 529

    work page 1990

  9. [9]

    J., et al

    Borisova , E., Cantalupo , S., Lilly , S. J., et al. 2016, , 831, 39

    work page 2016

  10. [10]

    2023, , 951, 113

    Br \"u ggen , M., Scannapieco , E., & Grete , P. 2023, , 951, 113

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    X., Hennawi , J

    Cantalupo , S., Arrigoni-Battaia , F., Prochaska , J. X., Hennawi , J. F., & Madau , P. 2014, , 506, 63

    work page 2014

  12. [12]

    Cantalupo , S., Porciani , C., & Lilly , S. J. 2008, , 672, 48

    work page 2008

  13. [13]

    J., & Miniati , F

    Cantalupo , S., Porciani , C., Lilly , S. J., & Miniati , F. 2005, , 628, 61

    work page 2005

  14. [14]

    1992, , 78, 341

    Cen , R. 1992, , 78, 341

    work page 1992

  15. [15]

    2019, , 487, 3377

    Decataldo , D., Pallottini , A., Ferrara , A., Vallini , L., & Gallerani , S. 2019, , 487, 3377

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    & Birnboim , Y

    Dekel , A. & Birnboim , Y. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 2

    work page 2006

  17. [17]

    2013, MNRAS, 435, 999

    Dekel, A., Zolotov, A., Tweed, D., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 999

    work page 2013

  18. [18]

    2019, , 622, A142

    Deparis , N., Aubert , D., Ocvirk , P., Chardin , J., & Lewis , J. 2019, , 622, A142

    work page 2019

  19. [19]

    2014, , 31, e040

    Dijkstra , M. 2014, , 31, e040

    work page 2014

  20. [20]

    A., Katz , N., Gardner , J

    Fardal , M. A., Katz , N., Gardner , J. P., et al. 2001, ApJ, 562, 605

    work page 2001

  21. [21]

    Faucher-Gigu\` e re, C. A. & Kere s , D. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 118

    work page 2011

  22. [22]

    Faucher-Giguère, C.-A. & Oh, S. P. 2023, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 61, 131

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    2014, Quantifying Uncertainties in Radiation Hydrodynamics Models (Ann Arbor, 1001:48109)

    Fidkowski , K. 2014, Quantifying Uncertainties in Radiation Hydrodynamics Models (Ann Arbor, 1001:48109)

    work page 2014

  24. [24]

    K., et al

    Fossati , M., Fumagalli , M., Lofthouse , E. K., et al. 2021, , 503, 3044

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    1987, , 70, 269

    Giovanardi , C., Natta , A., & Palla , F. 1987, , 70, 269

    work page 1987

  26. [26]

    & Palla , F

    Giovanardi , C. & Palla , F. 1989, , 77, 157

    work page 1989

  27. [27]

    & Hollenbach, D

    Gorti, U. & Hollenbach, D. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 573, 215

    work page 2002

  28. [28]

    & Oh , S

    Gronke , M. & Oh , S. P. 2018, , 480, L111

    work page 2018

  29. [29]

    & Schneider, E

    Gronke , M. & Schneider , E. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.16566

    work page arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    & Hyman , J

    Harten , A. & Hyman , J. M. 1983, J. Comput. Phys., 50, 235

    work page 1983

  31. [31]

    J., & Gronke , M

    Hidalgo-Pineda , F., Farber , R. J., & Gronke , M. 2024, , 527, 135

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    T., Hirashita , H., & Ferrara , A

    Iliev , I. T., Hirashita , H., & Ferrara , A. 2006, , 368, 1885

    work page 2006

  33. [33]

    T., Whalen , D., Mellema , G., et al

    Iliev , I. T., Whalen , D., Mellema , G., et al. 2009, , 400, 1283

    work page 2009

  34. [34]

    P., & Mandelker , N

    Kaul , I., Tan , B., Oh , S. P., & Mandelker , N. 2025, , 539, 3669

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    C., et al

    Langen , V., Cantalupo , S., Steidel , C. C., et al. 2023, , 519, 5099

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    2024 a , , 691, A280

    Ledos , N., Ntormousi , E., Takasao , S., & Nagamine , K. 2024 a , , 691, A280

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    2024 b , , 527, 11304

    Ledos , N., Takasao , S., & Nagamine , K. 2024 b , , 527, 11304

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    & Lazareff, B

    Lefloch, B. & Lazareff, B. 1994, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 289, 559, aDS Bibcode: 1994A&A...289..559L

    work page 1994

  39. [39]

    N., Cantalupo , S., Holden , B

    Leibler , C. N., Cantalupo , S., Holden , B. P., & Madau , P. 2018, , 480, 2094

    work page 2018

  40. [40]

    F., et al

    Lusso , E., Worseck , G., Hennawi , J. F., et al. 2015, , 449, 4204

    work page 2015

  41. [41]

    2021, , 502, 494

    Mackenzie , R., Pezzulli , G., Cantalupo , S., et al. 2021, , 502, 494

    work page 2021

  42. [42]

    2020 a , MNRAS, 494, 2641

    Mandelker , N., Nagai, D., Aung, H., et al. 2020 a , MNRAS, 494, 2641

    work page 2020

  43. [43]

    C., Nagai , D., et al

    Mandelker , N., van den Bosch , F. C., Nagai , D., et al. 2020 b , , 498, 2415

    work page 2020

  44. [44]

    Martin , P. G. 1988, , 66, 125

    work page 1988

  45. [45]

    P., Lyra, W., & Passy, J.-C

    McNally, C. P., Lyra, W., & Passy, J.-C. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 201, 18

    work page 2012

  46. [46]

    T., Cox , P., Bronfman , L., & Roelfsema , P

    Megeath , S. T., Cox , P., Bronfman , L., & Roelfsema , P. R. 1996, , 305, 296

    work page 1996

  47. [47]

    C., Canto, J., et al

    Mellema, G., Raga, A. C., Canto, J., et al. 1998, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 331, 335, aDS Bibcode: 1998A&A...331..335M

    work page 1998

  48. [48]

    C., et al

    Morrissey , P., Matuszewski , M., Martin , D. C., et al. 2018, , 864, 93

    work page 2018

  49. [49]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 905, 151

    Nakatani, R., Fialkov, A., & Yoshida, N. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 905, 151

    work page 2020

  50. [50]

    & Yoshida, N

    Nakatani, R. & Yoshida, N. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 883, 127

    work page 2019

  51. [51]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 2391

    Nelson , D., Sharma , P., Pillepich , A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 2391

    work page 2020

  52. [52]

    2019, , 626, A77

    Ocvirk , P., Aubert , D., Chardin , J., Deparis , N., & Lewis , J. 2019, , 626, A77

    work page 2019

  53. [53]

    2020, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 58, 617

    Ouchi, M., Ono, Y., & Shibuya, T. 2020, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 58, 617

    work page 2020

  54. [54]

    Pengelly , R. M. & Seaton , M. J. 1964, , 127, 165

    work page 1964

  55. [55]

    & Cantalupo , S

    Pezzulli , G. & Cantalupo , S. 2019, , 486, 1489

    work page 2019

  56. [56]

    & Waters , T

    Proga , D. & Waters , T. 2015, , 804, 137

    work page 2015

  57. [57]

    C., Steffen, W., & González, R

    Raga, A. C., Steffen, W., & González, R. F. 2005, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica, 41, 45, aDS Bibcode: 2005RMxAA..41...45R

    work page 2005

  58. [58]

    & Nelson , D

    Ramesh , R. & Nelson , D. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3320

    work page 2024

  59. [59]

    1998, Verification and Validation in Computational Science and Engineering (Hermosa Publishers)

    Roache, P. 1998, Verification and Validation in Computational Science and Engineering (Hermosa Publishers)

    work page 1998

  60. [60]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 436, 2188

    Rosdahl, J., Blaizot, J., Aubert, D., Stranex, T., & Teyssier, R. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 436, 2188

    work page 2013

  61. [61]

    & Teyssier , R

    Rosdahl , J. & Teyssier , R. 2015, , 449, 4380

    work page 2015

  62. [62]

    & Hensler, G

    Sander, B. & Hensler, G. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 5330

    work page 2021

  63. [63]

    2021, PhD thesis, ETH Zurich

    Sarpas , S. 2021, PhD thesis, ETH Zurich

    work page 2021

  64. [64]

    1978, Physical processes in the interstellar medium, Physics textbook (Weinheim: Wiley)

    Spitzer, L. 1978, Physical processes in the interstellar medium, Physics textbook (Weinheim: Wiley)

    work page 1978

  65. [65]

    1995, Analysis of flowfield from a rectangular nozzle with delta tabs (AIAA meeting paper)

    Steffen, C.-R., Reddy, D., & Zaman, K. 1995, Analysis of flowfield from a rectangular nozzle with delta tabs (AIAA meeting paper)

    work page 1995

  66. [66]

    1991, , 77, 59

    Sugitani , K., Fukui , Y., & Ogura , K. 1991, , 77, 59

    work page 1991

  67. [67]

    & Ogura , K

    Sugitani , K. & Ogura , K. 1994, , 92, 163

    work page 1994

  68. [68]

    1995, , 455, L39

    Sugitani , K., Tamura , M., & Ogura , K. 1995, , 455, L39

    work page 1995

  69. [69]

    2002, , 385, 337

    Teyssier , R. 2002, , 385, 337

    work page 2002

  70. [70]

    F., Spruce , M., & Speares , W

    Toro , E. F., Spruce , M., & Speares , W. 1994, Shock Waves, 4, 25

    work page 1994

  71. [71]

    1985, in Large-Scale Computations in Fluid Mechanics, ed

    van Leer , B. 1985, in Large-Scale Computations in Fluid Mechanics, ed. B. E. Engquist , S. Osher , & R. C. J. Somerville , 327--336

    work page 1985

  72. [72]

    A., Ferland , G

    Verner , D. A., Ferland , G. J., Korista , K. T., & Yakovlev , D. G. 1996, , 465, 487

    work page 1996

  73. [73]

    & Proga , D

    Waters , T. & Proga , D. 2019, , 876, L3

    work page 2019

  74. [74]

    Waterval , S., Cannarozzo , C., & Macci \`o , A. V. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 2726

    work page 2025

  75. [75]

    P., Aung , H., & Dekel , A

    Yao , Z., Mandelker , N., Oh , S. P., Aung , H., & Dekel , A. 2025, , 536, 3053

    work page 2025