Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Ion densities of cold clouds driven by galactic outflows

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cloud-crushing simulations reproduce multiphase QSO absorbers, but fail to produce enough O VI to match observations.

desk verdict The O VI deficit is real for their model, but equilibrium ionization is baked into both the dynamics and the post-processing, so the negative result is more fragile than the paper lets on. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09083 v2 pith:J3RJWGZV submitted 2025-01-15 astro-ph.GA

Lisiyuan Yang , Neal Katz , Evan Scannapieco , Marcus Brüggen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords circumgalacticmediumcloud-crushingsimulationsQSOabsorptionlinesmultiphasegasionizationequilibriumOVIthermalconductiongalacticoutflows
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

This paper asks whether a single cold cloud launched into the hot circumgalactic medium can explain the multiphase quasar absorption systems observed along many sightlines. Using cloud-crushing simulations with densities typical of a Milky Way-like CGM, the authors show that the disrupted cloud produces absorbers in which low-ionization species and middle-ionization species coexist at similar velocities and line widths, so a single outflow cloud can mimic a multiphase absorber. The same simulations, however, produce very little O VI and almost no O VI absorbers that align with low ions, so the model cannot account for the observed O VI systems. The outcome matters because it defines what a single-cloud outflow model can and cannot do, and it points to which physics must be added to match observations.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the cloud-crushing simulation: a uniform spherical cloud of mass $10^5\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$, density $10^{-26}\,\mathrm{g\,cm^{-3}}$, and temperature $10^4\,\mathrm{K}$ moving through a hot ambient flow in thermal pressure equilibrium, characterized by the Mach number $M_{\rm hot}$ and the initial density contrast $\chi_0$, with radiative cooling and either no, weak, or full thermal conduction. Ion densities are post-processed from the simulated gas using ionization-equilibrium tables under the HM12 photoionizing background, and mock absorption spectra are generated and decomposed into individual Gaussian absorbers. The mixing layers created by Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities, and the suppression of those instabilities by conduction, are what make different ions occupy different spatial regions while still appearing aligned in velocity space.

What would settle it

Take the same simulation snapshots and recompute ion densities under non-equilibrium ionization or with super-solar metallicity; if the O VI column densities and their alignment with low ions then reach the observed values, the paper's central negative conclusion would be overturned, whereas if they remain low, the conclusion that single CGM-like clouds cannot produce the observed O VI systems would be confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working in the framework of cloud-crushing simulations, the paper's central discovery is that a single cool cloud with CGM-like density, crushed by a hot supersonic flow, generates absorption systems with ions of widely different ionization potentials appearing in the same velocity component and with comparable line widths, yet the same simulations fail to produce significant O VI, and in particular fail to produce O VI aligned with low-ionization species. The authors present this as a positive and a negative result: the multiphase absorber phenomenon can emerge from the mixing layers and fragments of one cloud, but the observed coexistence of O VI with H I and low ions requires physics beyond their default assumptions of ionization equilibrium, an optically thin HM12 photoionizing background, and solar metallicity.

Load-bearing premise

The whole negative result about O VI rests on the post-processing assumption that the gas is in ionization equilibrium, optically thin, and solar-metallicity, with the HM12 photoionizing background; if any of these is wrong, O VI could be produced in the same simulated clouds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single disrupted cloud can yield the aligned low- and mid-ion absorbers seen in QSO spectra, so multiphase absorption does not by itself require multiple physically separate gas phases along the sightline.
  • The orientation of the sightline matters: head-on projections show much higher column densities than all other angles, so down-the-barrel and transverse QSO observations of the same cloud should differ systematically.
  • Thermal conduction changes the absorber population: non-conductive clouds fragment and produce broader, multi-component absorption, while conductive clouds stay coherent and produce narrower, higher-column-density low-ion components.
  • Photoionization from the HM12 background destroys H I and Mg II, boosts O II, Si III, and C III, and leaves O VI and Ne VIII essentially collisionally ionized, so the high-ion content of these absorbers is set by temperature rather than radiation.
  • The failure to produce O VI alongside low ions implies that observed O VI systems must come from larger or more massive clouds, super-solar metallicity, non-equilibrium ionization, magnetic-field effects, or sightlines through multiple clouds.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If non-equilibrium ionization or super-solar metallicity were included in the same snapshots, O VI production could plausibly rise enough to match observations; this is a direct, testable extension of the paper's own post-processing pipeline.
  • The paper's negative O VI result indirectly suggests that much of the observed O VI may trace the hot ambient CGM itself rather than the cool outflow clouds, with velocity alignment arising from shared outflow kinematics rather than co-location.
  • The absorber-matching method used here could be turned into an observational diagnostic: the predicted distribution of velocity offsets and line-width ratios between low ions and O VI differs noticeably between conductive and non-conductive models, providing a way to infer the thermal conduction state of the CGM.
  • Because the simulations use a uniform ambient medium, a next step would be to embed a crushed cloud in a realistic, density-stratified CGM; a lower ambient density encountered as the cloud travels outward would likely prolong cloud survival and change the ion ratios.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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. Yang et al. present a parameter study of cloud-crushing simulations in which cool, dense clouds are embedded in a hot supersonic flow, with parameters chosen to approximate clouds in the CGM of Milky Way-like galaxies. They vary the Mach number, initial density contrast, and thermal-conduction level; post-process the snapshots under the assumptions of ionization equilibrium, solar metallicity, an optically thin HM12 photoionizing background, and no self-shielding; generate mock absorption spectra; fit individual absorbers; and study the distributions of column densities, line widths, and ion-ion matching fractions. The main positive result is that a single cloud can produce multiphase absorption, with low- and mid-ionization ions sharing similar velocity structure. The main negative result, stated in the abstract and in Section 6, is that the simulations cannot reproduce O VI and its coexistence with low ions as seen in many observed QSO absorption systems.

Significance. If the negative result is robust, the paper provides a useful constraint: single cold clouds in a uniform hot flow, treated with equilibrium cooling and photoionization, cannot by themselves explain O VI-bearing multiphase absorbers. The methods are described in enough detail to be reproduced, the parameter space is explored systematically, and the statistical predictions (covering areas, line-width distributions, matching fractions) are falsifiable against QSO absorber samples. Section 6 is also commendably explicit in listing non-equilibrium ionization, metallicity, magnetic fields, and collections of clouds as possible ways to produce O VI. The significance is nevertheless bounded by the idealized single-cloud setup and by the equilibrium assumption, which enters both the hydrodynamics and the post-processing.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1, Eq. (3); §4.1; §5.5; §6] The cooling function in Eq. (3) is taken from Wiersma et al. (2009) equilibrium Cloudy tables, and the ion fractions in §4.1 are computed under the same ionization-equilibrium assumption. Section 5.5 shows that O VI and Ne VIII are almost entirely collisionally ionized, so the O VI column density is set by the mass of gas near the O VI peak temperature in the mixing layer. If non-equilibrium cooling changes the thermal structure of that layer, as found in other mixing-layer studies, the paper's central negative result—the lack of O VI and of O VI–low-ion coexistence—could be an artifact of applying the equilibrium assumption at both stages. The paper lists non-equilibrium effects as a possible explanation in Section 6, but because the dynamics already assume equilibrium cooling, this is not merely a post-processing caveat. I would like to see a dedicated non-equilibrium simulation, or at least a quantitative estimate of the expected change in O VI column densities, before the negative conclusion is stated as robust.
  2. [§6 and abstract] The central negative claim is not tied to a specific observed benchmark. The paper does not state the observed O VI column densities, matching fractions, or line-width thresholds that the simulations fail to reproduce; Figure 14 shows internal matching fractions, but no observed values are overplotted. Without such a benchmark, 'unable to explain' is difficult to evaluate or falsify. Please add a quantitative comparison with a defined observational sample (e.g., column-density thresholds and a matching tolerance) or explicitly limit the claim to 'cannot reproduce the O VI column densities and coexistence fractions found in [specific sample].'
  3. [§4.1, §4.2, §6] The ion fractions are computed for solar metallicity, an optically thin HM12 background, and no self-shielding, and these choices are not varied. Section 4.2's rescaling of column densities is a uniform multiplicative shift and therefore cannot alter relative ion ratios; it cannot mimic super-solar metallicity, a different UV background, or self-shielding. Since Section 6 itself identifies super-solar metallicity and self-shielding as possible ways to produce more O VI, the abstract's unqualified statement that the simulations are 'unable to explain high ions like O VI' overstates the scope of the study. Either include a small variation of metallicity/radiation field (or self-shielding) or add a qualifier that the conclusion applies to the specific assumptions used.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] Table 2 lists d25 values up to ~200 kpc for a simulation box of only 8.7 kpc; this is presumably the distance the ambient wind has swept past the cloud, not the displacement of the cloud within the box. Please state this explicitly to avoid confusion.
  2. [Author affiliations] The affiliation line contains 'Universist¨ at' and several author names with umlauts rendered via LaTeX escapes; these should be corrected in the final typeset version.
  3. [§5.5] The statement that H I and Mg II are 'destroyed by photoionization' is a shorthand; more precisely, photoionization lowers their neutral or singly-ionized fractions. Please rephrase for clarity.
  4. [Figure 14] The color bar in Figure 14 is labeled 'P', but the text defines the quantity as a matching probability. Use 'matched fraction' or 'P_match' to avoid ambiguity.
  5. [§4.2] The velocity tolerance Δv = 10 km/s used for ion matching is first introduced in §5.6; it would be clearer to define it in §4.2 where the absorber-fitting method is described.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the O VI deficit is a conditional simulation result, and the equilibrium, optically thin, solar-metallicity post-processing is a stated modeling assumption rather than a fitted input or self-referential derivation.

full rationale

The paper's simulated ion distributions and mock absorption spectra are produced by evolving a cold cloud with equations (1)-(3), adopting a cooling function from Wiersma et al. (2009) Cloudy tables, and then post-processing each cell with Cloudy/Trident ion fractions 'under the assumption of ionization equilibrium' with the HM12 background and solar metallicity (Section 4.1). These are physical assumptions with a stated scope, not quantities fitted to the O VI observations that the paper says it cannot reproduce; the central negative result is therefore conditional rather than circular. The paper explicitly flags the load-bearing character of the assumption in Section 6: 'we have assumed ionization equilibrium throughout our work, while nonequilibrium effects could increase the production of O vi.' That is a stated limitation, not a reduction of the conclusion to its own input. The self-citations to Scannapieco & Bruggen (2015) and Bruggen & Scannapieco (2016) supply the hydrodynamical setup and comparison runs ('the equations governing the evolution of the system are identical to those given in Bruggen & Scannapieco 2016'); those are standard Euler/cooling equations, and no uniqueness claim or fitted parameter is imported from the cited prior work. The Section 4.2 scaling ('we can scale our clouds to match these observations by multiplying the column densities by constant factors') is an interpretive option for comparing with observed systems, not a fitted input used to produce the predictions. No step equates a prediction with a fitted quantity by construction, and the central multiphase and O VI results are independent numerical outcomes from the stated simulation model.

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

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The listed free parameters are inputs chosen by hand or analysis thresholds; none are fitted to observed quasar absorption data. The main physical risk is that the O VI conclusion depends on the equilibrium, optically thin, solar metallicity, and no-magnetic-field assumptions listed as axioms.

free parameters (5)
  • Initial cloud density rho_c = 1e-26 g/cm^3
    Hand-chosen from a simplified CGM pressure model in Appendix A to represent a cloud at about 0.5 r_vir in a Milky-Way-like halo. The lower density lengthens mixing-layer cooling times and is central to the O VI deficit.
  • Weak conduction suppression factor eta = 0.1
    Arbitrary suppression of Spitzer conduction in Equation 5 meant to mimic magnetic suppression. Conduction level is one of the strongest drivers of the ion distribution differences in the paper.
  • Absorber matching velocity tolerance Delta v = 10 km/s
    Hand-chosen threshold in Section 5.6 for defining whether two ion absorbers are coincident. The matched-fraction statistics used to support the multiphase coexistence claim depend on this value.
  • Optical-depth normalization peak = k = 4/tau_peak
    In Section 4.2, spectra are normalized to a peak optical depth of 4 before component fitting. This makes the absorber list a statement about relative line structure rather than directly observed optical depths.
  • Column-density scaling factor for observational comparison = not specified
    Section 4.2 allows arbitrary multiplication of absorber column densities when comparing with observations. No value is fit, but this makes the comparison qualitative and means the histograms are not directly predictive of observed absolute column densities.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Ionization equilibrium and optically thin HM12 photoionizing background in post-processing
    Section 4.1: ion fractions are computed from Cloudy equilibrium tables with no time-dependent ionization and no self-shielding. This underpins all ion density maps and the O VI deficit.
  • domain assumption Solar metallicity in the cooling tables and ion fraction calculations
    Sections 2.1 and 4.1: solar abundances from Wiersma et al. 2009 are adopted. Super-solar metallicity is listed by the authors as a possible way to boost O VI, so this assumption is load-bearing.
  • domain assumption No magnetic fields and only isotropic thermal conduction
    Section 2.1: magnetic fields are not modeled directly. The authors cite magnetic fields and anisotropic conduction as possible explanations for the missing O VI, which means this assumption could change the central result.
  • domain assumption Uniform cool cloud in pressure equilibrium with a uniform hot flow
    Section 2.1 and Appendix A: the ambient medium is a steady supersonic flow with no density gradient or gravity. The paper notes that a decreasing CGM density toward larger radii may increase cloud lifetimes and travel distances.
  • domain assumption Cloud region defined by tracer fraction C_cloud >= 0.5
    Section 2.2, Equation 7: cells with less than half cloud-origin material are excluded. Mixed interface gas can host high ions, so this selection may affect the O VI statistics.
  • domain assumption Hydrodynamics with radiative cooling but without photoheating in the simulation
    Sections 2.1 and 4.2: gas temperatures evolve without direct photoheating. The paper tests a temperature floor of 3e4 K and finds no effect, but photoheating is otherwise absent from the evolved temperatures.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ion densities of cold clouds driven by galactic outflows." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J3RJWGZV

@misc{pith2026250109083,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ion densities of cold clouds driven by galactic outflows},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J3RJWGZV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09083}
}
read the original abstract

Observations of the circumgalactic medium (CGM) often display coincident absorption from species with widely varying ionization states, providing direct evidence for complex, multiphase interactions. Motivated by these measurements, we perform a series of cloud-crushing simulations that model cold clouds traveling through the hot CGM. We analyze the ion distributions of these clouds, generate mock absorption spectra, and study their implications on quasar (QSO) absorption observations. Our results show interesting multiphase features, in which ions with significantly different ionization potentials exist in the same absorber and share similar spectral features. However, our simulations are unable to explain high ions like O \textsc{vi} and their coexistence with lower ions that appear in many observed QSO absorption systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09083 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Mass loss curves of the clouds in our simulations. Here, names such as “T0.3 v1000 chi300” refers to collections of 3 (sometimes 2) simulations with different levels of thermal conduction, which share the same ambient temperatures and velocities. The colours are indicative of the conduction levels. As a comparison, two simulations from Scannapieco & Br¨uggen (2015) and Br¨uggen & Scannapieco (2016) (dubbed “hcol”) a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The phase space distributions of the cloud regions in several simulations (as labelled) at t50. The colour of each bin indicates the total mass of grid cells in the cloud region that have densities and temperatures within the bin. The physical times that these clouds have evolved are also marked in the figure. tor of η = 0.1 (Equation 5). However, this assumption is clearly not true for any of the simulations shown … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Edge-on projections of the distributions of several ions in the cloud regions of the T0.3 v1700 chi300 cloud crushing simulations with 3 different conduction levels (none, weak and full) at t50 and z = 0.540. The normalized absorption spectrum is fed into the absorption spectrum fit module of Trident, which identi￾fies individual absorption features, fits them with Gaussian profiles, and gives a list of normalized c… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Edge-on projections of the distributions of several ions in the T0.3 v1000 chi300 cond 0.1, T0.3 v1700 chi300 cond 0.1 and T0.3 v3000 chi300 cond 0.1 at t50 and z = 0.540. perature floor of Tf = 3×104 K on all grid cells with densities ρ < ρc/3 = 3.3 × 10−27 g/cm3 . We…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Absorption spectra of several ions from a line of sight through the T0.3 v1700 chi300 simulation. This specific line of sight is at an angle of 60◦ from the direction of the ambient velocity and goes through the rear part of the cloud at a time when ≈ 50% of the cloud …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Absorption spectra from a line of sight through the T0.3 v1700 chi300 cond 0.1 simulation at an angle of 60◦ from the direction of the ambient velocity at a time when ≈ 50% of the cloud mass remains. The annotations are the same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p0…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A comparison of the column density (left column) and line width (right column) distributions of the absorbers in cloud crushing simulations with χ = 300, z = 0.540 at t50. The lines of sight are at an angle of 60◦ from the direction of the ambient flow. The line styles…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The column density (left column) and line width (right column) distributions of the absorbers in the T0.3 v1700 chi300 simulations with 3 different levels of conduction: no conduction (blue), weak conduction (green) and full conduction (red). The redshift of the radiat…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A comparison of the column density (left column) and line width (right column) distributions of the absorbers in several cloud crushing simulations with M ≈ 3.5, z = 0.540 but with different density contrasts at t50. The lines of sight are at an angle of 60◦ from the d…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The column density (left column) and line width (right column) distributions of the absorbers in T0.1 v150 chi100 and T0.1 v150 chi100 cond 0.1. As a comparison, the clouds with the second lowest Mach number and density contrast, T0.3 v1000 chi300 and T0.3 v1000 chi30…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Time evolution of the column density (left column) and line width (right column) distributions of the absorbers in T0.3 v1700 chi300 and T0.3 v1700 chi300 cond. The redshift and projection angle are the same as those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The column density and line width distributions of absorbers in the T0.3 v1700 chi300 and T0.3 v1700 chi300 cond 0.1 simulations at z=0.540 with 4 different projection angles. Here θ = 0◦ corresponds to the head-on sightline, while θ = 90◦ means edge-on. To avoid over…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The column density (left column) and line width (right column) distributions of the absorbers in T0.3 v1700 chi300 and T0.3 v1700 chi300 cond 0.1, photoionized by the HM12 UV background at different redshifts, as well as without photoionization (“zero background”). Th…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The matching probabilities of ions in 3 of our non-conductive cloud-crushing simulations (top row) and their weakly conductive counterparts (bottom row) at t50, z = 0.540 and a projection angle of θ = 60◦ from the direction of the ambient flow. From left to right, the…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Co-distributions of the column densities and line widths of matching absorbers between H i and other ions in the T0.3 v1700 chi300 (blue dots) and T0.3 v1700 chi300 cond 0.1 (red dots) simulations at t50, z = 0.540 and a projection angle of θ = 60◦. As a reference, tw…

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. Invisible Accretion: Ionized Envelopes of TNG50 HVCs can Sustain Star Formation

    astro-ph.GA 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In TNG50 Milky Way-like galaxies, ionized envelopes around high-velocity clouds carry about six times more mass than the neutral clouds and their infall rate is comparable to the galactic star formation rate.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    E., Gaspari M., White S

    Anderson M. E., Gaspari M., White S. D. M., Wang W., Dai X., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv437 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.3806A 449, 3806

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv437 2015

  2. [2]

    Appleby S., Dav \' e R., Sorini D., Storey-Fisher K., Smith B., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab2310 , 507, 2383

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2310 2021

  3. [3]

    Appleby S., Davé R., Sorini D., Cui W., Christiansen J., 2022, The Physical Nature of Circumgalactic Medium Absorbers in Simba, @doi 10.48550/ARXIV.2207.04068 , https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.04068

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2207.04068 2022

  4. [4]

    E., Brüggen M., Federrath C., Wagner A

    Banda-Barrag \' a n W. E., Brüggen M., Federrath C., Wagner A. Y., Scannapieco E., Cottle J., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa2904 , 499, 2173

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2904 2020

  5. [5]

    E., Brüggen M., Heesen V., Scannapieco E., Cottle J., Federrath C., Wagner A

    Banda-Barrag \' a n W. E., Brüggen M., Heesen V., Scannapieco E., Cottle J., Federrath C., Wagner A. Y., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab1884 , 506, 5658

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1884 2021

  6. [6]

    E., Zertuche F

    Banda-Barragán W. E., Zertuche F. J., Federrath C., García Del Valle J., Brüggen M., Wagner A. Y., 2019, Mon Not R Astron Soc, 486, 4526

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Baur J., Palanque-Delabrouille N., Yèche C., Magneville C., Viel M., 2016, @doi [Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics] 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/08/012 , 2016, 012

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/08/012 2016

  8. [8]

    Bechtold J., 2001, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0112521 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001astro.ph.12521B pp astro--ph/0112521

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0112521 2001

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    Birkinshaw M., 1999, Physics Reports, 310, 97

    1999

  2. [10]

    X., Tumlinson J., Werk J

    Bordoloi R., Prochaska J. X., Tumlinson J., Werk J. K., Tripp T. M., Burchett J. N., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad8ac , 864, 132

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    Brüggen M., Scannapieco E., 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 822, 31

    2016

  4. [12]

    Brüggen M., Scannapieco E., Grete P., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/acd63e , 951, 113

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    E., Brüggen M., Brighenti F., Scannapieco E., 2024, @doi [Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449461 , 689, A127

    Casavecchia B., Banda-Barragán W. E., Brüggen M., Brighenti F., Scannapieco E., 2024, @doi [Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449461 , 689, A127

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    Chatzikos M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.22201/ia.01851101p.2023.59.02.12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023RMxAA..59..327C 59, 327

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    L., Gauthier J.-R., Helsby J

    Chen H.-W., Wild V., Tinker J. L., Gauthier J.-R., Helsby J. E., Shectman S. A., Thompson I. B., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/2041-8205/724/2/l176 , 724, L176

    2010 doi

  8. [16]

    A., Clegg A

    Chevalier R. A., Clegg A. W., 1985, Nature, 317, 44

    1985

  9. [17]

    A., Leitherer C., Chen Y., Wofford A., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw178 , 457, 3133

    Chisholm J., Tremonti C. A., Leitherer C., Chen Y., Wofford A., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw178 , 457, 3133

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    R., Bayliss M., 2018, Mon Not R Astron Soc, 474, 1688

    Chisholm J., Bordoloi R., Rigby J. R., Bayliss M., 2018, Mon Not R Astron Soc, 474, 1688

    2018

  11. [19]

    W., Nielsen N

    Churchill C. W., Nielsen N. M., Kacprzak G. G., Trujillo-Gomez S., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/2041-8205/763/2/l42 , 763, L42

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    N., Scannapieco E., Br \"u ggen M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad55c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...864...96C 864, 96

    Cottle J. N., Scannapieco E., Br \"u ggen M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad55c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...864...96C 864, 96

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    Cottle J., Scannapieco E., Brüggen M., Banda-Barrag \' a n W., Federrath C., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab76d1 , 892, 59

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    W., Shull J

    Danforth C. W., Shull J. M., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/587127 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...679..194D 679, 194

    2008 doi

  15. [23]

    W., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/111 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...817..111D 817, 111

    Danforth C. W., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/111 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...817..111D 817, 111

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    D., Katz N., Kollmeier J

    Davé R., Oppenheimer B. D., Katz N., Kollmeier J. A., Weinberg D. H., 2010, @doi [Mon Not R Astron Soc] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17279.x , 408, 2051

    2010

  17. [25]

    Di Matteo T., Springel V., Hernquist L., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature03335 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Natur.433..604D 433, 604

    2005 doi

  18. [26]

    C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ARA&A..50..455F 50, 455

    Fabian A. C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ARA&A..50..455F 50, 455

    2012 doi

  19. [27]

    S., Sternberg A., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4ca6 , 928, 37

    Faerman Y., Pandya V., Somerville R. S., Sternberg A., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4ca6 , 928, 37

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    Ferland G., Korista K., Verner D., Ferguson J., Kingdon J., Verner E., 1998, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/316190 , 110, 761

    1998 doi

  21. [29]

    B., Oppenheimer B

    Ford A. B., Oppenheimer B. D., Dav \'e R., Katz N., Kollmeier J. A., Weinberg D. H., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt393 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.432...89F 432, 89

    2013 doi

  22. [30]

    B., Dav \'e R., Oppenheimer B

    Ford A. B., Dav \'e R., Oppenheimer B. D., Katz N., Kollmeier J. A., Thompson R., Weinberg D. H., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1418 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.1260F 444, 1260

    2014 doi

  23. [31]

    B., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw595 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459.1745F 459, 1745

    Ford A. B., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw595 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459.1745F 459, 1745

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    Fryxell B., et al., 2000, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 131, 273

    2000

  25. [33]

    Haardt F., Madau P., 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 746, 125

    2012

  26. [34]

    J., Tripp T

    Haislmaier K. J., Tripp T. M., Katz N., Prochaska J. X., Burchett J. N., O'Meara J. M., Werk J. K., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa3544 , 502, 4993

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    M., Armus L., Miley G

    Heckman T. M., Armus L., Miley G. K., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191522 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJS...74..833H 74, 833

    1990 doi

  28. [36]

    H., Miralda-Escud \'e J., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309899 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...457L..51H 457, L51

    Hernquist L., Katz N., Weinberg D. H., Miralda-Escud \'e J., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309899 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...457L..51H 457, L51

    1996 doi

  29. [37]

    H., Peeples M

    Huang S., Katz N., Scannapieco E., Cottle J., Davé R., Weinberg D. H., Peeples M. S., Brüggen M., 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, pp 2586--2604

    2020

  30. [38]

    H., 2021, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210601511H p

    Huang S., Katz N., Cottle J., Scannapieco E., Dav \'e R., Weinberg D. H., 2021, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210601511H p. arXiv:2106.01511

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    B., Bryan G

    Hummels C. B., Bryan G. L., Smith B. D., Turk M. J., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sts702 , 430, 1548

    2013 doi

  32. [40]

    B., Smith B

    Hummels C. B., Smith B. D., Silvia D. W., 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 847, 59

    2017

  33. [41]

    D., Chen H.-W., Mulchaey J

    Johnson S. D., Chen H.-W., Mulchaey J. S., Schaye J., Straka L. A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9370 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...850L..10J 850, L10

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    Kauffmann G., Nelson D., Borthakur S., Heckman T., Hernquist L., Marinacci F., Pakmor R., Pillepich A., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz1029 , 486, 4686

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    King A., Pounds K., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122316 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ARA&A..53..115K 53, 115

    2015 doi

  36. [44]

    Kirkman D., Tytler D., Lubin D., Charlton J., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11502.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.376.1227K 376, 1227

    2007

  37. [45]

    I., McKee C

    Klein R. I., McKee C. F., Colella P., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173554 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...420..213K 420, 213

    1994 doi

  38. [46]

    H., Barnes D., Vogelsberger M., Mo H

    Lim S. H., Barnes D., Vogelsberger M., Mo H. J., Nelson D., Pillepich A., Dolag K., Marinacci F., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab1172 , 504, 5131

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    Lochhaas C., et al., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/acbb06 , 948, 43

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    P., O'Leary R., Madigan A.-M., 2018, Mon Not R Astron Soc, 473, 5407

    McCourt M., Oh S. P., O'Leary R., Madigan A.-M., 2018, Mon Not R Astron Soc, 473, 5407

    2018

  41. [49]

    D., Tripp T

    Meiring J. D., Tripp T. M., Werk J. K., Howk J. C., Jenkins E. B., Prochaska J. X., Lehner N., Sembach K. R., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637x/767/1/49 , 767, 49

    2013 doi

  42. [50]

    Cambridge University Press

    Mo H., Van den Bosch F., White S., 2010, Galaxy formation and evolution. Cambridge University Press

    2010

  43. [51]

    Oort J., 1981, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 94, P. 359, 1981, 94, 359

    1981

  44. [52]

    D., Davé R., 2006, Mon Not R Astron Soc, 373, 1265

    Oppenheimer B. D., Davé R., 2006, Mon Not R Astron Soc, 373, 1265

    2006

  45. [53]

    D., Schaye J., Crain R

    Oppenheimer B. D., Schaye J., Crain R. A., Werk J. K., Richings A. J., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty2281 , 481, 835

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    Orlando S., Peres G., Reale F., Bocchino F., Rosner R., Plewa T., Siegel A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20052896 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...444..505O 444, 505

    2005 doi

  47. [55]

    E., Peek J

    Putman M. E., Peek J. E. G., Joung M. R., 2012, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, pp 491--529

    2012

  48. [56]

    Reed D., Gardner J., Quinn T., Stadel J., Fardal M., Lake G., Governato F., 2003, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07113.x , 346, 565

    2003

  49. [57]

    C., Steidel C

    Rudie G. C., Steidel C. C., Pettini M., Trainor R. F., Strom A. L., Hummels C. B., Reddy N. A., Shapley A. E., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4255 , 885, 61

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    Scannapieco E., Brüggen M., 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 805, 158

    2015

  51. [59]

    P., 2004, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/386542 , 608, 62

    Scannapieco E., Oh S. P., 2004, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/386542 , 608, 62

    2004 doi

  52. [60]

    E., Robertson B

    Schneider E. E., Robertson B. E., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/144 , 834, 144

    2017 doi

  53. [61]

    Seljak U., Slosar A., McDonald P., 2006, @doi [Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics] 10.1088/1475-7516/2006/10/014 , 2006, 014

    2006 doi

  54. [62]

    T., Keeney B

    Stocke J. T., Keeney B. A., Danforth C. W., Shull J. M., Froning C. S., Green J. C., Penton S. V., Savage B. D., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/763/2/148 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...763..148S 763, 148

    2013 doi

  55. [63]

    Strawn C., Roca-Fàbrega S., Primack J., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac3567 , 519, 1

    2022 doi

  56. [64]

    A., et al., 2004, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/423264 , 613, 898

    Tremonti C. A., et al., 2004, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/423264 , 613, 898

    2004 doi

  57. [65]

    M., Sembach K

    Tripp T. M., Sembach K. R., Bowen D. V., Savage B. D., Jenkins E. B., Lehner N., Richter P., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/587486 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJS..177...39T 177, 39

    2008 doi

  58. [66]

    M., et al., 2011, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1209850 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Sci...334..952T 334, 952

    Tripp T. M., et al., 2011, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1209850 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Sci...334..952T 334, 952

    2011 doi

  59. [67]

    Tumlinson J., et al., 2011, Science, pp 948--952

    2011

  60. [68]

    S., Werk J

    Tumlinson J., Peeples M. S., Werk J. K., 2017, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, pp 389--432

    2017

  61. [69]

    J., Smith B

    Turk M. J., Smith B. D., Oishi J. S., Skory S., Skillman S. W., Abel T., Norman M. L., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..192....9T 192, 9

    2011 doi

  62. [70]

    Wang L., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2481 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.439..611W 439, 611

    2014 doi

  63. [71]

    H., 2003, in AIP Conference Proceedings

    Weinberg D. H., 2003, in AIP Conference Proceedings. AIP , @doi 10.1063/1.1581786

    2003 doi

  64. [72]

    K., et al., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637x/792/1/8 , 792, 8

    Werk J. K., et al., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637x/792/1/8 , 792, 8

    2014 doi

  65. [73]

    Wiersma R. P. C., Schaye J., Smith B. D., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14191.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.393...99W 393, 99

    2009

  66. [74]

    M., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176475 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...454..172X 454, 172

    Xu J., Stone J. M., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176475 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...454..172X 454, 172

    1995 doi

  67. [75]

    S., et al., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab1661 , 506, 877

    Zahedy F. S., et al., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab1661 , 506, 877

    2021 doi

  68. [76]

    M., Schneider E

    de la Cruz L. M., Schneider E. E., Ostriker E. C., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac04ac , 919, 112

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.