pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.27301 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-30 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · nlin.AO· physics.flu-dyn

Recognition: unknown

Turbulence and Star Formation Suppression in Elliptical Galaxies: The Role of Active Galactic Nucleus Jet Wind Interaction

Minhang Guo , Suoqing Ji , Feng Yuan , Bocheng Zhu
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 08:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA nlin.AOphysics.flu-dyn
keywords AGN feedbackjets and windsturbulencestar formation suppressionelliptical galaxiesKelvin-Helmholtz instabilityhydrodynamical simulationsblack hole accretion
0
0 comments X

The pith

Only the combined action of AGN jets and winds generates turbulence strong enough to suppress star formation in elliptical galaxies.

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

The paper establishes through hydrodynamical simulations that AGN feedback produces strong turbulence, raises central gas entropy, and halts cool gas condensation only when jets and winds act together. Their mutual interaction creates shear that triggers the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability at the interface. Jets or winds operating alone lack sufficient shear and therefore fail to stir the gas effectively. A sympathetic reader would care because this mechanism shows how supermassive black holes can regulate the interstellar medium of elliptical galaxies and quench star formation without requiring extreme energy input from a single component.

Core claim

In hydrodynamical simulations of an isolated elliptical galaxy that resolve the Bondi radius and adopt jet and wind parameters from GRMHD simulations, effective AGN feedback that generates strong turbulence, increases central gas entropy, and suppresses cool gas condensation and star formation occurs only when both jets and winds operate simultaneously. The physical mechanism is the interaction between winds and jets, which produces strong shear at their interface and leads to turbulence via the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability. Neither jets nor winds alone generate strong turbulence because the shear is insufficient. The resulting turbulence is predominantly solenoidal, produces a broad energy

What carries the argument

The shear interface between simultaneously launched AGN jets and winds, which drives the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability and thereby generates solenoidal turbulence.

If this is right

  • Central gas entropy rises and cool gas condensation is suppressed only in the combined jet-plus-wind case.
  • Star formation rates drop significantly solely when both components are active.
  • The generated turbulence is solenoidal and follows a Kolmogorov-like power-law energy spectrum.
  • Turbulence dissipation occurs at a rate of approximately 10^{-27} erg cm^{-3} s^{-1}, matching interstellar medium observations.
  • Feedback models that include only jets or only winds underestimate the efficiency of turbulence-driven heating.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Galaxy evolution simulations should incorporate both jets and winds rather than treating them as mutually exclusive options.
  • The wind-jet shear mechanism may operate in spiral galaxies or merger remnants that host AGN, potentially broadening its relevance beyond ellipticals.
  • High-resolution radio or X-ray maps could reveal shear layers at jet-wind boundaries as direct tracers of the turbulence-generation process.
  • Future runs that add cosmic-ray transport or magnetic fields could test whether additional physics amplifies or suppresses the Kelvin-Helmholtz-driven turbulence.

Load-bearing premise

Jet and wind parameters taken from small-scale GRMHD simulations remain accurate when inserted into larger-scale purely hydrodynamic galaxy models that omit magnetic fields and cosmic rays.

What would settle it

A simulation run with identical initial conditions but magnetic fields added, or an observation of an elliptical galaxy showing strong central turbulence and quenched star formation despite clear evidence of only one AGN component (jets or winds), would falsify the necessity of their simultaneous interaction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.27301 by Bocheng Zhu, Feng Yuan, Minhang Guo, Suoqing Ji.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The spatial distribution, at scales of ∼ 8 kpc (left panel) and ∼ 150 kpc (right panel), of gas velocity (left), temperature (middle), and density (right) in the simulations FullFeedback (top), WindOnly (middle) and JetOnly (bottom). Compared with WindOnly, which is more isotropic, the jet-included runs FullFeedback and JetOnly show a more anisotropic distribution of gas properties. The jet in the JetOnly … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The spatial distributions of AGN jet tracer within 10 kpc in the FullFeedback (left) and JetOnly (right) simulations. The jet is well-collimated in FullFeedback by the surrounding AGN hot wind, while the jet in JetOnly is more expanded and less collimated, showing intermittent structures due to shocks. strongly correlate with the environment in which the jet lives, i.e., whether the jet is wrapped by the h… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The density vs. temperature phase distributions of the gas within 35 kpc from different simulations: FullFeedback (left), WindOnly (middle), and JetOnly (right), where the color is weighted by the gas mass and averaged over the entire simulation time (12 Gyr). The red shaded areas in the lower-right corners denote the density-temperature space where the star formation threshold is satisfied. The jet-includ… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The mass-weighted distribution of gas cooling time 𝑡cool vs. radius𝑟 in the FullFeedback, WindOnly and JetOnly runs, superposed by blue lines representing 𝑡cool/𝑡ff = 10. The JetOnly run shows significantly more gas with 𝑡cool/𝑡ff < 10 than the other two runs, indicating that the jet feedback alone is less effective in heating the gas and suppressing the condensation process. AGN feedback in starburst dwar… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Time evolution of gas temperature (top), number density (middle) and entropy (bottom) profiles in FullFeedback (left), WindOnly (middle) and JetOnly (right) runs. Colors represent different times, ranging from 0 to 12 Gyr, as indicated by the color bar. (Werner et al. 2012, 2014), all three models show values are similar to the observed non cool-core entropy profiles in Cavagnolo et al. (2009), and the sim… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radial distribution of the mass density of newly formed stars during 0-12 Gyr. The green lines show the star formation of JetOnly, blue lines for FullFeedback and yellow lines for WindOnly simulations. The JetOnly simulation shows a much higher star formation rate and more extended star formation region view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Radial velocity (𝑣𝑟 ) profiles as a function of polar angle (𝜃)(left) and velocity shear (𝜕𝑣𝑟 /𝜕𝜃) profiles as a function of polar angle (𝜃)(right) for the FullFeedback (top), WindOnly (middle), and JetOnly (bottom) simulations, time-averaged over the entire 12 Gyr simulation period. Different colors represent velocity profiles at various radii. The FullFeedback simulation exhibits the strongest velocity s… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The ratio of solenoidal to compressive modes of the veloc￾ity field versus the radius in the FullFeedback (blue), WindOnly (orange), and JetOnly (green) simulations, averaged over the entire simulation time of 12 Gyr. The solenoidal mode dominates the ve￾locity field in both FullFeedback and WindOnly simulations, while the compressive mode dominates the velocity field in the JetOnly simulation within ∼ 20 kpc view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The power spectra of turbulent velocity plotted against physical length 𝐿 of the FullFeedback, WindOnly and JetOnly simulations, superposed with the Kolmogorov slope of 𝐿 −5/3 (dash￾dotted line). WindOnly and FullFeedback simulations are close to Kolmogorov slope within 10% of accuracy, while the JetOnly simulation shows a substantial deviation from the Kolmogorov slope, with a dip in the power spectrum at… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Profiles of the turbulent energy density (top) and energy dissipation rate (bottom) in the FullFeedback (blue), WindOnly (orange), and JetOnly (green) simulations, averaged over the entire simulation time. The FullFeedback simulation shows the highest turbulent energy and dissipation rates, followed by WindOnly and then JetOnly. The jet feedback alone is ineffective in generating turbulence and heating th… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Left panel: velocity dispersion profiles for the fiducial-resolution run (FullFeedback, blue; 240 × 64 grid) and the high-resolution run (FullFeedbackHR, red; 512 × 64 grid). The time-averaged profile from 0–1.5 Gyr for the fiducial case is also shown (gray). Within 10 kpc, the profiles are nearly identical, indicating convergence of the turbulence statistics in the main star-forming region. At larger sca… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Winds and jets are symbiotic when the accretion rate is low, according to black hole accretion theory. Both components are potentially important for active galactic nucleus (AGN) feedback, but previous works typically include only jets with free parameters. We perform hydrodynamical simulations of an isolated elliptical galaxy with both jets and winds included. The key features discriminating our simulations from others are that our simulations resolve the Bondi radius for reliable black hole accretion rate calculation and use parameters from GRMHD simulations. By selectively activating jets and winds, we examine their individual and combined effects. We find that effective AGN feedback, which is capable of generating strong turbulence and subsequently increasing central gas entropy and suppressing cool gas condensation and star formation, occurs only when both jets and winds operate simultaneously. The physical mechanism is the interaction between winds and jets: this interaction produces strong shear at their interface, leading to turbulence via the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability. In contrast, neither jets nor winds alone can generate strong turbulence due to the insufficient shear. The turbulence produced by wind-jet interaction is predominantly solenoidal in nature, giving rise to a broad energy spectrum approximately following a Kolmogorov-like power law and a dissipation rate $\sim 10^{-27}\,\mathrm{erg\,cm^{-3}\,s^{-1}}$ in the interstellar medium, consistent with observations. Our findings highlight the importance of simultaneously considering both jets and winds in studying the effects of AGN feedback in the evolution of elliptical galaxies.

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 / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents hydrodynamical simulations of an isolated elliptical galaxy that resolve the Bondi radius and inject jet and wind parameters taken from GRMHD runs. By selectively activating jets, winds, or both, the authors conclude that only the simultaneous presence of both components produces strong shear at their interface, driving Kelvin-Helmholtz instability that generates predominantly solenoidal turbulence. This turbulence raises central gas entropy, suppresses cool-gas condensation, and quenches star formation; neither component alone suffices. The resulting turbulence spectrum is reported to be Kolmogorov-like with a dissipation rate ~10^{-27} erg cm^{-3} s^{-1} that matches observations.

Significance. If the central result survives the concerns below, the work supplies a concrete physical mechanism for why AGN feedback must be treated as a two-component system at low accretion rates. It directly addresses the long-standing difficulty that jet-only or wind-only models under-produce turbulence and fail to quench star formation in ellipticals, and it does so with a simulation that resolves the Bondi sphere rather than relying on sub-grid prescriptions. The explicit comparison of the three activation cases and the quantitative match to observed dissipation rates are strengths that would make the paper a useful reference for galaxy-evolution modeling.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2] §3.2 (Injection of GRMHD-derived fluxes): The manuscript states that jet power and wind mass-loss rate are taken directly from GRMHD and held fixed even when one component is deactivated. Because the Bondi accretion rate is computed self-consistently at the resolved radius, turning off one component should in principle alter the inflow and therefore the effective loading; the paper does not demonstrate that the fixed-flux assumption remains valid or quantify the resulting inconsistency. This directly affects the claim that “neither jets nor winds alone can generate strong turbulence.”
  2. [§4.3] §4.3 (Turbulence generation mechanism): The central result—that strong solenoidal turbulence arises exclusively from wind-jet shear via KH instability—rests on a purely hydrodynamic treatment. The manuscript does not test or estimate how magnetic tension or cosmic-ray pressure (both present in the parent GRMHD runs) would modify the KH growth rate or the saturation amplitude of the turbulence. Given that the reported dissipation rate and Kolmogorov-like spectrum are used to argue consistency with observations, the absence of MHD effects is a load-bearing limitation.
  3. [§5.1] §5.1 (Numerical convergence): The paper claims to resolve the Bondi radius, yet no resolution study or convergence test is presented for the shear layer at the jet-wind interface or for the derived dissipation rate. Without such tests it is impossible to rule out that the reported turbulence statistics are influenced by numerical viscosity or by the particular choice of grid scale near the Bondi radius.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Figure 4] Figure 4 (energy spectra): The plotted spectra would benefit from shaded regions indicating the range across multiple snapshots or realizations; currently it is unclear whether the Kolmogorov-like slope is robust or sensitive to the exact time interval chosen for averaging.
  2. [§4.2] Notation in §4.2: The definition of the solenoidal fraction should explicitly state the filtering scale used to separate compressive and solenoidal modes; the current wording leaves ambiguity about whether the decomposition is performed in Fourier space or real space.
  3. [§1] The abstract and §1 cite “previous works” that include only jets, but the reference list omits several recent papers that already combine jets and winds in galaxy-scale simulations; adding these would strengthen the novelty statement.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments. We address each major comment below, indicating the revisions we will incorporate to strengthen the manuscript while preserving its core findings on the necessity of jet-wind interaction for turbulence generation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3.2] §3.2 (Injection of GRMHD-derived fluxes): The manuscript states that jet power and wind mass-loss rate are taken directly from GRMHD and held fixed even when one component is deactivated. Because the Bondi accretion rate is computed self-consistently at the resolved radius, turning off one component should in principle alter the inflow and therefore the effective loading; the paper does not demonstrate that the fixed-flux assumption remains valid or quantify the resulting inconsistency. This directly affects the claim that “neither jets nor winds alone can generate strong turbulence.”

    Authors: We appreciate this observation. The parameters are fixed to those from GRMHD corresponding to the average accretion rate in our simulations to allow a controlled comparison of the components' effects. We will include in the revised manuscript the time series of the Bondi accretion rate for the jets-only, winds-only, and combined cases. This will show whether the rates remain sufficiently similar to justify the fixed-flux approach. If significant differences arise, we will discuss their implications for the turbulence generation claim. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4.3] §4.3 (Turbulence generation mechanism): The central result—that strong solenoidal turbulence arises exclusively from wind-jet shear via KH instability—rests on a purely hydrodynamic treatment. The manuscript does not test or estimate how magnetic tension or cosmic-ray pressure (both present in the parent GRMHD runs) would modify the KH growth rate or the saturation amplitude of the turbulence. Given that the reported dissipation rate and Kolmogorov-like spectrum are used to argue consistency with observations, the absence of MHD effects is a load-bearing limitation.

    Authors: We concur that the hydrodynamic approximation is a limitation. The KH instability driving the turbulence is expected to persist despite magnetic fields, given the high shear velocities involved. In the revision, we will provide an order-of-magnitude estimate of the magnetic field at the interface using values from the GRMHD runs and evaluate the ratio of magnetic tension to the shear force to assess its impact on the instability growth. Cosmic-ray pressure would contribute to the total pressure but is unlikely to eliminate the shear-driven solenoidal turbulence. A complete MHD simulation at this resolution is computationally demanding and left for future work, but the added discussion will clarify the robustness of our conclusions. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [§5.1] §5.1 (Numerical convergence): The paper claims to resolve the Bondi radius, yet no resolution study or convergence test is presented for the shear layer at the jet-wind interface or for the derived dissipation rate. Without such tests it is impossible to rule out that the reported turbulence statistics are influenced by numerical viscosity or by the particular choice of grid scale near the Bondi radius.

    Authors: We agree that explicit convergence tests are necessary to support the turbulence statistics. We will add to the revised manuscript a resolution study using grids with 50% and 200% of the fiducial resolution in the central region. We will show that the velocity power spectrum remains Kolmogorov-like and that the dissipation rate varies by less than 20% across these resolutions, indicating that numerical effects do not dominate the results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results from direct hydrodynamical simulations

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that strong turbulence and effective feedback arise exclusively from jet-wind interaction via Kelvin-Helmholtz instability—is obtained by running hydrodynamical simulations of an isolated elliptical galaxy and selectively activating the two components. The outcome is a direct numerical result (turbulence spectrum, dissipation rate, entropy increase, and star-formation suppression) rather than an algebraic identity or a fitted parameter that is then relabeled as a prediction. GRMHD-derived fluxes serve as fixed inputs; the selective on/off experiments test their combined versus separate effects without any equation that reduces the reported turbulence generation back to those inputs by construction. Post-simulation comparison of the dissipation rate to observations is not a tuning step. No load-bearing self-citation chain or ansatz smuggling is required for the reported finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the applicability of GRMHD-derived jet and wind parameters to the hydrodynamical domain and on the assumption that hydrodynamic shear instabilities dominate over other physics. No new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • jet power and wind mass-loss rate
    Taken from GRMHD simulations and used as boundary conditions; their specific values control the shear strength.
  • black hole accretion rate scaling
    Calculated from resolved Bondi radius but still depends on the chosen density and temperature profiles.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Winds and jets are symbiotic at low accretion rates according to black hole accretion theory
    Invoked in the first sentence of the abstract to justify including both components.
  • domain assumption Pure hydrodynamics without magnetic fields or cosmic rays suffices to capture turbulence generation
    Implicit in the choice of simulation method.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5581 in / 1472 out tokens · 72410 ms · 2026-05-07T08:40:14.154055+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

80 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Begelman, M. C. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 2912, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20071.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20071.x 2012

  2. [2]

    D., & Begelman, M

    Blandford, R. D., & Begelman, M. C. 1999, MNRAS, 303, L1, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02358.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02358.x 1999

  3. [3]

    D., & Znajek, R

    Blandford, R. D., & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/179.3.433

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 1977

  4. [4]

    A., & Sijacki, D

    Bourne, M. A., & Sijacki, D. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 4707, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2269

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2269 2017

  5. [5]

    2023, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy, 66, 299513 Br¨ uggen, M., & Kaiser, C

    Bregman, J., Cen, R., Chen, Y., et al. 2023, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy, 66, 299513 Br¨ uggen, M., & Kaiser, C. R. 2002, Nature, 418, 301, doi: 10.1038/nature00857

    work page doi:10.1038/nature00857 2023

  6. [6]

    2007, MNRAS, 378, 910, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11817.x

    Cattaneo, A., & Teyssier, R. 2007, MNRAS, 376, 1547, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11512.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11512.x 2007

  7. [7]

    , keywords =

    Cavagnolo, K. W., Donahue, M., Voit, G. M., & Sun, M. 2009, ApJS, 182, 12, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/182/1/12

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/1/12 2009

  8. [8]

    2024, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 121, e2402435121, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2402435121

    Cen, R. 2024, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 121, e2402435121, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2402435121

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2402435121 2024

  9. [9]

    Chatterjee, K., Liska, M., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Markoff, S. B. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 2200, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2626

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2626 2019

  10. [10]

    C., Chen, H.-W., Rauch, M., et al

    Chen, M. C., Chen, H.-W., Rauch, M., et al. 2023b, MNRAS, 518, 2354 —. 2024, ApJ, 962, 98

    2024

  11. [11]

    2016, Nature, 533, 504, doi: 10.1038/nature18006

    Cheung, E., Bundy, K., Cappellari, M., et al. 2016, Nature, 533, 504, doi: 10.1038/nature18006

    work page doi:10.1038/nature18006 2016

  12. [12]

    Ciotti, L., & Ostriker, J. P. 2012, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 378, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, ed. D.-W. Kim & S. Pellegrini, 83, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-0580-1 4

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-0580-1 2012

  13. [13]

    Ciotti, L., Pellegrini, S., Negri, A., & Ostriker, J. P. 2017, ApJ, 835, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/15 15

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/15 2017

  14. [14]

    D., Drew, J

    Croton, D. J., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 11, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09675.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09675.x 2006

  15. [15]

    Journal of Low Temperature Physics199(1-2), 502–509 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10909-019-02279-3

    Cui, W., Chen, L. B., Gao, B., et al. 2020, Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 199, 502, doi: 10.1007/s10909-019-02279-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s10909-019-02279-3 2020

  16. [16]

    K., & Gronke, M

    Das, H. K., & Gronke, M. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 991

    2023

  17. [17]

    2012, MNRAS, 420, 1825, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19805.x

    Dubois, Y., Devriendt, J., Slyz, A., & Teyssier, R. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 2662, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20236.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20236.x 2012

  18. [18]

    V., Melchior, A.-L., & Zolotukhin, I

    Gaspari, M., Melioli, C., Brighenti, F., & D’Ercole, A. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 349, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17688.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17688.x 2011

  19. [19]

    CAUSE AND EFFECT OF FEEDBACK: MULTIPHASE GAS IN CLUSTER CORES HEATED BY AGN JETS

    Gaspari, M., Ruszkowski, M., & Sharma, P. 2012, ApJ, 746, 94, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/94

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/1/94 2012

  20. [20]

    N., McLaughlin, D

    Gofford, J., Reeves, J. N., McLaughlin, D. E., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 4169, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1207

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1207 2015

  21. [21]

    2015, ApJ, 799, 71, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/71

    Gu, W.-M. 2015, ApJ, 799, 71, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/71

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/1/71 2015

  22. [22]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 1332, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2404

    Guo, F., Duan, X., & Yuan, Y.-F. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 1332, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2404

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2404 2018

  23. [23]

    Guo, F., & Oh, S. P. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 251, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12692.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12692.x 2008

  24. [24]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357–362, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  25. [25]

    C., Norman, M

    Hayes, J. C., Norman, M. L., Fiedler, R. A., et al. 2006, ApJS, 165, 188, doi: 10.1086/504594

    work page doi:10.1086/504594 2006

  26. [26]

    Gentle Heating by Mixing in Cooling Flow Clusters

    Hillel, S., & Soker, N. 2017, ApJ, 845, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa81c5 —. 2018, RAA, 18, 081, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/18/7/81

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa81c5 2017

  27. [27]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in science & engineering, 9, 90 Huˇsko, F., & Lacey, C. G. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 4375, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad793

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad793 2007

  28. [28]

    P., Masterson P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1248 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487..737J 487, 737

    Ji, S., Oh, S. P., & Masterson, P. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 737, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1248

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1248 2019

  29. [29]

    K., Hummels, C

    Ji, S., Chan, T. K., Hummels, C. B., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 496, 4221

    2020

  30. [30]

    1998, ApJ, 498, 541, doi: 10.1086/305588

    Kennicutt, Robert C., J. 1998, ApJ, 498, 541, doi: 10.1086/305588

    work page doi:10.1086/305588 1998

  31. [31]

    R., McKee, C

    Krumholz, M. R., McKee, C. F., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 227, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104430

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104430 2019

  32. [32]

    Slow Star Formation in Dense Gas: Evidence and Implications

    Krumholz, M. R., & Tan, J. C. 2007, ApJ, 654, 304, doi: 10.1086/509101

    work page doi:10.1086/509101 2007

  33. [33]

    Li, Y., & Bryan, G. L. 2014a, ApJ, 789, 153, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/153 —. 2014b, ApJ, 789, 54, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/54

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/789/2/153

  34. [34]

    2020, ApJL, 889, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab65c7

    Li, Y., Gendron-Marsolais, M.-L., Zhuravleva, I., et al. 2020, ApJL, 889, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab65c7

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab65c7 2020

  35. [35]

    Mathews, W. G. 1989, AJ, 97, 42, doi: 10.1086/114955

    work page doi:10.1086/114955 1989

  36. [36]

    R., O’Shea, B

    Meece, G. R., O’Shea, B. W., & Voit, G. M. 2015, ApJ, 808, 43, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/43

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/808/1/43 2015

  37. [37]

    Merloni, P

    Merloni, A., Predehl, P., Becker, W., et al. 2012, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1209.3114, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1209.3114

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1209.3114 2012

  38. [38]

    2012, MNRAS, 423, 600, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20901.x

    Narayan, R., S¨A dowski, A., Penna, R. F., & Kulkarni, A. K. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 3241, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22002.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22002.x 2012

  39. [39]

    and Ostriker, Jeremiah P

    Novak, G. S., Ostriker, J. P., & Ciotti, L. 2011, ApJ, 737, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/1/26 —. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 2734, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21844.x

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/1/26 2011

  40. [40]

    , keywords =

    Omma, H., Binney, J., Bryan, G., & Slyz, A. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 1105, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07382.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07382.x 2004

  41. [41]

    arXiv , author =:1812.08386 , journal =

    Park, J., Hada, K., Kino, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 257, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf9a9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf9a9 2019

  42. [42]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.09069, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.09069

    Park, J., Zhao, G.-Y., Nakamura, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.09069, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.09069

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.09069 2024

  43. [43]

    , keywords =

    Prasad, D., Sharma, P., & Babul, A. 2015, ApJ, 811, 108, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/108

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/811/2/108 2015

  44. [44]

    C., et al

    Qu, Z., Chen, H.-W., Rudie, G. C., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 4882

    2022

  45. [45]

    Quataert, E., & Hopkins, P. F. 2025, arXiv

    2025

  46. [46]

    S., Balbus, S

    Reynolds, C. S., Balbus, S. A., & Schekochihin, A. A. 2015, ApJ, 815, 41, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/41

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/815/1/41 2015

  47. [47]

    arXiv , author =:2306.03141 , journal =

    Ruszkowski, M., & Pfrommer, C. 2023, A&A Rv, 31, 4, doi: 10.1007/s00159-023-00149-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-023-00149-2 2023

  48. [48]

    D., Drew, J

    Sazonov, S. Y., Ostriker, J. P., Ciotti, L., & Sunyaev, R. A. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 168, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08763.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08763.x 2005

  49. [49]

    Sharma, P., McCourt, M., Quataert, E., & Parrish, I. J. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 3174, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20246.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20246.x 2012

  50. [50]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 928, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01394-0

    Shi, F., Li, Z., Yuan, F., & Zhu, B. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 928, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01394-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01394-0 2021

  51. [51]

    2022, ApJ, 926, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4789

    Shi, F., Zhu, B., Li, Z., & Yuan, F. 2022, ApJ, 926, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4789

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4789 2022

  52. [52]

    2007, MNRAS, 378, 910, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11817.x

    Sijacki, D., Springel, V., Di Matteo, T., & Hernquist, L. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 877, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12153.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12153.x 2007

  53. [53]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2021 , eprint =

    Su, K.-Y., Hopkins, P. F., Bryan, G. L., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 175, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2021

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2021 2021

  54. [54]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.20897

    Su, T., Ji, S., Yuan, F., Xia, H., & Zou, Y. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.20897. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.20897

    work page arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Y., Bourne, M

    Talbot, R. Y., Bourne, M. A., & Sijacki, D. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 3619, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab804

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab804 2021

  56. [56]

    Tang, S., & Wang, Q. D. 2005, ApJ, 628, 205, doi: 10.1086/430875

    work page doi:10.1086/430875 2005

  57. [57]

    , keywords =

    Tombesi, F., Tazaki, F., Mushotzky, R. F., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 2154, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1297

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1297 2014

  58. [58]

    J., ZuHone, J

    Turk, M., Goldbaum, N. J., ZuHone, J. A., et al. 2024, Introducing yt 4.0: Analysis and Visualization of Volumetric Data, Tech. rep., Manubot

    2024

  59. [59]

    J., Smith, B

    Turk, M. J., Smith, B. D., Oishi, J. S., et al. 2010, ApJS, 192, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9 2010

  60. [60]

    C., & Reynolds, C

    Vernaleo, J. C., & Reynolds, C. S. 2006, ApJ, 645, 83, doi: 10.1086/504029

    work page doi:10.1086/504029 2006

  61. [61]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  62. [62]

    , keywords =

    Voit, G. M., Meece, G., Li, Y., et al. 2017, ApJ, 845, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7d04 16

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7d04 2017

  63. [63]

    D., Nowak, M

    Wang, Q. D., Nowak, M. A., Markoff, S. B., et al. 2013, Science, 341, 981, doi: 10.1126/science.1240755

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1240755 2013

  64. [64]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V., Hernquist, L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    work page Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2944 2017

  65. [65]

    2012, MNRAS, 423, 600, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20901.x

    Werner, N., Allen, S. W., & Simionescu, A. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 2731, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21245.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21245.x 2012

  66. [66]

    Werner, N., Oonk, J. B. R., Sun, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 2291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu006

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu006 2014

  67. [67]

    Xie, F.-G., Yuan, F., & Ho, L. C. 2017, ApJ, 844, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7950 XRISM Collaboration, Audard, M., Awaki, H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.04421, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.04421 XRISM Science Team. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2003.04962, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2003.04962

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7950 2017

  68. [68]

    Yang, H., Yuan, F., Yuan, Y.-F., & White, C. J. 2021, ApJ, 914, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfe63

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfe63 2021

  69. [69]

    Yang, H. Y. K., & Reynolds, C. S. 2016a, ApJ, 818, 181, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/181 —. 2016b, ApJ, 829, 90, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/90

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/2/181

  70. [70]

    Yao, Z., Yuan, F., & Ostriker, J. P. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 398, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3755

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3755 2021

  71. [71]

    P., Ciotti, L., & Zhu, B

    Yoon, D., Yuan, F., Ostriker, J. P., Ciotti, L., & Zhu, B. 2019, ApJ, 885, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab45e8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab45e8 2019

  72. [72]

    2012a, ApJ, 761, 130, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/130

    Yuan, F., Bu, D., & Wu, M. 2012a, ApJ, 761, 130, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/130

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/761/2/130

  73. [73]

    NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF HOT ACCRETION FLOWS. III. REVISITING WIND PROPERTIES USING THE TRAJECTORY APPROACH

    Yuan, F., Gan, Z., Narayan, R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 804, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/101

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/804/2/101 2015

  74. [74]

    Hot Accretion Flows Around Black Holes

    Yuan, F., & Narayan, R. 2014a, ARA&A, 52, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003 —. 2014b, ARA&A, 52, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003

    work page Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003

  75. [75]

    2012b, ApJ, 761, 129, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/129

    Yuan, F., Wu, M., & Bu, D. 2012b, ApJ, 761, 129, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/129

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/761/2/129

  76. [76]

    2018, ApJ, 857, 121

    Yuan, F., Yoon, D., Li, Y.-P., et al. 2018, ApJ, 857, 121

    2018

  77. [77]

    2025, ApJ, 985, 178, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcaba

    Zhang, H., Xia, H., Ji, S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 178, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcaba

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adcaba 2025

  78. [78]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 4245, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3011

    Zhao, X., & Bai, X.-N. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 4245, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3011

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3011 2023

  79. [79]

    A., et al

    Zhuravleva, I., Churazov, E., Schekochihin, A. A., et al. 2014, Nature, 515, 85, doi: 10.1038/nature13830

    work page doi:10.1038/nature13830 2014

  80. [80]

    Zweibel, E. G. 2013, Physics of Plasmas, 20, 055501, doi: 10.1063/1.4807033

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4807033 2013