pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.12379 · v2 · pith:YTAQ4JSYnew · submitted 2026-03-12 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

The SMUGGLE-Ring project: Bar and bulge effects on nuclear disk and ring formation

SungWon Kwak , Federico Marinacci , Matthias Steinmetz , Ivan Minchev , Cristina Chiappini , Mathias Schultheis , Woong-Tae Kim , Mark Vogelsberger
show 3 more authors
Laura V. Sales Hui Li Seungwon Baek
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 11:43 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords nuclear stellar disksnuclear ringsclassical bulgesgalactic barsstar formationhydrodynamical simulationsMilky Way analogs
0
0 comments X

The pith

Nuclear stellar disks and rings form exclusively in galaxies with classical bulges via bar-driven secular evolution.

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

The paper uses hydrodynamical simulations to show how nuclear structures develop in Milky Way-mass galaxies. It finds that nuclear stellar disks and rings only appear when a classical bulge is present, with more massive bulges leading to earlier formation and larger initial gas reservoirs after the bar forms. After the gas is used up in star formation, these disks split into inner pressure-supported nuclear star clusters and outer rotationally supported nuclear stellar rings. This process supports an inside-out formation scenario driven by the bar without needing external gas supplies. The results match observed sizes of such structures in real galaxies but suggest larger rings might need additional processes.

Core claim

In simulations evolved for 5 Gyr in isolation with the SMUGGLE model, varying only the classical bulge mass while keeping disk and halo fixed, nuclear stellar disks and rings emerge exclusively in the bulge models. More massive bulges correlate with earlier formation and more extended gas reservoirs shortly after bar formation. Upon gas depletion, the nuclear stellar disks bifurcate into pressure-supported nuclear star clusters (v_phi/sigma_R < 0.7) and rotationally supported nuclear stellar rings (v_phi/sigma_R = 1.2-1.7, radii 0.64-0.76 kpc). The bulgeless model fails to sustain stable nuclear gas disks. The enclosed masses are ~10^9 Msun for NSCs and ~10^8 Msun for NSRs, with SFRs 0.1-1 M

What carries the argument

The classical bulge mass, which stabilizes the nuclear gas disk against stellar feedback disruptions after bar-driven gas inflow, enabling the subsequent bifurcation into nuclear star clusters and nuclear stellar rings.

If this is right

  • More massive bulges lead to earlier nuclear disk formation and more extended gas reservoirs.
  • Nuclear stellar disks split into hotter inner clusters and cooler outer rings after gas depletion.
  • Star formation rates in these structures decrease over time as gas is consumed.
  • Observed nuclear disk sizes from 0.25 to 0.76 kpc align with simulation results.
  • Larger nuclear rings would require external gas inflows or extended evolution times.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The presence of a bulge may be a necessary condition for stable nuclear ring formation in the absence of mergers or inflows.
  • Extending the simulation time or adding circumgalactic medium could reveal whether rings grow beyond 0.76 kpc.
  • Variations in initial gas fraction might produce different nuclear structure outcomes even with bulges.
  • This inside-out mechanism could explain the observed diversity of nuclear stellar structures in disk galaxies.

Load-bearing premise

Evolving the galaxies in complete isolation for 5 Gyr with fixed initial disk and halo structures while only varying bulge mass is sufficient to capture the main physics of nuclear structure formation without external gas inflows or mergers.

What would settle it

Finding nuclear stellar rings or stable nuclear gas disks in observed bulgeless Milky Way-mass galaxies, or in simulations that include mergers and external gas flows for bulgeless models, would test the necessity of the bulge.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.12379 by Cristina Chiappini, Federico Marinacci, Hui Li, Ivan Minchev, Laura V. Sales, Mark Vogelsberger, Mathias Schultheis, Matthias Steinmetz, Seungwon Baek, SungWon Kwak, Woong-Tae Kim.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Distribution of the Fourier mode m = 2 within 8 kpc, il￾lustrated by the time evolution of the radial Fourier distributions for each model. The time interval between snapshots is 0.01 Gyr. The color bar scale is fixed to range from 1% to 15% across all models. Only the initial stellar disk particles are selected to cal￾culate the Fourier mode m = 2, after excluding the initial classi￾cal bulge component. T… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Face-on projections of the stacked surface density distributions of stars and gas within a 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Face-on projections of the gas surface density distributions within a 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Temporal evolution of nuclear ring properties, enclosed masses of specified components within di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Star formation rates for the three models, both total and within [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Angular velocity Ω, Ω − κ/2 curves, and vϕ from 1.5 to 5 Gyr in 0.5 Gyr steps, with increasing line transparency for ear￾lier times. The profile at 5 Gyr is displayed with a thick solid line. In the labels, ‘i’ denotes initial stars, ‘n’ denotes new stars, ‘g’ denotes the gas component, and ‘t’ indicates the total stel￾lar component. The bar pattern speed Ωb at 5 Gyr is marked as a dashed horizontal line. … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution maps of the central azimuthal velocity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution maps of the central velocity dispersions for newly formed stars for 5 Gyr within 1 kpc: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distribution map of final radius versus birth radius for all newly formed stars within 1 kpc at 3 Gyr (top row) and 5 Gyr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present the first results from the SMUGGLE-Ring project, a suite of simulations employing the SMUGGLE ISM and stellar feedback model to explore nuclear structures in Milky Way-mass galaxies. We discuss results from three simulations evolved for 5 Gyr in isolation, in which we vary the classical bulge mass, while keeping the disk and halo structures identical. Nuclear stellar disks and rings emerge exclusively in our bulge models, with more massive bulges associated with earlier formation and more extended initial gas reservoirs shortly after bar formation. After gas depletion via active star formation, the nuclear stellar disks bifurcate into pressure-supported nuclear star clusters (NSCs, $v_{\phi}/\sigma_R < 0.7$) and rotationally supported nuclear stellar rings (NSRs, $v_{\phi}/\sigma_R = 1.2$--1.7, radii 0.64--0.76 kpc). The bulgeless model fails to build up and sustain stable nuclear gas disks against feedback disruptions. The enclosed stellar mass of NSCs ($\sim10^{9}\Msun$) dominates over that of NSRs ($\sim10^{8}\Msun$). The star formation rates decline over time due to gas depletion (NSCs 0.1--1 $\Msun$/yr, NSRs 0.01--$0.1 \Msun$/yr). Kinematics reveal outward-shifting rotation peaks with $\sigma$-drops in NSRs, while a fraction of stars in NSCs exhibits radial shift after 3 Gyr. These findings support inside-out NSD formation via secular bar evolution, with NSRs tracing the star-forming outer edge of the nuclear gas disk and NSCs forming the kinematically hotter inner component. The range of nuclear stellar disk sizes (0.25--0.76 kpc) falls within the observationally inferred ranges, but the existence of larger rings would require external gas flow and/or a longer period of evolution. Future SMUGGLE-Ring extensions will incorporate varying gas fractions, tidal/merger effects, and the circumgalactic medium to further elucidate nuclear diversity and outliers.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents the first results from the SMUGGLE-Ring project, consisting of three hydrodynamical simulations of Milky Way-mass galaxies evolved in isolation for 5 Gyr using the SMUGGLE ISM and stellar feedback model. The classical bulge mass is varied while keeping the disk and halo structures fixed. The central claim is that nuclear stellar disks and rings form exclusively in the bulge-containing models, with more massive bulges leading to earlier formation and more extended gas reservoirs after bar formation. Following gas depletion through star formation, these nuclear disks bifurcate into pressure-supported nuclear star clusters (NSCs with v_φ/σ_R < 0.7) and rotationally supported nuclear stellar rings (NSRs with v_φ/σ_R = 1.2–1.7 and radii 0.64–0.76 kpc). The bulgeless model does not sustain stable nuclear gas disks. Additional findings include declining star formation rates, kinematic features like σ-drops, and support for inside-out formation via secular bar evolution.

Significance. If the reported trends are robust, this work contributes to understanding the role of classical bulges in the formation of nuclear stellar structures through bar-driven secular evolution in isolated galaxies. The direct comparison across bulge masses with a consistent feedback model is a strength, as is the demonstration of the bifurcation into NSCs and NSRs with distinct kinematic properties. The results align with observed nuclear disk sizes and provide a physical mechanism for their diversity. The use of direct forward integration without fitted parameters or invented entities supports the internal consistency of the trends.

major comments (2)
  1. [Simulation setup] Simulation setup (inferred from abstract description of three isolated runs): No details are provided on numerical resolution, particle mass, gravitational softening, or convergence tests in the nuclear region. This is load-bearing for the central claim because the bulgeless model's failure to sustain stable nuclear gas disks is attributed to feedback disruptions, which are known to be sensitive to resolution.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The reported nuclear ring radii (0.64–0.76 kpc), enclosed masses (~10^8–10^9 M_sun), and velocity ratios lack any quantitative error analysis, uncertainty estimates, or sensitivity tests to initial gas distribution. This undermines the precision of the mass-dependent timing, bifurcation, and exclusivity claims.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The thresholds v_φ/σ_R < 0.7 for NSCs and 1.2–1.7 for NSRs should be explicitly justified or referenced to prior observational/theoretical work in the main text.
  2. [Abstract] The statement that larger rings would require external gas flow should be expanded with a brief discussion of how the fixed initial gas reservoir limits the reported size range (0.25–0.76 kpc).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and positive assessment of the significance of our work on the role of classical bulges in nuclear structure formation. We address each major comment point by point below and will make revisions to improve clarity and completeness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Simulation setup] Simulation setup (inferred from abstract description of three isolated runs): No details are provided on numerical resolution, particle mass, gravitational softening, or convergence tests in the nuclear region. This is load-bearing for the central claim because the bulgeless model's failure to sustain stable nuclear gas disks is attributed to feedback disruptions, which are known to be sensitive to resolution.

    Authors: We agree that explicit numerical details are important for evaluating the robustness of feedback-driven effects in the nuclear region. The full manuscript describes the SMUGGLE model setup in Section 2, including the base resolution, but we will expand this to provide specific values for gas particle mass, stellar particle mass, and gravitational softening length in the central kiloparsec. We will also add a short discussion of resolution convergence tests performed on a subset of runs and clarify why the chosen resolution is sufficient to capture the differential stability between bulge and bulgeless models. This addresses the referee's concern directly. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The reported nuclear ring radii (0.64–0.76 kpc), enclosed masses (~10^8–10^9 M_sun), and velocity ratios lack any quantitative error analysis, uncertainty estimates, or sensitivity tests to initial gas distribution. This undermines the precision of the mass-dependent timing, bifurcation, and exclusivity claims.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the abstract presents numerical values without accompanying discussion of robustness. As these are outcomes from a small suite of deterministic simulations, formal statistical uncertainties do not apply, but we will revise the abstract to note that the reported ranges reflect variations across the three bulge-mass models. In the main text we will add a brief sensitivity analysis to initial gas distribution and initial conditions, along with a statement on how these affect the timing and exclusivity claims. This will be a partial revision focused on presentation rather than changes to the underlying results. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results from direct hydrodynamical integration of varied initial conditions

full rationale

The paper's central claims follow from forward integration of the SMUGGLE ISM and feedback model in three isolated 5 Gyr runs that differ only in classical bulge mass while holding disk, halo, and total gas reservoir fixed. Nuclear stellar disks and rings are reported to form exclusively in the bulge cases, with mass-dependent timing and later bifurcation into NSCs versus NSRs, as direct outcomes of the evolved gas dynamics, star formation, and feedback. No parameter is fitted to a data subset and then relabeled a prediction, no quantity is defined in terms of itself, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported via self-citation to force the result. The SMUGGLE model itself is an external, previously published prescription whose implementation is independent of the present runs. The reported size range and exclusivity are therefore tied to the chosen initial conditions rather than to any definitional loop within the derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the fidelity of the SMUGGLE ISM and feedback prescription and on the isolation assumption; no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • classical bulge mass
    Varied across the three runs as the primary experimental parameter; specific mass values not stated in the abstract.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The SMUGGLE ISM and stellar feedback model accurately captures the relevant physics of gas cooling, star formation, and supernova feedback in the nuclear region.
    All reported nuclear disk formation and stability results depend on this subgrid model.
  • domain assumption Initial disk and halo structures remain identical when bulge mass is changed, so differences arise solely from the bulge.
    This isolates the bulge effect but is stated as the experimental design.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5975 in / 1552 out tokens · 74114 ms · 2026-05-21T11:43:43.369158+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

139 extracted references · 139 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    V ., Leitner, S

    Agertz, O., Kravtsov, A. V ., Leitner, S. N., & Gnedin, N. Y . 2013, ApJ, 770, 25

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    1992, MNRAS, 259, 345

    Athanassoula, E. 1992, MNRAS, 259, 345

    work page 1992

  3. [3]

    2002, ApJ, 569, L83

    Athanassoula, E. 2002, ApJ, 569, L83

    work page 2002

  4. [4]

    2003, MNRAS, 341, 1179

    Athanassoula, E. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 1179

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    2014, MNRAS, 438, L81

    Athanassoula, E. 2014, MNRAS, 438, L81

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Athanassoula, E., Machado, R. E. G., & Rodionov, S. A. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1949

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    & Misiriotis, A

    Athanassoula, E. & Misiriotis, A. 2002, MNRAS, 330, 35

    work page 2002

  8. [8]

    & Kawata, D

    Baba, J. & Kawata, D. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 4500

    work page 2020

  9. [9]

    2025, ApJ, 990, 184

    Baek, S., Kim, W.-T., Jang, D., & Kim, T. 2025, ApJ, 990, 184

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 4091

    Barbani, F., Pascale, R., Marinacci, F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 4091

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    2025, A&A, 697, A121

    Barbani, F., Pascale, R., Marinacci, F., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A121

    work page 2025

  12. [12]

    2018, ARA&A, 56, 223

    Barbuy, B., Chiappini, C., & Gerhard, O. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 223

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    & Hut, P

    Barnes, J. & Hut, P. 1986, Nature, 324, 446

    work page 1986

  14. [14]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 173 Benítez-Llambay, A., Navarro, J

    Beane, A., Hernquist, L., D’Onghia, E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 173 Benítez-Llambay, A., Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & Ludlow, A. D. 2018, MN- RAS, 473, 1019

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    Berentzen, I., Shlosman, I., Martinez-Valpuesta, I., & Heller, C. H. 2007, ApJ, 666, 189

    work page 2007

  16. [16]

    2008, AJ, 136, 2846

    Bigiel, F., Leroy, A., Walter, F., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2846

    work page 2008

  17. [17]

    A., et al

    Bittner, A., Sánchez-Blázquez, P., Gadotti, D. A., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A65

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    2024, ApJ, 968, 86

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., Tepper-Garcia, T., Agertz, O., & Federrath, C. 2024, ApJ, 968, 86

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    F., & Pietrinferni, A

    Bono, G., Braga, V . F., & Pietrinferni, A. 2024, A&A Rev., 32, 4

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    2005, ApJ, 621, 966

    Bono, G., Marconi, M., Cassisi, S., et al. 2005, ApJ, 621, 966

    work page 2005

  21. [21]

    J., Hernquist, L., et al

    Bose, S., Eisenstein, D. J., Hernquist, L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 5693

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    W., Hunt, J

    Bovy, J., Leung, H. W., Hunt, J. A. S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4740

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    D., Zavala, J., Sales, L

    Burger, J. D., Zavala, J., Sales, L. V ., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 3458

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    & Combes, F

    Buta, R. & Combes, F. 1996, Fund. Cosmic Phys., 17, 95

    work page 1996

  25. [25]

    2001, ApJ, 554, 1274

    Chabrier, G. 2001, ApJ, 554, 1274

    work page 2001

  26. [26]

    F., McKee, C

    Cioffi, D. F., McKee, C. F., & Bertschinger, E. 1988, ApJ, 334, 252

    work page 1988

  27. [27]

    1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Combes, F. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 91, IAU Colloquium 157: Barred Galaxies, ed. R. Buta, D. A. Crocker, & B. G. Elmegreen, 286

    work page 1996

  28. [28]

    & Elmegreen, B

    Combes, F. & Elmegreen, B. G. 1993, A&A, 271, 391

    work page 1993

  29. [29]

    & Gerin, M

    Combes, F. & Gerin, M. 1985, A&A, 150, 327 de Lorenzo-Cáceres, A., Falcón-Barroso, J., Vazdekis, A., & Martínez-

    work page 1985

  30. [30]

    2008, ApJ, 684, L83 de Sá-Freitas, C., Gadotti, D

    Valpuesta, I. 2008, ApJ, 684, L83 de Sá-Freitas, C., Gadotti, D. A., Fragkoudi, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A202

    work page 2008

  31. [31]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 478

    Deng, Y ., Li, H., Kannan, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 478

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    2001, A&A, 368, 52

    Emsellem, E., Greusard, D., Combes, F., et al. 2001, A&A, 368, 52

    work page 2001

  33. [33]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 3613

    Erwin, P. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3613

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    P., Fabricius, M., et al

    Erwin, P., Saglia, R. P., Fabricius, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 4039

    work page 2015

  35. [35]

    P., et al

    Erwin, P., Seth, A., Debattista, V . P., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 2446

    work page 2021

  36. [36]

    B., Frogel, J

    Eskridge, P. B., Frogel, J. A., Pogge, R. W., et al. 2000, AJ, 119, 536 Faucher-Giguère, C.-A., Lidz, A., Zaldarriaga, M., & Hernquist, L. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1416

    work page 2000

  37. [37]

    J., Korista, K

    Ferland, G. J., Korista, K. T., Verner, D. A., et al. 1998, PASP, 110, 761 Ferrière, K. M. 2001, Reviews of Modern Physics, 73, 1031

    work page 1998

  38. [38]

    B., Goldsmith, D

    Field, G. B., Goldsmith, D. W., & Habing, H. J. 1969, ApJ, 155, L149

    work page 1969

  39. [39]

    A., et al

    Fraser-McKelvie, A., van de Sande, J., Gadotti, D. A., et al. 2025, A&A, 700, A237

    work page 2025

  40. [40]

    & Benz, W

    Friedli, D. & Benz, W. 1993, A&A, 268, 65

    work page 1993

  41. [41]

    & Benz, W

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

    work page 1995

  42. [42]

    A., Bittner, A., Falcón-Barroso, J., et al

    Gadotti, D. A., Bittner, A., Falcón-Barroso, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A14

    work page 2020

  43. [43]

    A., Sánchez-Blázquez, P., Falcón-Barroso, J., et al

    Gadotti, D. A., Sánchez-Blázquez, P., Falcón-Barroso, J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 506 Article number, page 14 Kwak et al.: SMUGGLE-Ring: Bulge Mass

    work page 2019

  44. [44]

    A., Seidel, M

    Gadotti, D. A., Seidel, M. K., Sánchez-Blázquez, P., et al. 2015, A&A, 584, A90

    work page 2015

  45. [45]

    2011, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi, 18, 185

    Gerhard, O. 2011, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi, 18, 185

    work page 2011

  46. [46]

    R., Stuber, S

    Gleis, D. R., Stuber, S. K., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.11127

    work page arXiv 2026

  47. [47]

    & Tremaine, S

    Goldreich, P. & Tremaine, S. 1979, ApJ, 233, 857

    work page 1979

  48. [48]

    Grand, R. J. J., Gómez, F. A., Marinacci, F., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 179

    work page 2017

  49. [49]

    2015, A&A, 583, A91

    Guiglion, G., Recio-Blanco, A., de Laverny, P., et al. 2015, A&A, 583, A91

    work page 2015

  50. [50]

    Guo, F. & Oh, S. P. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 251

    work page 2008

  51. [51]

    C., Debattista, V

    Guo, M., Du, M., Ho, L. C., Debattista, V . P., & Zhao, D. 2020, ApJ, 888, 65

    work page 2020

  52. [52]

    Heller, C. H. & Shlosman, I. 1994, ApJ, 424, 84

    work page 1994

  53. [53]

    1990, ApJ, 356, 359

    Hernquist, L. 1990, ApJ, 356, 359

    work page 1990

  54. [54]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 933

    Hilmi, T., Minchev, I., Buck, T., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 933

    work page 2020

  55. [55]

    & Ostriker, J

    Ikeuchi, S. & Ostriker, J. P. 1986, ApJ, 301, 522

    work page 1986

  56. [56]

    A., Matsunaga, N., et al

    Inno, L., Urbaneja, M. A., Matsunaga, N., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 83

    work page 2019

  57. [57]

    & Kim, W.-T

    Jang, D. & Kim, W.-T. 2023, ApJ, 942, 106

    work page 2023

  58. [58]

    & Kim, W.-T

    Jang, D. & Kim, W.-T. 2024, ApJ, 971, 67

    work page 2024

  59. [59]

    Jang, D., Kim, W.-T., & Lee, Y . H. 2025, ApJ, 993, 236

    work page 2025

  60. [60]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 5732

    Kannan, R., Marinacci, F., V ogelsberger, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 5732

    work page 2020

  61. [61]

    Kataria, S. K. & Das, M. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 1653

    work page 2018

  62. [62]

    Kataria, S. K. & Das, M. 2019, ApJ, 886, 43

    work page 2019

  63. [63]

    H., & Hernquist, L

    Katz, N., Weinberg, D. H., & Hernquist, L. 1996, ApJS, 105, 19

    work page 1996

  64. [64]

    & Ostriker, E

    Kim, C.-G. & Ostriker, E. C. 2018, ApJ, 853, 173

    work page 2018

  65. [65]

    & Stone, J

    Kim, W.-T. & Stone, J. M. 2012, ApJ, 751, 124

    work page 2012

  66. [66]

    1982, ApJ, 257, 75

    Kormendy, J. 1982, ApJ, 257, 75

    work page 1982

  67. [67]

    Krumholz, M. R. & Gnedin, N. Y . 2011, ApJ, 729, 36

    work page 2011

  68. [68]

    Krumholz, M. R. & Matzner, C. D. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1352

    work page 2009

  69. [69]

    Krumholz, M. R. & Tan, J. C. 2007, ApJ, 654, 304

    work page 2007

  70. [70]

    2017, ApJ, 839, 24

    Kwak, S., Kim, W.-T., Rey, S.-C., & Kim, S. 2017, ApJ, 839, 24

    work page 2017

  71. [71]

    Kwak, S., Kim, W.-T., Rey, S.-C., & Quinn, T. R. 2019, ApJ, 887, 139

    work page 2019

  72. [72]

    Kwak, S., Minchev, I., Pfrommer, C., Steinmetz, M., & Yi, S. K. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.21805

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    Kwak, S., Minchev, I., Steinmetz, M., & Yi, S. K. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.02494 Le Conte, Z. A., Gadotti, D. A., Harvey, T., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.18871

    work page arXiv 2026

  74. [74]

    K., Walter, F., Bigiel, F., et al

    Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., Bigiel, F., et al. 2009, AJ, 137, 4670

    work page 2009

  75. [75]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 4073

    Li, C., Li, H., Cui, W., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 4073

    work page 2024

  76. [76]

    L., et al

    Li, H., V ogelsberger, M., Bryan, G. L., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 265

    work page 2022

  77. [77]

    V ., & Torrey, P

    Li, H., V ogelsberger, M., Marinacci, F., Sales, L. V ., & Torrey, P. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 5862

    work page 2020

  78. [78]

    L., & Ostriker, J

    Li, M., Bryan, G. L., & Ostriker, J. P. 2017, ApJ, 841, 101

    work page 2017

  79. [79]

    P., et al

    Li, Z., Du, M., Debattista, V . P., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 77 Łokas, E. L. 2020, A&A, 634, A122 Mac Low, M.-M. & McCray, R. 1988, ApJ, 324, 776

    work page 2023

  80. [80]

    V ., V ogelsberger, M., Torrey, P., & Springel, V

    Marinacci, F., Sales, L. V ., V ogelsberger, M., Torrey, P., & Springel, V . 2019, MNRAS, 489, 4233

    work page 2019

Showing first 80 references.