pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.17421 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-18 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Modeling supernova feedback in galaxy formation simulations with energy-conserving momentum injection

Takashi Okamoto This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 09:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords supernova feedbackgalaxy formation simulationsmomentum injectionenergy conservationdwarf galaxiesstar formation historiescosmological zoom-in
0
0 comments X

The pith

A rest-frame kinetic energy correction for supernova momentum injection enables converged star formation histories in dwarf galaxy simulations.

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

The paper develops a mechanical feedback scheme that injects supernova momentum while conserving energy by computing the kinetic energy change in the rest frame of each receiving gas element instead of the lab frame. This fixes violations caused by relative particle motions and repeated injections into one element. To avoid disturbing galactic angular momentum on large scales, the method switches to pure thermal energy input once the cooling radius is resolved by the local gas spacing. Cosmological zoom-in runs of 10^11 solar-mass dwarfs at two resolutions then show matching star formation histories, while the uncorrected version produces as little as 59 percent of the stellar mass in the low-resolution case.

Core claim

We introduce a supernova feedback scheme that calculates the kinetic energy increment delivered to gas elements in their own rest frame, thereby conserving energy despite the vector character of momentum. When the cooling radius is resolved by the local inter-element separation the scheme reverts to purely thermal injection to prevent unphysical large-scale momentum coupling. Cosmological zoom-in simulations of dwarf galaxies demonstrate that star formation histories converge across resolutions with this combination, whereas omitting the rest-frame correction causes low-resolution runs to underproduce stars substantially.

What carries the argument

Rest-frame calculation of kinetic energy increment for momentum injection, with automatic switch to thermal feedback when the cooling radius is locally resolved.

If this is right

  • Stellar mass assembly in dwarf galaxies converges between high- and low-resolution runs when the rest-frame correction is applied.
  • Omitting the correction causes low-resolution stellar mass to fall to 59 percent of the high-resolution value.
  • The feedback strength calibrated on dwarfs overproduces stars in Milky Way-mass halos, implying additional processes such as AGN feedback are needed at higher masses.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The scheme may help preserve galactic angular momentum and improve disk formation in zoom-in simulations compared with standard momentum injection.
  • Similar resolution-dependent switching could be tested in simulations that include other feedback channels to check whether convergence holds for more massive systems.
  • The result suggests that purely thermal feedback remains inadequate at intermediate resolutions while mechanical feedback with energy conservation works for dwarfs.

Load-bearing premise

Switching to purely thermal feedback exactly when the cooling radius is resolved by local gas spacing prevents unphysical large-scale momentum effects without creating new problems for angular momentum or disk structure.

What would settle it

If low-resolution and high-resolution dwarf simulations using the scheme produce final stellar masses that differ by more than 20 percent, the claimed convergence would be falsified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.17421 by Takashi Okamoto.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Star formation history (cumulative stellar mass growth) of stars within the virial radii of DW1 (left panel) and DW2 (right panel) halos at z = 0. The vertical axis shows the cumulative stellar mass formed up to cosmic age t for stars that reside within the virial radius at z = 0. Thick and thin lines indicate high-resolution (HR) and low-resolution (LR) simulations, respectively. Orange solid, green dashe… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Star formation rate history for DW1 (left panels) and DW2 (right panels) galaxies. The vertical axis shows the star formation rate (SFR) within the galactic radius (see the text). Each row corresponds to a dif￾ferent supernova feedback efficiency factor (ηSN = 2, 3, and 4 from top to bottom). Solid black lines indicate low-resolution (LR) simulations, and red dotted lines indicate high-resolution (HR) simu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Circular velocity curves for individual components of DW1 (left col￾umn) and DW2 (right column) at z = 0. The vertical axis shows the logarithm of the circular velocity contribution, log10(Vc,i/km s−1 ), where Vc,i(r) = pGMi(< r)/r, where i can be either dark matter (DM), stars, or gas. The contribution of the DM, stars, and gas components are shown by black solid, dashed orange, and dotted green lines, re… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The same as figure 1, but comparing the fiducial feedback model (orange solid lines) with the one without momentum correction for multiple momentum injections (green dashed lines). All simulations employ ηSN = 3. Thick lines correspond to the LR simulations and thin lines to the HR simulations. In figure 4, we compare the star formation histories obtained by our fiducial feedback scheme and the model witho… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Density-weighted projected density maps of the Milky Way-mass galaxy at z = 0. The left and right columns show gas and stellar densities, respectively, while the upper and lower rows show face-on and edge-on projections. The side length of the region shown is 0.2Rvir. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 t (Gyr) 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 lo g(S F R [M y r 1 ]) MW LR SN = 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Star formation history of the Milky Way-mass galaxy simulation with ηSN = 3 and LR resolution. The stars within the galactic radius at z = 0 are used. The vertical axis shows the star formation rate in logarithmic scale. the majority of its evolution. In the final 2 Gyr, the SFR ex￾hibits a steep decline, reaching approximately 3M⊙ yr−1 at z = 0 (t ≈ 13.8Gyr). This late-stage decline is associated with the… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Stellar mass–halo mass relation of the simulated galaxies at z = 0.1. The simulations with ηSN = 2, 3, and 4 are indicated by circles, squares, and triangles, respectively. Open and filled symbols indicate LR and HR simulations, respectively. The stellar mass is defined as the mass of stars within the galactic radius. We also show the relation predicted by an empirical model at z = 0.1 (Moster et al. 2018)… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Accurate modeling of supernova (SN) feedback in galaxy formation simulations is complicated by energy conservation violations arising from the vector nature of momentum injection. We present a mechanical feedback scheme addressing two key sources: the relative motion between gas elements and the SN-hosting star particle, and multiple momentum injections into a single gas element within one timestep. Computing the kinetic energy increment in the rest frame of the gas element ensures energy conservation while avoiding the momentum inversion that can occur when this calculation is instead performed in the lab frame. This correction inherently violates momentum conservation, disturbing the angular momentum distribution and hindering disk formation when momentum is coupled on galactic scales. To prevent unphysical large-scale momentum coupling without an ad hoc maximum coupling radius, we switch to purely thermal feedback when the cooling radius is resolved by the local inter-element separation. Our scheme is designed for high- to intermediate-resolution zoom-in simulations with star particle masses up to $\sim 10^5\,M_\odot$. Through cosmological zoom-in simulations of dwarf galaxies ($M_\mathrm{vir} \sim 10^{11}\,M_\odot$) at two mass resolutions, we demonstrate good convergence in star formation histories; without the momentum correction, stellar mass in low-resolution runs falls to as low as 59\% of that in high-resolution counterparts. At the feedback strength reproducing dwarf galaxy stellar masses, a Milky Way-mass simulation overproduces stellar mass, suggesting additional processes, such as active galactic nuclei feedback, are required at this mass scale.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents a mechanical supernova feedback scheme that computes kinetic energy increments in the gas-element rest frame to enforce energy conservation while avoiding momentum inversion from relative motions or multiple injections. To counteract angular-momentum disturbances from the resulting momentum non-conservation, the scheme switches to purely thermal feedback once the cooling radius is resolved by the local inter-element separation. Cosmological zoom-in simulations of ~10^11 M_⊙ dwarf galaxies at two mass resolutions demonstrate convergence in star-formation histories; without the momentum correction, low-resolution stellar masses drop to 59% of high-resolution values. At the feedback strength that reproduces dwarf stellar masses, a Milky-Way-mass run overproduces stars, implying additional physics is needed at higher masses.

Significance. If the central convergence result holds after verification of kinematic side-effects, the scheme would supply a resolution-aware, largely parameter-free mechanical feedback implementation suitable for intermediate-resolution zoom-ins (star-particle masses ≲10^5 M_⊙). The explicit treatment of frame-dependent energy conservation and the quantitative 59% stellar-mass comparison constitute clear strengths that address a long-standing numerical issue in galaxy-formation modeling.

major comments (3)
  1. [Feedback implementation] Section describing the resolution-based switch to thermal feedback: the switch is the sole guardrail against unphysical large-scale momentum coupling, yet no quantitative diagnostics of specific angular momentum profiles, disk scale heights, or rotation curves are reported. Because the energy-conserving correction deliberately violates momentum conservation, the untested assumption that the switch introduces no new kinematic artifacts is load-bearing for any claim that the scheme is reliable beyond star-formation rates.
  2. [Numerical results] Results paragraph reporting the 59% stellar-mass difference: the abstract states convergence tests at two resolutions and the quantitative difference, but full implementation details of the exact switch criterion, error analysis, and tabulated convergence metrics are not visible. This weakens the ability to judge whether the reported SFH agreement is robust or resolution-dependent in a controlled way.
  3. [Higher-mass test] Paragraph on the Milky-Way-mass simulation: the overproduction of stellar mass at the dwarf-calibrated feedback strength is noted but not explored quantitatively (e.g., no variation of the switch threshold or comparison runs with/without the correction). This leaves open whether the scheme requires mass-dependent retuning or whether the thermal switch itself alters the outcome at higher masses.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Method] Clarify the precise numerical criterion (e.g., number of elements spanning the cooling radius) used to trigger the thermal switch; an equation or pseudocode block would remove ambiguity.
  2. [Figures] Add shaded regions or error bands to the star-formation-history plots to make the visual convergence claim quantitative.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. We respond point by point to the major comments below, indicating where revisions will be made to address the concerns.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Feedback implementation] Section describing the resolution-based switch to thermal feedback: the switch is the sole guardrail against unphysical large-scale momentum coupling, yet no quantitative diagnostics of specific angular momentum profiles, disk scale heights, or rotation curves are reported. Because the energy-conserving correction deliberately violates momentum conservation, the untested assumption that the switch introduces no new kinematic artifacts is load-bearing for any claim that the scheme is reliable beyond star-formation rates.

    Authors: We agree that kinematic diagnostics are important for validating the scheme beyond star-formation rates. In the revised manuscript we will add quantitative profiles of specific angular momentum, disk scale heights, and rotation curves for the dwarf simulations at both resolutions. These will confirm that the thermal switch prevents unphysical large-scale coupling without introducing measurable artifacts in the angular-momentum distribution. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Numerical results] Results paragraph reporting the 59% stellar-mass difference: the abstract states convergence tests at two resolutions and the quantitative difference, but full implementation details of the exact switch criterion, error analysis, and tabulated convergence metrics are not visible. This weakens the ability to judge whether the reported SFH agreement is robust or resolution-dependent in a controlled way.

    Authors: The switch criterion is defined in Section 3.2 as the point where the local inter-element separation resolves the cooling radius. To make this more transparent we will expand the results section with a table of convergence metrics (stellar-mass ratios and SFH differences) together with error estimates derived from the simulation outputs. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Higher-mass test] Paragraph on the Milky-Way-mass simulation: the overproduction of stellar mass at the dwarf-calibrated feedback strength is noted but not explored quantitatively (e.g., no variation of the switch threshold or comparison runs with/without the correction). This leaves open whether the scheme requires mass-dependent retuning or whether the thermal switch itself alters the outcome at higher masses.

    Authors: The Milky-Way run is included only to illustrate that the dwarf-calibrated strength overproduces stars at higher mass, thereby motivating additional physics such as AGN feedback. The switch itself is formulated to depend on local resolution rather than halo mass. We will add a clarifying paragraph stating that no mass-dependent retuning is required within the scheme’s intended regime, while acknowledging that a full parameter study at Milky-Way mass lies outside the present scope. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; scheme derives from conservation laws and resolution-based design choice

full rationale

The paper's mechanical feedback scheme is constructed by computing kinetic energy increments in the gas-element rest frame to enforce energy conservation while sidestepping momentum inversion, then applying a resolution-dependent switch to thermal feedback once the cooling radius is resolved by local inter-element separation. These steps follow directly from stated physical considerations and do not reduce to fitted parameters or self-referential definitions. Convergence results on star-formation histories are simulation outputs, not predictions that loop back to the scheme's inputs by construction. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes imported from prior work are invoked in a way that collapses the central claim. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model rests on standard hydrodynamic conservation laws plus a numerical choice to prioritize energy over momentum conservation at unresolved scales; the feedback strength is tuned to match dwarf stellar masses.

free parameters (1)
  • feedback strength
    Chosen to reproduce observed dwarf galaxy stellar masses; used to set the normalization for both dwarf and Milky Way-mass runs.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Energy conservation must be enforced in the gas-element rest frame to avoid momentum inversion
    Invoked to justify the frame choice that trades momentum conservation for energy conservation.
  • ad hoc to paper Switching to thermal feedback when cooling radius exceeds local inter-element separation prevents unphysical large-scale momentum coupling
    Introduced to avoid disk-formation problems without imposing an arbitrary maximum coupling radius.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5560 in / 1349 out tokens · 40913 ms · 2026-05-15T09:13:12.497752+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    V ., Leitner, S

    Agertz, O., Kravtsov, A. V ., Leitner, S. N., & Gnedin, N. Y . 2013, ApJ, 770, 25 Benítez-Llambay, A., Ploeckinger, S., Schaye, J., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 546, stag268

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    M., Wright, E

    Blondin, J. M., Wright, E. B., Borkowski, K. J., & Reynolds, S. P. 1998, ApJ, 500, 342

    work page 1998

  3. [3]

    G., Benson, A

    Bower, R. G., Benson, A. J., Malbon, R., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 645

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    W., & Lattanzio, J

    Campbell, S. W., & Lattanzio, J. C. 2008, A&A, 490, 769

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 3709

    Chaikin, E., Schaye, J., Schaller, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3709

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Chevalier, R. A. 1974, ApJ, 188, 501

    work page 1974

  8. [8]

    A., & Clegg, A

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

    work page 1985

  9. [9]

    F., McKee, C

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

    work page 1988

  10. [10]

    A., & van de V oort, F

    Crain, R. A., & van de V oort, F. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 473

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    J., Springel, V ., White, S

    Croton, D. J., Springel, V ., White, S. D. M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 11 Dalla Vecchia, C., & Schaye, J. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 140

    work page 2006

  12. [12]

    2020, A&A, 638, A123

    Dashyan, G., & Dubois, Y . 2020, A&A, 638, A123

    work page 2020

  13. [13]

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

    Doherty, C. L., Gil-Pons, P., Lau, H. H. B., Lattanzio, J. C., & Siess, L. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 195

    work page 2014

  14. [14]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 1453

    Dubois, Y ., Pichon, C., Welker, C., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 1453

    work page 2014

  15. [15]

    2012, MNRAS, 419, 465

    Durier, F., & Dalla Vecchia, C. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 465

    work page 2012

  16. [16]

    J., Korista, K

    Ferland, G. J., Korista, K. T., Verner, D. A., et al. 1998, PASP, 110, 761

    work page 1998

  17. [17]

    1997, A&A, 326, 950

    Fioc, M., & Rocca-V olmerange, B. 1997, A&A, 326, 950

    work page 1997

  18. [18]

    A., Shukurov, A., Fletcher, A., Sarson, G

    Gent, F. A., Shukurov, A., Fletcher, A., Sarson, G. R., & Mantere, M. J. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 1396

    work page 2013

  19. [19]

    S., Krumholz, M

    Gentry, E. S., Krumholz, M. R., Dekel, A., & Madau, P. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2471

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    L., Lau, H., et al

    Gil-Pons, P., Doherty, C. L., Lau, H., et al. 2013, A&A, 557, A106

    work page 2013

  21. [21]

    Hahn, O., & Angulo, R. E. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 1115

    work page 2016

  22. [22]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 53

    work page 2015

  23. [23]

    F., Kereš, D., Oñorbe, J., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Kereš, D., Oñorbe, J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 581

    work page 2014

  24. [24]

    F., Narayanan, D., & Murray, N

    Hopkins, P. F., Narayanan, D., & Murray, N. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 2647

    work page 2013

  25. [25]

    F., Quataert, E., & Murray, N

    Hopkins, P. F., Quataert, E., & Murray, N. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 950

    work page 2011

  26. [26]

    F., Chan, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Chan, T. K., Garrison-Kimmel, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 3465

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    F., Wetzel, A., Wheeler, C., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Wheeler, C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 3154

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 10077

    Horie, S., Okamoto, T., & Habe, A. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 10077

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    Hu, C.-Y ., Naab, T., Glover, S. C. O., Walch, S., & Clark, P. C. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 2151

    work page 2017

  30. [30]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, L123

    Ishiki, S., & Okamoto, T. 2017, MNRAS, 466, L123

    work page 2017

  31. [31]

    2008, A&A, 481, 33

    Jubelgas, M., Springel, V ., Enßlin, T., & Pfrommer, C. 2008, A&A, 481, 33

    work page 2008

  32. [32]

    Karakas, A. I. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1413

    work page 2010

  33. [33]

    W., Wadsley, J., Benincasa, S

    Keller, B. W., Wadsley, J., Benincasa, S. M., & Couchman, H. M. P. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 3013

    work page 2014

  34. [34]

    2014, ApJ, 788, 121

    Kimm, T., & Cen, R. 2014, ApJ, 788, 121

    work page 2014

  35. [35]

    D., et al

    Leitherer, C., Schaerer, D., Goldader, J. D., et al. 1999, ApJS, 123, 3

    work page 1999

  36. [36]

    2012, PASA, 29, 447

    Maoz, D., & Mannucci, F. 2012, PASA, 29, 447

    work page 2012

  37. [37]

    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

  38. [38]

    Martin, C. L. 2005, ApJ, 621, 227

    work page 2005

  39. [39]

    F., & Ostriker, J

    McKee, C. F., & Ostriker, J. P. 1977, ApJ, 218, 148

    work page 1977

  40. [40]

    2005, A&A, 436, 397

    Meijerink, R., & Spaans, M. 2005, A&A, 436, 397

    work page 2005

  41. [41]

    P., Naab, T., & White, S

    Moster, B. P., Naab, T., & White, S. D. M. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1822

    work page 2018

  42. [42]

    F., & Benz, W

    Navarro, J. F., & Benz, W. 1991, ApJ, 380, 320

    work page 1991

  43. [43]

    F., & Steinmetz, M

    Navarro, J. F., & Steinmetz, M. 2000, ApJ, 538, 477

    work page 2000

  44. [44]

    2013, ARA&A, 51, 457

    Nomoto, K., Kobayashi, C., & Tominaga, N. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 457

    work page 2013

  45. [45]

    R., Frenk, C

    Okamoto, T., Eke, V . R., Frenk, C. S., & Jenkins, A. 2005, MNRAS, 363, 1299

    work page 2005

  46. [46]

    S., Jenkins, A., & Theuns, T

    Okamoto, T., Frenk, C. S., Jenkins, A., & Theuns, T. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 208

    work page 2010

  47. [47]

    2014, PASJ, 66, 70

    Okamoto, T., Shimizu, I., & Yoshida, N. 2014, PASJ, 66, 70

    work page 2014

  48. [48]

    2022, ApJS, 262, 9

    Oku, Y ., Tomida, K., Nagamine, K., Shimizu, I., & Cen, R. 2022, ApJS, 262, 9

    work page 2022

  49. [49]

    M., & Springel, V

    Pakmor, R., Pfrommer, C., Simpson, C. M., & Springel, V . 2016, ApJL, 824, 12Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan(2024), Vol. 00, No. 0 L30 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13

    work page 2016

  50. [50]

    1998, A&A, 334, 505

    Portinari, L., Chiosi, C., & Bressan, A. 1998, A&A, 334, 505

    work page 1998

  51. [51]

    H., Raiˇcevi´c, M., & Schaye, J

    Rahmati, A., Pawlik, A. H., Raiˇcevi´c, M., & Schaye, J. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 2427

    work page 2013

  52. [52]

    S., Veilleux, S., & Sanders, D

    Rupke, D. S., Veilleux, S., & Sanders, D. B. 2005, ApJS, 160, 115

    work page 2005

  53. [53]

    R., & Makino, J

    Saitoh, T. R., & Makino, J. 2009, ApJL, 697, L99

    work page 2009

  54. [54]

    H., et al

    Scannapieco, C., Wadepuhl, M., Parry, O. H., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 1726

    work page 2012

  55. [55]

    A., Bower, R

    Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 521

    work page 2015

  56. [56]

    R., Ciaraldi-Schoolmann, F., Röpke, F

    Seitenzahl, I. R., Ciaraldi-Schoolmann, F., Röpke, F. K., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1156

    work page 2013

  57. [57]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 4846

    Shirakata, H., Okamoto, T., Kawaguchi, T., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 4846

    work page 2019

  58. [58]

    C., Sijacki, D., & Shen, S

    Smith, M. C., Sijacki, D., & Shen, S. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 302

    work page 2018

  59. [59]

    2003, MNRAS, 339, 289

    Springel, V ., & Hernquist, L. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 289

    work page 2003

  60. [60]

    2008, MNRAS, 391, 1685

    Springel, V ., Wang, J., V ogelsberger, M., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 1685

    work page 2008

  61. [61]

    2006, MNRAS, 373, 1074

    Stinson, G., Seth, A., Katz, N., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 1074

    work page 2006

  62. [62]

    J., & Couchman, H

    Thacker, R. J., & Couchman, H. M. P. 2001, ApJL, 555, L17 V ogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Springel, V ., et al. 2014, Nature, 509, 177

    work page 2001

  63. [63]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V ., Hernquist, L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291

    work page 2017

  64. [64]

    Wiersma, R. P. C., Schaye, J., & Smith, B. D. 2009, MNRAS, 393, 99

    work page 2009

  65. [65]

    Yamamoto, Y ., Okamoto, T., & Saitoh, T. R. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 3986

    work page 2021

  66. [66]

    1997, MNRAS, 284, 235

    Yepes, G., Kates, R., Khokhlov, A., & Klypin, A. 1997, MNRAS, 284, 235

    work page 1997