Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

Woven by the Whirls: The growth and entrainment of cold clouds in turbulent hot winds

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A cold cloud in a turbulent hot wind survives when its mixed gas cools faster than a turbulence-shortened destruction time; when cooling is fast, turbulence boosts cloud growth by up to an order of magnitude.

desk verdict First cloud-crushing + driven turbulence study with a plausible but calibration-dependent survival criterion; the qualitative physics is solid, the quantitative boundary needs more work. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.03552 v1 pith:KYPN5H7N submitted 2025-10-03 astro-ph.GA

Ritali Ghosh , Max Gronke , Prateek Sharma , Alankar Dutta This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords turbulentwindscoldcloudscloudcrushingmultiphasegasgalacticradiativecoolingentrainmentmixinglayer
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 the standard criterion for cold cloud survival in a hot wind—cooling of mixed gas must beat the cloud-destruction time—still holds when the wind is turbulent. Through 3D hydrodynamic simulations with external turbulent forcing at Mach numbers 0.1–0.7, it shows that the classic criterion survives in a modified form: clouds survive when t_cool,mix is smaller than a destruction time that folds the turbulent velocity into the wind speed in quadrature, with a fitted fudge factor of about 0.6. In the fast-cooling regime, turbulence stretches the cold gas, increases the mixing surface area by about an order of magnitude, and speeds up cloud growth and entrainment by roughly tenfold. This matters because galactic and circumgalactic winds are turbulent in reality, so laminar cloud-crushing predictions may miss a large fraction of cold-gas mass and momentum transfer.

What carries the argument

The key object is the modified destruction time t_tilde_cc = t_cc / sqrt(1 + (M_turb/(f_mix M_wind))^2) (Eq. 5), which treats the wind and turbulent velocities as independent mixing agents combined in quadrature, with a fudge factor f_mix ≈ 0.6 that absorbs uncertainty in the exact scale L_cold at which turbulence acts on the cloud. The underlying mechanism is stretching-enhanced diffusion: turbulence stretches the cloud, increasing the area of the radiative mixing layer through which warm gas cools and condenses onto the cold phase. The mass growth rate then scales as M_turb^(3/2), while the derived mixing velocity v_mix stays close to its laminar value.

What would settle it

A targeted simulation set that varies the ratio L_eddy/R_cl (e.g., from 10 to 200) while holding M_turb fixed would settle the issue: if the growth/destruction boundary in the t_cool,mix/t_cc–M_turb plane shifts, the criterion's universality fails and f_mix must depend on the forcing scale. Observationally, measuring the velocity gradient along cold-gas tails in a starburst wind and comparing to Eq. (7) would also test the entrainment prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the survival of a cold cloud in a hot wind remains governed by the ratio of the mixed-gas cooling time to a modified cloud-crushing time: t_cool,mix / t_tilde_cc < 1, with t_tilde_cc = t_cc / sqrt(1 + (M_turb/(f_mix M_wind))^2) and f_mix ≈ 0.6. The paper reports that this criterion separates growing from destroyed clouds across simulations spanning t_cool,mix/t_cc from 10^-3 to 10 and subsonic turbulent Mach numbers 0.1–0.7. In the fast-cooling regime, turbulence enhances cold mass growth by up to an order of magnitude, because the mixing surface area grows rather than the mixing velocity (v_mix remains ≈ 0.2 c_s,cl). Consequently, clouds are entrained in roughly 0.

Load-bearing premise

The criterion assumes that the turbulent velocity that destroys the cloud is well captured by the rms velocity at the forcing scale, u'(L_cold) ≈ v_rms, even though the paper only constrains L_cold to lie between the cloud radius and the forcing scale; if the cloud-scale turbulent velocity is substantially smaller, the modified destruction time is overestimated and the fudge factor f_mix absorbs a geometry that may not be universal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The survival threshold translates to a minimum cloud size for survival, R_cl ≳ 3.4 pc (chi/100) ... sqrt(1 + (M_turb/M_wind)^2), which is larger than the resolution of many cosmological simulations, so small surviving clouds are likely missing in such runs.
  • In fast-cooling regimes, mass transfer from hot to cold gas is up to an order of magnitude higher in turbulent winds, implying large-scale simulations and subgrid models that neglect this underestimate cold gas loading and metal transport.
  • Entrainment distances shrink roughly as (1 + M_turb)^(-3), predicting velocity gradients along cloud tails of order km/s per pc, which is observable.
  • Turbulence changes absorption signatures: MgII 2796 profiles become broader (EW ≈ 550 mÅ, versus 176 mÅ in laminar winds) with multiple kinematic components, so line profiles carry information about wind turbulence.
  • Long filamentary tails—a common diagnostic of cloud disruption—are suppressed; in turbulent winds, tails are shorter, clumpier, and spread orthogonally.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the modified criterion holds, then the fraction of cold gas that survives in real galactic winds may be much higher than laminar models suggest whenever turbulence is subsonic but non-negligible; this would boost the cold-gas mass loading of outflows and the rate of metal recycling onto the disk.
  • The fitted f_mix absorbs uncertainty in the turbulent scale L_cold; a simulation suite that varies the forcing scale relative to the cloud radius could determine whether f_mix is universal or an artifact of the fixed L_eddy/R_cl = 40 used here. If f_mix depends on L_cold/L_eddy, then the criterion is not fully predictive without specifying the outer scale of turbulence.
  • The observed morphology of high-velocity clouds—droplet-like, without long 21-cm tails—could be direct evidence that the Galactic CGM is turbulent at the level modeled here; a survey correlating HVC tail lengths with local turbulence estimates would test the mechanism.
  • The scaling v_grad ≈ t_drag^(-1) (1 + M_turb)^3 suggests that spatially resolved velocity gradients in cool gas, e.g., in M82 or ram-pressure-stripped galaxies, could be used to infer the hot-phase turbulent Mach number without needing direct X-ray measurements.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents 3D hydrodynamic simulations of the classical radiative cloud-crushing problem augmented by continuously driven, subsonic turbulence in the hot wind. The parameter survey covers turbulent Mach numbers M_turb = 0.1–0.7, wind Mach numbers M_wind = 0.5–1.5, and mixing-to-crushing time ratios t_cool,mix/t_cc = 10^-3–10, for a cloud density contrast χ = 100. The central claim is a modified survival criterion: clouds survive when t_cool,mix/t̃_cc < 1, where t̃_cc = t_cc / sqrt(1 + (M_turb/(f_mix M_wind))^2) with a fitted fudge factor f_mix ≈ 0.6 (Eq. 5, Fig. 3). The paper further reports that in the fast-cooling regime turbulence enhances cold-mass growth by up to an order of magnitude through increased surface area, while the entrainment time drops from 2–3 t_drag to ~0.2 t_drag. Qualitative trends, morphology changes, and observational implications for MgII absorption are also discussed.

Significance. If the modified survival criterion holds, the paper provides a useful extension of the classic Gronke & Oh criterion to turbulent winds, with direct implications for cloud survival in galactic outflows, subgrid models, and absorption-line diagnostics. The work combines two previously separate idealized setups—cloud crushing and driven turbulence—and the parameter survey is systematic. Strengths include the public code, the explicit discussion of the fudge factor, and the qualitative regime separation: turbulence accelerates destruction when cooling is weak and accelerates growth when cooling is fast. However, the headline quantitative claim, Eq. (5), is an empirical fit rather than an independent prediction, and the paper itself identifies the unresolved cloud-scale turbulent velocity as a source of uncertainty absorbed into f_mix. The qualitative conclusions are likely robust, but the quantitative boundary needs additional support before being called universal.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. (5)] The derivation of t̃_cc uses v_rms as the turbulent velocity that destroys the cloud. The paper correctly notes below Eq. (5) that the relevant velocity is u'(L_cold) ≈ v_turb (L_cold/L_eddy)^{1/3}, with only r_cl < L_cold < L_eddy constrained, and then justifies u' ≈ v_rms by the fact that cold gas stretches to tens of r_cl. This is load-bearing: near the destruction boundary the cloud may not have stretched to tens of r_cl, so u' could be 0.4–0.6 v_turb for L_eddy = 40 r_cl, a factor comparable to f_mix ≈ 0.6. Since f_mix is fitted to the same simulations, the fitted value absorbs the unknown L_cold/L_eddy ratio. The criterion is therefore not shown to be universal beyond the simulated L_eddy = 40 r_cl. Please test this by varying the forcing scale, by directly measuring L_cold, or by explicitly reframing Eq. (5) as an empirical fit valid for this L_eddy.
  2. [Fig. 3, Table 1] The boundary in Fig. 3 is obtained by fitting f_mix ≈ 0.6 to the same set of survival/destruction markers that the curve then separates. The paper acknowledges that f_mix absorbs the destruction-time convention as well as the u' uncertainty. This is an honest calibration, but it means the curve is not an independent prediction. The claim of a 'universal survival criterion' is stronger than the evidence supports. An out-of-sample test—for example, withholding part of the parameter space, or simulating a different density contrast or wind geometry—would substantially strengthen the claim. As written, the central quantitative result is a descriptive fit.
  3. [§2.2] The turbulent forcing is applied in a density-weighted manner with F ∝ 1/ρ for cells with T < 3 T_cl, so the cold cloud is not directly accelerated by the turbulent forcing. This is an ad hoc modeling choice that prevents unphysical acceleration of the dense phase, but it also means the study does not include the full coupling of turbulence to the cold gas. Since the paper's conclusions about entrainment and momentum transfer depend on the balance between shear and turbulent mixing, the sensitivity of the results to this forcing ansatz should be discussed or tested. At minimum, please clarify whether a fully coupled forcing would be expected to strengthen or weaken the reported entrainment times.
  4. [§4.5, Fig. 5] The paper states that the estimated mixing area A_turb is 'not converged' in these simulations, while the mass growth rate is claimed to be converged because only the outer mixing scale must be resolved. The order-of-magnitude mass-growth enhancement is attributed to the area increase, so the non-convergence of A_turb is a relevant caveat for the quantitative interpretation of Figs. 4 and 5. Please clarify how sensitive the reported mass-growth enhancement and the derived v_mix are to resolution, or explicitly state that the area-based interpretation is approximate and that v_mix may be an upper limit, as noted in the text.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'f_mix ∼ 0.6 is a fudge factor' is unusually candid but also signals that the criterion is calibrated. Consider using 'calibration factor' or 'empirical factor' in the abstract and conclusions.
  2. [§2.1, Table 1] The table uses symbols ✓, ✗, and ? without a legend in the caption; this makes the table hard to read. Please add a legend or spell out 'growth', 'destruction', and 'ambiguous'.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] There is a grammatical error: 'similar to those in the left panel' appears twice and the second occurrence is redundant. Also, the colorbar labels are inconsistent with the text (e.g., 'turb' vs 'M_turb').
  4. [§4.4, Eq. (7)] The scaling δv/δd ∼ t_drag^{-1}(1+M_turb)^3 is dimensionally consistent, but the numerical prefactor should be justified. The order-of-magnitude estimate of 1 km/s/pc for fiducial parameters is useful; please state whether it is derived from the simulations or an analytic estimate.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Central survival criterion Eq. (5) is calibrated to the same simulations it then presents as a universal finding; f_mix absorbs the unresolved cloud-scale turbulent velocity.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1, Eq. (5), Fig. 3; recast in Section 4.3, Eq. (6)]
    "Note that in Eq. (5), we used v_rms as a proxy for the turbulent velocity v_turb. More precisely, this should be u'(L_cold) ≈ v_turb(L_cold/L_eddy)^{1/3}, where L_cold is the scale of the cold gas that turbulence is acting upon. While we can constrain this scale to lie within r_cl < L_cold < L_eddy, its exact value remains uncertain. ... This uncertainty of the relevant u' as well as the fact that destruction usually occurs at a few t_cc (e.g. Scannapieco & Brüggen 2015) are absorbed in the fudge factor f_mix."

    The modified destruction time in Eq. (5) is not derived from a first-principles model of turbulent destruction; f_mix is a free parameter chosen so that the resulting curve separates the simulated growing and destroyed clouds in Fig. 3. Because the paper explicitly places the unknown u'(L_cold) into f_mix, the boundary t_cool,mix/tilde_t_cc < 1 is a calibration of the same survival/destruction data it is then used to 'predict.' The later critical-radius formula Eq. (6) merely rearranges this calibrated criterion, so the headline quantitative claim reduces to a fit with a fudge factor, not an independent test.

full rationale

The paper's main non-circular content is its simulation measurements: enhanced cold-mass growth by up to an order of magnitude, increased mixing surface area, faster entrainment, and morphological changes are all direct simulation outputs, not consequences of the fitted formula. These results are self-contained and do not rely on f_mix. However, the central claim advertised as the 'universal survival criterion' (Eq. 5 and Fig. 3) is constructed by fitting f_mix ~ 0.6 to the very same set of growing/destroyed runs, and the admitted absorption of the uncertain cloud-scale turbulent velocity into f_mix means the boundary is not an independent prediction. The paper is honest about the fudge factor, but the presentation of the fitted curve as the key finding and its use to derive Eq. (6) constitute partial circularity. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found; cited prior results (cloud-crushing, mixing-layer scalings) are independent published work.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central criterion rests on one fitted parameter (f_mix) and several domain assumptions: the equilibrium Cloudy cooling curve, the laminar mixed-gas survival criterion it extends, a density-weighted forcing prescription that shields the cloud from direct turbulent acceleration, the approximation that the driving-scale rms velocity acts on the cloud, 8-cells-per-cloud-radius resolution sufficiency, and the artificial prevention of wind cooling. No new physical entities (particles, forces, or dimensions) are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • f_mix = ≈0.6
    Fudge factor in the modified destruction time (Eq. 5, Fig. 3) fitted to separate surviving from destroyed runs; absorbs the uncertain turbulent velocity at the cloud scale and the destruction-time normalization.
  • Power-law index of \dot{M}_cl vs M_turb = 3/2
    The scaling \dot{M}_cl ∝ M_turb^{3/2} (§4.2, Fig. 9) is fitted to the simulation points and presented as a scaling, not derived from the criterion.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Cloudy equilibrium cooling curve with solar metallicity, Haardt & Madau (2012) UVB at z=0, and a 4×10^4 K temperature floor
    Adopted in §2 to define the radiative loss function; the central growth/survival results depend on this cooling curve.
  • domain assumption The laminar mixed-gas cooling criterion t_cool,mix/t_cc < 1 (Gronke & Oh 2018) is the correct baseline that turbulence modifies
    The paper extends rather than re-derives this criterion (§1, §3.1); if the baseline itself fails, the modified criterion inherits the failure.
  • ad hoc to paper Density-weighted turbulent forcing keeps the cold cloud from being accelerated by the forcing (F ∝ 1/ρ for T < 3T_cl)
    Introduced in §2.2 (footnote 3) to avoid 'unphysical acceleration' of the dense cloud; this restricts turbulence to act on the cloud only through shear in the hot phase, which could bias the entrainment and mixing results.
  • domain assumption u'(L_cold) ≈ v_rms at the driving scale in the survival criterion
    Stated below Eq. (5) in §3.1: the relevant turbulent velocity for cloud destruction is approximated by the forcing-scale rms velocity although L_cold is only known to lie between r_cl and L_eddy; the uncertainty is then absorbed into f_mix.
  • domain assumption R_cl/Δ = 8 cells is sufficient for converged cold-mass growth rate
    Used in §2.1 and defended in §4.5 via prior convergence studies (Gronke & Oh 2019; Dutta et al. 2025); the paper admits the surface area entering the growth mechanism is not converged (§3.2).
  • domain assumption Wind cooling is switched off in unmixed cells (tracer C < 10^-4), approximating background heating that keeps the wind hot
    Introduced in §2.1 to maintain a quasi-static hot reservoir; the physical nature of the assumed background heating is unspecified.
  • domain assumption Periodic boundary conditions with continuously driven turbulence represent a galactic wind over the simulated times
    Assumed in §2.1; the periodic box and homogeneous forcing are idealizations relative to stratified, expanding galactic winds, as acknowledged in §4.5.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Woven by the Whirls: The growth and entrainment of cold clouds in turbulent hot winds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KYPN5H7N

@misc{pith2026251003552,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Woven by the Whirls: The growth and entrainment of cold clouds in turbulent hot winds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KYPN5H7N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.03552}
}
abstract

Galactic and intergalactic flows often exhibit relative motion between the cold dense gas and the hot diffuse medium. Such multiphase flows -- involving gas at different temperatures, densities, and ionization states -- for instance, galactic winds, are frequently turbulent. However, idealized simulations typically model the winds and driven turbulence separately, despite their intertwined roles in galaxy evolution. To address this, we investigate the survival of a dense cloud in a hot wind subject to continuous external turbulent forcing. We perform 3D hydrodynamic simulations across a range of turbulent Mach numbers in the hot phase $\mathcal{M}_{\rm turb}=v_{\rm turb}/c_{\rm s, wind}$ from 0.1 to 0.7 ($c_{\rm s, wind}$ and $v_{\rm turb}$ being the sound speed and the turbulent velocity in the hot phase, respectively). We find that in spite of the additional subsonic turbulence, cold clouds can survive if the cooling time of the mixed gas $t_{\rm cool, mix}$ is shorter than a modified destruction time $\tilde{t}_{\rm cc}$, i.e., $t_{\rm cool,mix}/\tilde{t}_{\rm cc}<1$ where $\tilde{t}_{\rm cc}=t_{\rm cc}/(1+\left(\mathcal{M}_{\rm turb}/\left(f_{\rm mix}\mathcal{M}_{\rm wind}\right)\right)^2)^{1/2}$, where $f_{\rm mix}\sim0.6$ is a fudge factor. Moreover, in the `survival regime', turbulence can enhance the growth of cold clouds by up to an order of magnitude because of more efficient stretching and an associated increase in the surface area. This increase in mass transfer between the phases leads to significantly faster entrainment of cold material in turbulent winds. In contrast to the narrow filamentary tails formed in laminar winds, turbulence stretches the cold gas orthogonally, dispersing it over a larger area and changing absorption line signatures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.03552 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Projected column density of a cloud moving through a turbulent wind at various strengths of turbulent Mach number Mturb (increasing from top to bottom). The [left column] shows the cloud evolution in the weak cooling regime (𝑡cool,mix/𝑡cc = 10−1 ), while the [right column] shows the state in the strong cooling regime (𝑡cool,mix/𝑡cc = 10−3 ). All the snapshots are taken at 8𝑡cc, where 𝑡cc ∼ 𝜒 1/2𝑅cl/𝑣rel is the stand… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. [Left panel]: Evolution of the cold mass 𝑀cl (normalized by the initial cloud mass 𝑀cl,0) in units of cloud crushing time 𝑡cc at various turbulent Mach numbers Mturb = 𝑣turb/𝑐s,wind and the ratio of the cooling time of the mixed gas to the cloud crushing time 𝑡cool,mix/𝑡cc. [Right panel]: The relative velocity between the cloud and wind along the x-direction 𝑣cl − 𝑣wind in units of the initial relative velocity |𝑣cl… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. provides an overview of the parameter space explored in our cloud crushing simulations (cf [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Derived mixing velocity 𝑣mix (in units of 𝑐s,cl/(𝑡cool,cl/𝑡sc,cl) −1/4 ) as a function of turbulent Mach number Mturb in various cooling regimes 𝑡cool,mix/𝑡cc (indicated in the colormap). The triangles indicate the average mixing velocity between 10 − 20 𝑡cc, with erro…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: [Top panel]: Mass growth rate for the fast and moderate cool￾ing regimes with different strengths of turbulent forcing. Different linestyles are for different 𝑡cool,mix/𝑡cc. The line colors mark the evolution at different strengths of turbulent driving, as indicated in…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Correlation between mass enhancement time versus the entrainment time. A highly turbulent wind (higher Mturb) can entrain the cold clouds in a short time, while the mass is enhanced by an ever increasing area (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolution of cold gas spread and tail length in the presence of continuous turbulent forcing in cloud crushing simulations. [Top panel]: Orthogonal spread of cold gas (in units of the initial cloud radius 𝑅cl) per￾pendicular to the wind direction (𝑅ˆ) for simulations w…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Relation between cloud area 𝐴cl(in units of 𝑅 2 cl) and cold gas mass 𝑀cl (in units of initial cloud mass 𝑀cl,0) for simulations with varying turbulent forcing, as indicated by the turbulent Mach number in the colorbar. Thick cyan and orange lines show reference scali…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The column of MgII through a randomly chosen line of sight for 𝑡cool,mix/𝑡cc = 10−1 and Mturb = 0.2. The top-left panel (a) shows the volume-rendered view with the chosen sightline intersecting three cloud complexes (visible as overdensities in panel b). Panel (b) sho…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Effective entrainment distance defined as the distance the cloud travel when the relative velocity reaches Δ𝑣/𝑣wind ∼ 0.1 against turbulent Mach number. The different symbols indicate different cooling efficiencies and the blue band marks the scaling ∝ (1 + Mturb ) −3…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Survival is not Enough: Dust Sputtering, Growth, and H$_2$ Formation in Galactic Winds

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.5 of 10

    Entrained clouds form high H2 fractions only with dust growth at densities ≳10–30 times the cloud-survival critical density; without growth, DGR dilution and sputtering keep them atomic.

  2. XMAGNET -- Stir before serving: a Lagrangian perspective on mixing-driven condensation in the intracluster medium

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Lagrangian tracers show mixing with low-entropy seeds drives most condensation in cluster cores; magnetic fields cause earlier divergence, higher vorticity, lower Mach numbers, and slower cold-cloud motion via tension.

  3. Cold gas formation triggered by active galactic nuclei jet feedback in galaxy cluster cores

    astro-ph.GA 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In simulations, cold clumps condense in situ from hot cluster gas within ~30 Myr in high-compression, low-vorticity zones stirred by laterally expanding AGN jets, most efficiently when the hot-gas turbulent Mach numbe...

  4. Multiphase gas in Circumgalactic cloud complexes: Insights from kiloparsec-scale Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence Simulations

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

    Cold-gas survival in the circumgalactic medium is set by t_cool/t_mix; small-scale cold gas requires dense, quiescent regions, not turbulent cascade patches.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

122 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    W., Bryan G

    Abruzzo M. W., Bryan G. L., Fielding D. B., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3c48 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...925..199A 925, 199

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3c48 2022

  3. [3]

    Antolin P., 2019, @doi [Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion] 10.1088/1361-6587/ab5406 , 62, 014016

    doi:10.1088/1361-6587/ab5406 2019

  4. [4]

    K., Prochaska J

    Armillotta L., Fraternali F., Werk J. K., Prochaska J. X., Marinacci F., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1239 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470..114A 470, 114

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1239 2017

  5. [5]

    Audit E., Hennebelle P., 2010, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912695 , 511, A76

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912695 2010

  6. [6]

    Banerjee N., Sharma P., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1179 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.443..687B 443, 687

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1179 2014

  7. [7]

    A., et al., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb376 , 902, 154

    Barger K. A., et al., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb376 , 902, 154

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb376 2020

  8. [8]

    C., Fabian A

    Begelman M. C., Fabian A. C., 1990, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990MNRAS.244P..26B 244, 26P

    1990

Show all 122 references
  1. [9]

    Bordoloi R., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/130 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...794..130B 794, 130

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    N., Fabian A

    Bregman J. N., Fabian A. C., Miller E. D., Irwin J. A., 2006, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/501112 , 642, 746

    2006 doi

  3. [11]

    Br \"u ggen M., Scannapieco E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...822...31B 822, 31

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    Dover Publications, Incorporated

    Chandrasekhar S., 1981, Hydrodynamic and Hydromagnetic Stability. Dover Publications, Incorporated

    1981

  5. [13]

    Chen H., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1868 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496.4654C 496, 4654

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    Chen H.-W., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acf85b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...955L..25C 955, L25

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    G., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sts439 , 429, 1922

    Creasey P., Theuns T., Bower R. G., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sts439 , 429, 1922

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    K., Gronke M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527..991D 527, 991

    Das H. K., Gronke M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527..991D 527, 991

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    K., Gronke M., Weinberger R., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2412.03751 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241203751D p

    Das H. K., Gronke M., Weinberger R., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2412.03751 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241203751D p. arXiv:2412.03751

    2024 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    H., Appleby S., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz937 , 486, 2827

    Davé R., Anglés-Alcázar D., Narayanan D., Li Q., Rafieferantsoa M. H., Appleby S., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz937 , 486, 2827

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    T., 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium

    Draine B. T., 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium . Princeton University Press, 2011

    2011

  12. [20]

    J., Pfrommer C., 2008, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/529371 , 677, 993

    Dursi L. J., Pfrommer C., 2008, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/529371 , 677, 993

    2008 doi

  13. [21]

    Dutta A., Sharma P., Nelson D., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3653 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.3561D 510, 3561

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    S., Sharma P., Ghosh R., Roy M., Nath B

    Dutta A., Bisht M. S., Sharma P., Ghosh R., Roy M., Nath B. B., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae977 , 531, 5117

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    arXiv:2506.08545

    Dutta A., Sharma P., Gronke M., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2506.08545 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250608545D p. arXiv:2506.08545

    2025 doi

  16. [24]

    A., Lazarian A., Cho J., Leitner S

    Esquivel A., Benjamin R. A., Lazarian A., Cho J., Leitner S. N., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505338 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...648.1043E 648, 1043

    2006 doi

  17. [25]

    Eswaran V., Pope S., 1988, @doi [Computers & Fluids] https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7930(88)90013-8 , 16, 257

    1988 doi

  18. [26]

    C., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.32.090194.001425 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ARA&A..32..277F 32, 277

    Fabian A. C., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.32.090194.001425 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ARA&A..32..277F 32, 277

    1994

  19. [27]

    F., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/52 , 835, 52

    Faerman Y., Sternberg A., McKee C. F., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/52 , 835, 52

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    J., Gronke M., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab3412 , 510, 551

    Farber R. J., Gronke M., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab3412 , 510, 551

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    Roman-Duval, J

    Federrath, C. Roman-Duval, J. Klessen, R. S. Schmidt, W. Mac Low, M.-M. 2010, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912437 , 512, A81

    2010 doi

  22. [30]

    J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.1705.10877 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017RMxAA..53..385F 53, 385

    Ferland G. J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.1705.10877 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017RMxAA..53..385F 53, 385

    2017 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    B., Bryan G

    Fielding D. B., Bryan G. L., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2f41 , 924, 82

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    Fielding D., Quataert E., Martizzi D., Faucher-Giguère C.-A., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1093/mnrasl/slx072 , 470, L39

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    B., Ostriker E

    Fielding D. B., Ostriker E. C., Bryan G. L., Jermyn A. S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8d2c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...894L..24F 894, L24

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    B., et al., 2025, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staf363 , 538, 3068

    Fisher D. B., et al., 2025, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staf363 , 538, 3068

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    J., Savage B

    Fox A. J., Savage B. D., Wakker B. P., 2006, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/504800 , 165, 229

    2006 doi

  28. [36]

    J., et al., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/787/2/147 , 787, 147

    Fox A. J., et al., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/787/2/147 , 787, 147

    2014 doi

  29. [37]

    J., Richter P., Ashley T., Heckman T

    Fox A. J., Richter P., Ashley T., Heckman T. M., Lehner N., Werk J. K., Bordoloi R., Peeples M. S., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab40ad , 884, 53

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    Fumagalli M., Fossati M., Hau G. K. T., Gavazzi G., Bower R., Sun M., Boselli A., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu2092 , 445, 4335

    2014 doi

  31. [39]

    Girichidis P., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2157 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507.5641G 507, 5641

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    W., Beckwith K., 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 889, 19

    Grete P., O’Shea B. W., Beckwith K., 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 889, 19

    2020

  33. [41]

    P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly131 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480L.111G 480, L111

    Gronke M., Oh S. P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly131 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480L.111G 480, L111

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    P., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz3332 , 492, 1970

    Gronke M., Oh S. P., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz3332 , 492, 1970

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    P., Ji S., Norman C., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab3351 , 511, 859

    Gronke M., Oh S. P., Ji S., Norman C., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab3351 , 511, 859

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    Gr nnow A., Tepper-Garc \' a T., Bland-Hawthorn J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aada0e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...865...64G 865, 64

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    Grønnow A., Tepper-García T., Bland-Hawthorn J., Fraternali F., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab3452 , 509, 5756

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    Haardt F., Madau P., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...746..125H 746, 125

    2012 doi

  39. [47]

    M., Baum S

    Heckman T. M., Baum S. A., van Breugel W. J. M., McCarthy P., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/167181 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...338...48H 338, 48

    1989 doi

  40. [48]

    Heckman T., Borthakur S., Wild V., Schiminovich D., Bordoloi R., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa80dc , 846, 151

    2017 doi

  41. [49]

    Heitsch F., Hartmann L., 2008, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/592491 , 689, 290

    2008 doi

  42. [50]

    J., Gronke M., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad3069 , 527, 135

    Hidalgo-Pineda F., Farber R. J., Gronke M., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad3069 , 527, 135

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    Hillier A., Snow B., Arregui I., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad234 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.1738H 520, 1738

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    H., Peeples M

    Huang S., Katz N., Scannapieco E., Cottle J., Davé R., Weinberg D. H., Peeples M. S., Brüggen M., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa1978 , 497, 2586

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    B., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab378f , 882, 156

    Hummels C. B., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab378f , 882, 156

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    P., Masterson P., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz1248 , 487, 737

    Ji S., Oh S. P., Masterson P., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz1248 , 487, 737

    2019 doi

  47. [55]

    Kanjilal V., Dutta A., Sharma P., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3610 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.1143K 501, 1143

    2021 doi

  48. [56]

    Kim J.-G., Kim W.-T., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/48 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...779...48K 779, 48

    2013 doi

  49. [57]

    C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa5ff , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...853..173K 853, 173

    Kim C.-G., Ostriker E. C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa5ff , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...853..173K 853, 173

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    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

  51. [59]

    Koyama H., Inutsuka S.-i., 2004, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/382478 , 602, L25

    2004 doi

  52. [60]

    Krishnarao D., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-022-05090-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Natur.609..915K 609, 915

    2022 doi

  53. [61]

    L., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/719/1/523 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...719..523K 719, 523

    Kwak K., Shelton R. L., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/719/1/523 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...719..523K 719, 523

    2010 doi

  54. [62]

    Lakhchaura K., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2565 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.4472L 481, 4472

    2018 doi

  55. [63]

    Lewiner T., Lopes H., Vieira A., Tavares G., 2003, @doi [Journal of graphics tools] 10.1080/10867651.2003.10487582 , 8, 1

    2003

  56. [64]

    F., Squire J., Hummels C., 2020a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.1841L 492, 1841

    Li Z., Hopkins P. F., Squire J., Hummels C., 2020a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.1841L 492, 1841

    doi

  57. [65]

    Li Y., et al., 2020b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab65c7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...889L...1L 889, L1

    doi

  58. [66]

    A., Mathur S., Nguyen D

    Lopez L. A., Mathur S., Nguyen D. D., Thompson T. A., Olivier G. M., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/abc010 , 904, 152

    2020 doi

  59. [67]

    Luo R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.6266L 521, 6266

    2023 doi

  60. [68]

    P., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.15345 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250415345M p

    Marin-Gilabert T., Gronke M., Oh S. P., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.15345 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250415345M p. arXiv:2504.15345

    2025 doi arXiv

  61. [69]

    M., Madigan A.-M., Quataert E., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv355 , 449, 2

    McCourt M., O'Leary R. M., Madigan A.-M., Quataert E., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv355 , 449, 2

    2015 doi

  62. [70]

    McDonald M., Veilleux S., Rupke D. S. N., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/153 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...746..153M 746, 153

    2012 doi

  63. [71]

    McQuinn K. B. W., van Zee L., Skillman E. D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c37 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...886...74M 886, 74

    2019 doi

  64. [72]

    Mignone A., Bodo G., Massaglia S., Matsakos T., Tesileanu O., Zanni C., Ferrari A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/513316 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..170..228M 170, 228

    2007 doi

  65. [73]

    Mohapatra R., Sharma P., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz328 , 484, 4881

    2019 doi

  66. [74]

    Mohapatra R., Jetti M., Sharma P., Federrath C., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3603 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.3778M 510, 3778

    2022 doi

  67. [75]

    Mohapatra R., Sharma P., Federrath C., Quataert E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2574 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.3831M 525, 3831

    2023 doi

  68. [76]

    Morganti R., Fogasy J., Paragi Z., Oosterloo T., Orienti M., 2013, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1240436 , 341, 1082

    2013 doi

  69. [77]

    A., Oort J

    Muller C. A., Oort J. H., Raimond E., 1963, Academie des Sciences Paris Comptes Rendus, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1963CRAS..257.1661M 257, 1661

    1963

  70. [78]

    Mutchler M., et al., 2007, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/511160 , 119, 1

    2007 doi

  71. [79]

    Nelson D., et al., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa2419 , 498, 2391

    2020 doi

  72. [80]

    D., Thompson T

    Nguyen D. D., Thompson T. A., Schneider E. E., Lopez S., Lopez L. A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slac141 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518L..87N 518, L87

    2023 doi

  73. [81]

    Nikolis C., Gronke M., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae1169 , 530, 4597

    2024 doi

  74. [82]

    Olivares V., et al., 2019, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935350 , 631, A22

    2019 doi

  75. [83]

    D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1918 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.2963O 480, 2963

    Oppenheimer B. D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1918 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.2963O 480, 2963

    2018 doi

  76. [84]

    S., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0654 , 873, 129

    Peeples M. S., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0654 , 873, 129

    2019 doi

  77. [85]

    C., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-021820-120014 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ARA&A..58..363P 58, 363

    P \'e roux C., Howk J. C., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-021820-120014 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ARA&A..58..363P 58, 363

    2020 doi

  78. [86]

    M., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5224 , 887, 155

    Poggianti B. M., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5224 , 887, 155

    2019 doi

  79. [87]

    E., Bland-Hawthorn J., Veilleux S., Gibson B

    Putman M. E., Bland-Hawthorn J., Veilleux S., Gibson B. K., Freeman K. C., Maloney P. R., 2003, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/378555 , 597, 948

    2003 doi

  80. [88]

    Putman M., Peek J., Joung M., 2012, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125612 , 50, 491

    2012 doi

  81. [89]

    Ramesh R., Nelson D., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae237 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.3320R 528, 3320

    2024 doi

  82. [90]

    Richter P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201630081 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...607A..48R 607, A48

    2017 doi

  83. [91]

    Rubin K. H. R., Prochaska J. X., Koo D. C., Phillips A. C., Martin C. L., Winstrom L. O., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/156 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...794..156R 794, 156

    2014 doi

  84. [92]

    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

  85. [93]

    Scannapieco E., Brüggen M., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/158 , 805, 158

    2015 doi

  86. [94]

    C., 2006, @doi [Computers & Fluids] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2005.03.002 , 35, 353

    Schmidt W., Hillebrandt W., Niemeyer J. C., 2006, @doi [Computers & Fluids] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2005.03.002 , 35, 353

    2006 doi

  87. [95]

    E., Robertson B

    Schneider E. E., Robertson B. E., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac329 , 860, 135

    2018 doi

  88. [96]

    E., Ostriker E

    Schneider E. E., Ostriker E. C., Robertson B. E., Thompson T. A., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8ae8 , 895, 43

    2020 doi

  89. [97]

    S., Gronke M., Farber R

    Seidl B. S., Gronke M., Farber R. J., Dolag K., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2506.05448 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250605448S p. arXiv:2506.05448

    2025 doi

  90. [98]

    J., Quataert E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/652 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...720..652S 720, 652

    Sharma P., Parrish I. J., Quataert E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/652 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...720..652S 720, 652

    2010 doi

  91. [99]

    arXiv:2509.03802

    Sharma P., Kumar A., Datta D., Babul A., Das R., Aditya K., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2509.03802 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250903802S p. arXiv:2509.03802

    2025 doi

  92. [100]

    M., Snyder G

    Shin M.-S., Stone J. M., Snyder G. F., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/587775 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...680..336S 680, 336

    2008 doi

  93. [101]

    L., Bland-Hawthorn J., 1998, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/305108 , 493, 129

    Shopbell P. L., Bland-Hawthorn J., 1998, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/305108 , 493, 129

    1998 doi

  94. [102]

    C., Sijacki D., Shen S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty994 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478..302S 478, 302

    Smith M. C., Sijacki D., Shen S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty994 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478..302S 478, 302

    2018 doi

  95. [103]

    C., Fielding D

    Smith M. C., Fielding D. B., Bryan G. L., Bennett J. S., Kim C.-G., Ostriker E. C., Somerville R. S., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2408.15321 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240815321S p. arXiv:2408.15321

    2024 doi arXiv

  96. [104]

    Sparre M., Pfrommer C., Ehlert K., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3177 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.499.4261S 499, 4261

    2020 doi

  97. [105]

    P., Kim C.-G., Bryan G

    Steinwandel U. P., Kim C.-G., Bryan G. L., Ostriker E. C., Somerville R. S., Fielding D. B., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad09e1 , 960, 100

    2024 doi

  98. [106]

    Sun M., Donahue M., Roediger E., Nulsen P. E. J., Voit G. M., Sarazin C., Forman W., Jones C., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/946 , 708, 946

    2009 doi

  99. [107]

    B., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad3793 , 527, 9683

    Tan B., Fielding D. B., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad3793 , 527, 9683

    2023 doi

  100. [108]

    P., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1093/mnrasl/slab100 , 508, L37

    Tan B., Oh S. P., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1093/mnrasl/slab100 , 508, L37

    2021 doi

  101. [109]

    P., Gronke M., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab053 , 502, 3179

    Tan B., Oh S. P., Gronke M., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab053 , 502, 3179

    2021 doi

  102. [110]

    P., Gronke M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad236 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.2571T 520, 2571

    Tan B., Oh S. P., Gronke M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad236 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.2571T 520, 2571

    2023 doi

  103. [111]

    L., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abe7e2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...911...68T 911, 68

    Tonnesen S., Bryan G. L., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abe7e2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...911...68T 911, 68

    2021 doi

  104. [112]

    S., Werk J

    Tumlinson J., Peeples M. S., Werk J. K., 2017, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055240 , 55, 389

    2017 doi

  105. [113]

    Brunetti, G

    Vazza F., Gheller, C. Brunetti, G. 2010, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913464 , 513, A32

    2010 doi

  106. [114]

    Veilleux S., Cecil G., Bland-Hawthorn J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150610 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ARA&A..43..769V 43, 769

    2005 arXiv

  107. [115]

    C., Nath B

    Vijayan A., Sarkar K. C., Nath B. B., Sharma P., Shchekinov Y., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty198 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.5513V 475, 5513

    2018 doi

  108. [116]

    C., Li M., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8474 , 894, 12

    Vijayan A., Kim C.-G., Armillotta L., Ostriker E. C., Li M., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8474 , 894, 12

    2020 doi

  109. [117]

    Villermaux E., 2019, @doi [Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics] https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-fluid-010518-040306 , 51, 245

    2019 doi

  110. [118]

    Walch S., et al., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv1975 , 454, 246

    2015 doi

  111. [119]

    K., Prochaska J

    Werk J. K., Prochaska J. X., Thom C., Tumlinson J., Tripp T. M., O'Meara J. M., Peeples M. S., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/204/2/17 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..204...17W 204, 17

    2013 doi

  112. [120]

    Westmeier T., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx2757 , 474, 289

    2017 doi

  113. [121]

    S., Chen H.-W., Johnson S

    Zahedy F. S., Chen H.-W., Johnson S. D., Pierce R. M., Rauch M., Huang Y.-H., Weiner B. J., Gauthier J.-R., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty3482 , 484, 2257

    2018 doi

  114. [122]

    A., Grand R

    van de Voort F., Bieri R., Pakmor R., Gómez F. A., Grand R. J. J., Marinacci F., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa3938 , 501, 4888

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.