pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.08534 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-08 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Unmasking Stellar Feedback-Driven Bubbles: Identification and Properties Analysis

Aaron Angress , Michael M. Foley , Sarah M. R. Jeffreson , Alyssa Goodman , Lars Hernquist
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 01:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords stellar feedbackgalactic bubblesinterstellar mediumdwarf spiral galaxyLagrangian gas parcelsHα emissiongalactocentric radiusexponential distributions
0
0 comments X

The pith

Stellar feedback bubbles in a simulated dwarf galaxy follow exponential distributions in lifetime and size, both increasing with galactocentric radius.

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

The paper tracks hot ionized bubbles driven by stellar feedback inside a simulated dwarf spiral galaxy resembling NGC 300. It follows individual bubbles by tagging and evolving Lagrangian gas parcels to measure their radii, lifetimes, temperatures, densities, and locations. The resulting statistics show exponential spreads in both lifetime and size, together with a clear trend that bubbles farther from the galactic center survive longer and grow larger. The authors also map the same bubbles into synthetic Hα emission to allow direct comparison with telescope data. This supplies the first statistical view of bubble evolution that observers cannot yet obtain from real galaxies alone.

Core claim

We calculate the average radius, lifetime, temperature, density, and spatial distribution of simulated feedback-driven bubbles using Lagrangian gas parcels. We find exponential distributions of bubble lifetime and size, and we find a positive correlation between bubble lifetime and galactocentric radius. We predict how the data would appear in Hα tracers and compare the simulated values to observations, finding an additional positive correlation between the size of the bubbles and the galactocentric radius using their Hα tracers.

What carries the argument

Lagrangian gas parcels that tag and follow the hot ionized gas inside each feedback bubble to extract its time-dependent radius, lifetime, and other properties.

If this is right

  • Bubble lifetime and size both increase with distance from the galactic center, implying that local galactic environment shapes feedback structures.
  • Exponential distributions of lifetime and size suggest a common statistical process governing how bubbles expand and dissipate.
  • Synthetic Hα maps reproduce the same radial trend, allowing observers to test the simulation results directly.
  • The spatial distribution of bubbles reflects the underlying star-formation activity across the disk.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Longer-lived bubbles at larger radii could help explain why star-formation regulation appears weaker in galaxy outskirts.
  • The same Lagrangian tracking technique could be applied to simulations of larger spiral galaxies to check whether the trends persist.
  • If confirmed, the exponential statistics might be used to estimate the total energy injected by feedback across an entire galactic disk.

Load-bearing premise

The method of tagging and following Lagrangian gas parcels correctly identifies real stellar feedback bubbles and tracks their physical evolution without major numerical artifacts or selection biases.

What would settle it

High-resolution Hα imaging of a real galaxy like NGC 300 that shows no increase in bubble size with galactocentric radius would contradict the predicted positive correlation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.08534 by Aaron Angress, Alyssa Goodman, Lars Hernquist, Michael M. Foley, Sarah M. R. Jeffreson.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Column density maps of the total gas surface density (Σgas, left), molecular gas surface density (ΣH2 , center-left), projected (averaged in the third direction) ionized hydrogen fraction (xH+ , center-right), and projected temperature (T, right) for the simulated dwarf spiral galaxy, viewed perpendicular to (top panels) and across (lower panels) the galactic mid-plane, at a simulation time of 800 Myr. The… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Bubble identification and tracking flowchart. 3.1. Physical Identification We begin identification of bubble candidates by find￾ing all the hot and ionized cells indicative of supernova feedback. At each time step, we identify all gas cells within the galaxy (R ≤ 7 kpc, |z| ≤ 0.350 kpc) with a temperature Tcell > 100, 000 K and ionization frac￾tion XHP > 0.9. These temperatures and ionization fractions are… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Bubble formation rate vs. time. The raw data ap￾pears in teal and the moving average (window size = 10 Myr) appears in red for visual clarity. supernovae occurred throughout the total available sim￾ulation time, averaging out to around 3000 supernovae per Myr. Given the global SFR, this supernova rate ap￾pears reasonable, as we expect about 1 supernova for every 100M⊙. However, because we are only identify… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Bubble size distribution. We calculate the av￾erage size of each bubble across its first 40 Myr of lifetime using the Hα tracers. The dashed line indicates the exponen￾tial decay of the distribution as a function of bubble radius (R). Its slope is -141 pc−1 . The population mean is 244 pc. As expected, we find that the bubbles expand in size as they age. The size distribution of the average size of the bub… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Bubble size evolution (top) and predicted observ￾able size evolution using synthetic Hα (bottom). The blue indicates the bubble size evolution while the pink indicates the size evolution of only the gas predicted to be involved in Hα emission. The synthetic observations take place only up to 40 Myr after bubble birth as prescribed by Watkins et al. (2023a). The bottom dashed black line denotes our 70 pc re… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Bubble particle number density evolution. Most bubble densities evolve very gradually across their lifetime, staying within the range of 10−2 to 100 cm−3 . Hα tracer den￾sities trend toward the upper end of this range, as expected of traditionally observed Hα rings around bubble voids. The black lines are example bubble temperature evolutions. across the bubbles’ lifetimes as compared to their other proper… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Q2D and Q3D vs. time. 3D bubble volumes are approximated to spheres with radii calculated in Section 4.3 . 2D Bubble areas are approximated to circles with radii calculated using face-on radius (x-y plane radius) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Bubble average galactocentric radius distribu￾tion. The median galactocentric radius is 3.79 kpc. We calculate the average galactocentric radii of the bubbles as the average distance from the bubble’s cen￾troid to the galactic center across its lifetime. We pro￾duce the distribution in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Bubble lifetime and dynamical time vs. av￾erage galactocentric radius. Bubbles tend to survive longer further from the galactic center. RGC vϕ is the median dynam￾ical time of all the gas tracers in the simulation at one time step binned by galactocentric radius. The dashed purple line is an exponential trendline fit to the data. The uncertain￾ties in the parameters of the fitted trendline are as follows:… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Lifetime average bubble size vs. average galac￾tocentric radius. Larger bubbles are more commonly found further from the galactic center. The dashed purple line is an exponential trendline fit to the data. The uncertainties in the parameters of the fitted curve are as follows: 174 ± 6, 12 ± 1. Although the higher bubble lifetimes at farther galac￾tocentric radii in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Effective pressure (ρσ2 ) vs. average galactocen￾tric radius at t = 700 Myr. Effective pressure is calculated in radial bins using all simulated gas tracers that aren’t con￾tained in identified bubbles. We can additionally calculate the dynamical time for gas tracers at different galactocentric radii. We compute the tangential velocity of all gas tracers in the galaxy at an arbitrary timestep and bin them… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The identification and tracking of stellar feedback-driven galaxy bubbles is an important topic in star formation and galactic structure research. However, current observational analysis of bubbles is limited in scope; information on bubble lifetime is inaccessible. Simulation data thus provides a unique opportunity to glean some of these characteristics at high resolution. We present an investigation into the characteristics and evolution of hot, ionized bubbles in the interstellar medium of a dwarf spiral (NGC300-like) galaxy. We calculate the average radius, lifetime, temperature, density, and spatial distribution of the simulated feedback-driven bubbles using Lagrangian gas parcels, and we examine the relationship between these characteristics and the local galactic environment. We find exponential distributions of bubble lifetime and size, and we find a positive correlation between bubble lifetime and galactocentric radius. Finally, we predict how the data would appear in H$\alpha$ tracers and compare the simulated values to observations. We find an additional positive correlation between the size of the bubbles and the galactocentric radius using their H$\alpha$ tracers.

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 analyzes stellar feedback-driven hot ionized bubbles in a high-resolution simulation of a dwarf spiral galaxy modeled after NGC 300. Using Lagrangian gas parcels to identify and track bubbles, the authors compute their average radii, lifetimes, temperatures, densities, and spatial distributions, reporting exponential distributions for lifetimes and sizes along with positive correlations between these quantities and galactocentric radius. They further predict observable properties using Hα tracers and compare the resulting size-radius correlation to observations.

Significance. If the Lagrangian identification method is shown to be free of significant numerical artifacts, the work would provide valuable simulation-derived constraints on bubble lifetimes and environmental trends that are inaccessible to observations, potentially improving sub-grid feedback prescriptions in galaxy formation models. The exponential forms and radial correlations, if robust, represent a concrete link between local stellar feedback and galactic structure.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods (bubble identification and tracking)] The Lagrangian gas-parcel method for bubble identification and tracking is load-bearing for every reported distribution and correlation. The manuscript does not appear to present convergence tests across resolutions, comparisons to Eulerian threshold-based identification, or sensitivity checks to parcel seeding and numerical diffusion, leaving open the possibility that the exponential lifetime/size distributions and galactocentric trends are partly methodological rather than physical.
  2. [Results (distributions and correlations)] The exponential fits to lifetime and size distributions (and the reported positive correlations with galactocentric radius) require explicit documentation of the fitting procedure, goodness-of-fit statistics, and any post-selection cuts on the parcel sample. Without these, it is impossible to assess whether the functional forms are robust or influenced by the identification criteria.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states findings on average radius, lifetime, etc., but omits the total number of bubbles analyzed, typical error estimates, or simulation resolution; adding these would improve context for the statistical claims.
  2. [Hα comparison section] The Hα tracer comparison is a useful bridge to observations, but the manuscript should clarify the exact emission model (e.g., temperature/density assumptions or ionization fraction) used to generate the simulated Hα sizes.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which help clarify the robustness of our bubble identification method and the presentation of our statistical results. We address each major point below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate additional documentation and validation where feasible.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The Lagrangian gas-parcel method for bubble identification and tracking is load-bearing for every reported distribution and correlation. The manuscript does not appear to present convergence tests across resolutions, comparisons to Eulerian threshold-based identification, or sensitivity checks to parcel seeding and numerical diffusion, leaving open the possibility that the exponential lifetime/size distributions and galactocentric trends are partly methodological rather than physical.

    Authors: We agree that demonstrating the robustness of the Lagrangian parcel-based identification is essential. The method tracks parcels that exceed a temperature threshold due to stellar feedback and remain coherent over time, which is described in Section 3. While the original submission did not include explicit resolution convergence tests (owing to the computational cost of the fiducial high-resolution run), we will add a new subsection in the revised manuscript that compares bubble statistics from the fiducial simulation to a lower-resolution counterpart. We will also report sensitivity tests to the temperature threshold and minimum parcel count used for bubble definition. These additions will quantify the impact of numerical diffusion and seeding choices on the reported exponential distributions and radial trends. We note that the qualitative trends align with analytic expectations for feedback-driven bubbles, but the new tests will strengthen this claim. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The exponential fits to lifetime and size distributions (and the reported positive correlations with galactocentric radius) require explicit documentation of the fitting procedure, goodness-of-fit statistics, and any post-selection cuts on the parcel sample. Without these, it is impossible to assess whether the functional forms are robust or influenced by the identification criteria.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the fitting details were insufficiently documented. In the revised manuscript we will expand the relevant methods and results sections to specify: (i) the exact fitting procedure (maximum-likelihood estimation on the unbinned data for the exponential form, with least-squares confirmation on log-binned histograms), (ii) goodness-of-fit metrics (reduced chi-squared and Kolmogorov-Smirnov p-values), and (iii) all post-selection cuts (e.g., discarding bubbles with lifetimes shorter than 0.5 Myr to exclude numerical transients and requiring at least 10 parcels per bubble). These clarifications will allow readers to evaluate the robustness of the exponential forms and the galactocentric correlations independently of the identification thresholds. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in reported distributions or correlations

full rationale

The paper's central results—exponential distributions of bubble lifetime and size, plus positive correlations with galactocentric radius—are obtained by direct measurement of properties (radius, lifetime, temperature, density, spatial distribution) from Lagrangian gas parcels in the simulation output. No equations, ansatzes, or self-citations are shown that reduce these quantities to fitted parameters, self-definitions, or prior author results by construction. The Hα tracer comparison is a post-processing visualization step rather than a load-bearing derivation. The derivation chain remains self-contained against the simulation data without circular reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; assumes standard stellar feedback prescriptions and Lagrangian tracking are valid without detailing any ad-hoc parameters or invented entities.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Stellar feedback in the simulation produces identifiable hot ionized bubbles whose properties can be tracked with Lagrangian gas parcels.
    Central to the identification and property calculation described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5487 in / 1249 out tokens · 41088 ms · 2026-05-12T01:07:37.774218+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

65 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2011, AJ, 141, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/1/23

    Bagetakos, I., Brinks, E., Walter, F., et al. 2011, AJ, 141, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/1/23

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/141/1/23 2011

  2. [2]

    2021, ApJL, 919, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1f95

    Bialy, S., Zucker, C., Goodman, A., et al. 2021, ApJL, 919, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1f95

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac1f95 2021

  3. [3]

    A., Williams, R., Payne, J., et al

    Binder, B. A., Williams, R., Payne, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad46d9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad46d9 2024

  4. [4]

    Breitschwerdt, D., & de Avillez, M. A. 2006, A&A, 452, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20064989

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20064989 2006

  5. [5]

    2009, ApJ, 695, 292, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/292

    Ceverino, D., & Klypin, A. 2009, ApJ, 695, 292, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/292

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/695/1/292 2009

  6. [6]

    Galactic

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  7. [7]

    2008, in Massive Stars as Cosmic Engines, ed

    Chu, Y.-H. 2008, in Massive Stars as Cosmic Engines, ed. F. Bresolin, P. A. Crowther, & J. Puls, Vol. 250, 341–354, doi: 10.1017/S1743921308020681

    work page doi:10.1017/s1743921308020681 2008

  8. [8]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Clark, P. C., Glover, S. C. O., & Klessen, R. S. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 745, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20087.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20087.x 2012

  9. [9]

    P., & Smith, B

    Cox, D. P., & Smith, B. W. 1974, ApJL, 189, L105, doi: 10.1086/181476 da Silva, R. L., Fumagalli, M., & Krumholz, M. 2012, ApJ, 745, 145, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/145 da Silva, R. L., Fumagalli, M., & Krumholz, M. R. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3275, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1688

    work page doi:10.1086/181476 1974

  10. [10]

    Dawson, J. R. 2013, PASA, 30, e025, doi: 10.1017/pas.2013.002

    work page doi:10.1017/pas.2013.002 2013

  11. [11]

    R., McClure-Griffiths, N

    Dawson, J. R., McClure-Griffiths, N. M., Wong, T., et al. 2013, ApJ, 763, 56, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/56

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/763/1/56 2013

  12. [12]

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

    work page 2011

  13. [13]

    Elmegreen, B. G. 2011, in EAS Publications Series, Vol. 51, EAS Publications Series, ed. C. Charbonnel & T. Montmerle, 45–58, doi: 10.1051/eas/1151004

    work page doi:10.1051/eas/1151004 2011

  14. [14]

    M., Lada, C

    Faesi, C. M., Lada, C. J., & Forbrich, J. 2018, ApJ, 857, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaad60

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaad60 2018

  15. [15]

    M., Goodman, A., Zucker, C., et al

    Foley, M. M., Goodman, A., Zucker, C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 947, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb5f4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb5f4 2023

  16. [16]

    2013, MNRAS, 435, 1426, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1383

    Genel, S., Vogelsberger, M., Nelson, D., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 1426, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1383

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1383 2013

  17. [17]

    Gensior, J., Kruijssen, J. M. D., & Keller, B. W. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 199, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1184

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1184 2020

  18. [18]

    S., Krumholz, M

    Gentry, E. S., Krumholz, M. R., Dekel, A., & Madau, P. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2746

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2746 2017

  19. [19]

    Klessen, R. S. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15718.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15718.x 2010

  20. [20]

    Glover, S. C. O., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2007a, ApJS, 169, 239, doi: 10.1086/512238 —. 2007b, ApJ, 659, 1317, doi: 10.1086/512227

    work page doi:10.1086/512238

  21. [21]

    R., Millman, K

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

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

  22. [22]

    1979, ApJ, 229, 533, doi: 10.1086/156986 —

    Heiles, C. 1979, ApJ, 229, 533, doi: 10.1086/156986 —. 1984, ApJS, 55, 585, doi: 10.1086/190970

    work page doi:10.1086/156986 1979

  23. [23]

    and Roussel, H

    Helou, G., Roussel, H., Appleton, P., et al. 2004, ApJS, 154, 253, doi: 10.1086/422640

    work page doi:10.1086/422640 2004

  24. [24]

    FIRE-2 Simulations: Physics versus Numerics in Galaxy Formation

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Kereˇ s, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 800, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1690

    work page Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1690 2018

  25. [25]

    Hu, E. M. 1981, ApJ, 248, 119, doi: 10.1086/159135

    work page doi:10.1086/159135 1981

  26. [26]

    Jeffreson, S. M. R., Krumholz, M. R., Fujimoto, Y., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 3470, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1536

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1536 2021

  27. [27]

    Jeffreson, S. M. R., Semenov, V. A., & Krumholz, M. R. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 7093, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3550

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3550 2023

  28. [28]

    A., Ballet, J., & Soler, J

    Joubaud, T., Grenier, I. A., Ballet, J., & Soler, J. D. 2019, A&A, 631, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936239

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936239 2019

  29. [29]

    W., & Kruijssen, J

    Keller, B. W., & Kruijssen, J. M. D. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2004.03608. https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.03608

    work page arXiv 2020

  30. [30]

    Kim, C.-G., & Ostriker, E. C. 2017, ApJ, 846, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8599

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8599 2017

  31. [31]

    2014, ApJ, 788, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/121

    Kimm, T., & Cen, R. 2014, ApJ, 788, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/121

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/788/2/121 2014

  32. [32]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D., Schruba, A., Chevance, M., et al. 2019, Nature, 569, 519, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1194-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1194-3 2019

  33. [33]

    R., Fumagalli, M., da Silva, R

    Krumholz, M. R., Fumagalli, M., da Silva, R. L., Rendahl, T., & Parra, J. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1447, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1374

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1374 2015

  34. [34]

    R., & Matzner, C

    Krumholz, M. R., & Matzner, C. D. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1352, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1352

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/2/1352 2009

  35. [35]

    , keywords =

    Leitherer, C., Schaerer, D., Goldader, J. D., et al. 1999, ApJS, 123, 3, doi: 10.1086/313233

    work page doi:10.1086/313233 1999

  36. [36]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 4073, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae797

    Li, C., Li, H., Cui, W., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 4073, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae797

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae797 2024

  37. [37]

    S., Mezger, P

    Mathis, J. S., Mezger, P. G., & Panagia, N. 1983, A&A, 500, 259

    work page 1983

  38. [38]

    Matzner, C. D. 2002, ApJ, 566, 302, doi: 10.1086/338030

    work page doi:10.1086/338030 2002

  39. [39]

    Green, A. J. 2002, ApJ, 578, 176, doi: 10.1086/342470

    work page doi:10.1086/342470 2002

  40. [40]

    2019, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 40, 35, doi: 10.1007/s12036-019-9603-4

    Mondal, C., Subramaniam, A., & George, K. 2019, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 40, 35, doi: 10.1007/s12036-019-9603-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s12036-019-9603-4 2019

  41. [41]

    , year = 1997, month = dec, volume = 490, pages =

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493, doi: 10.1086/304888

    work page doi:10.1086/304888 1997

  42. [42]

    Nelson, A. F. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 1039, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11119.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11119.x 2006

  43. [43]

    P., & Langer, W

    Nelson, R. P., & Langer, W. D. 1997, ApJ, 482, 796, doi: 10.1086/304167 16Angress et al

    work page doi:10.1086/304167 1997

  44. [44]

    R., Hennebelle, P., & Fierlinger, K

    Ntormousi, E., Dawson, J. R., Hennebelle, P., & Fierlinger, K. 2017, A&A, 599, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629268

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629268 2017

  45. [45]

    B., Brown, A

    Ochsendorf, B. B., Brown, A. G. A., Bally, J., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 2015, ApJ, 808, 111, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/111

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/808/2/111 2015

  46. [46]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6afa

    Padoan, P., Haugbølle, T., Nordlund, ˚A., & Frimann, S. 2017, ApJ, 840, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6afa

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6afa 2017

  47. [47]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 5529, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1358

    Gawryszczak, A. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 5529, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1358

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1358 2023

  48. [48]

    and Copin, Y

    Power, C., Navarro, J. F., Jenkins, A., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 14, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.05925.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.05925.x 2003

  49. [49]

    2017, glueviz v0.13.1: multidimensional data exploration, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1237692

    Goodman, A. 2017, glueviz v0.13.1: multidimensional data exploration, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1237692

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.1237692 2017

  50. [50]

    2013, ApJ, 765, 43, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/43

    Silich, S., & Tenorio-Tagle, G. 2013, ApJ, 765, 43, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/43

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/1/43 2013

  51. [51]

    2023, COLT: Monte Carlo radiative transfer and simulation analysis toolkit, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2306.034

    Smith, A., Safranek-Shrader, C., Bromm, V., et al. 2023, COLT: Monte Carlo radiative transfer and simulation analysis toolkit, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2306.034. http://ascl.net/2306.034

    work page 2023

  52. [52]

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

    Smith, M. C., Sijacki, D., & Shen, S. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 302, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty994

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty994 2018

  53. [53]

    Sobolev, V. V. 1960, Moving Envelopes of Stars, doi: 10.4159/harvard.9780674864658

    work page doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674864658 1960

  54. [54]

    F., Capozziello, S., & Dainotti, M

    Springel, V. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x 2010

  55. [55]

    2016, ApJ, 821, 7, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/7

    Tanner, R., Cecil, G., & Heitsch, F. 2016, ApJ, 821, 7, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/7

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/821/1/7 2016

  56. [56]

    1990, MNRAS, 244, 563

    Rozyczka, M. 1990, MNRAS, 244, 563

    work page 1990

  57. [57]

    1990, ApJL, 361, L5, doi: 10.1086/185814 van der Tak, F

    Tomisaka, K. 1990, ApJL, 361, L5, doi: 10.1086/185814 van der Tak, F. F. S., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2000, A&A, 358, L79. https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0006246 V´ azquez, G. A., & Leitherer, C. 2005, ApJ, 621, 695, doi: 10.1086/427866

    work page doi:10.1086/185814 1990

  58. [58]

    E., et al

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

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

  59. [59]

    2015, MNRAS, 451, 2757, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1155

    Walch, S., & Naab, T. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2757, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1155

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1155 2015

  60. [60]

    J., Barnes, A

    Watkins, E. J., Barnes, A. T., Henny, K., et al. 2023a, ApJL, 944, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca6e4

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aca6e4 2041

  61. [61]

    J., Kreckel, K., Groves, B., et al

    Watkins, E. J., Kreckel, K., Groves, B., et al. 2023b, A&A, 676, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346075

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346075

  62. [62]

    1977, ApJ, 218, 377, doi: 10.1086/155692

    Weaver, R., McCray, R., Castor, J., Shapiro, P., & Moore, R. 1977, ApJ, 218, 377, doi: 10.1086/155692

    work page doi:10.1086/155692 1977

  63. [63]

    Westmeier, T., Braun, R., & Koribalski, B. S. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 2217, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17596.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17596.x 2011

  64. [64]

    Protostars and Planets VII , year = 2023, editor =

    Zucker, C., Alves, J., Goodman, A., Meingast, S., & Galli, P. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 43, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2212.00067

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.00067 2023

  65. [65]

    A., Alves, J., et al

    Zucker, C., Goodman, A. A., Alves, J., et al. 2022, Nature, 601, 334, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04286-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04286-5 2022