pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.18987 · v1 · pith:V4QT7IGPnew · submitted 2026-05-18 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

How High-Specific-Energy Winds Regulate the Circumgalactic Medium of Dwarf Galaxies

Michael Messere , Greg L. Bryan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 08:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords circumgalactic mediumdwarf galaxiessupernova feedbackpreventive feedbackejective feedbackcosmological simulationsbaryon fractionvirial temperature
0
0 comments X

The pith

Episodic supernova shocks sustain the circumgalactic medium of dwarf galaxies at virial temperature and trigger a shift to preventive feedback after 5 Gyr.

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

This paper uses cosmological zoom-in simulations to examine how supernova feedback regulates gas in and around dwarf galaxies with halo masses between 10^10 and 10^11 solar masses. The key finding is that infrequent but powerful supernova-driven outflows heat the circumgalactic medium episodically to about the virial temperature. This heating raises the ratio of cooling time to free-fall time above 10, making the gas stable against radiative cooling. Hot outflows carry energy out of the system while warm outflows recycle material back into the galaxy. After roughly 5 billion years, the circumgalactic medium becomes depleted of baryons, allowing supernovae to prevent most of the gas that would otherwise accrete onto the galaxy.

Core claim

Episodic, SNe-driven shock heating sustains the CGM at approximately the virial temperature. This process increases the ratio t_cool/t_ff above 10 in the outer CGM and IGM, placing the gas in a radiatively stable regime. Hot outflows with temperatures greater than or equal to 10^5 K dominate the energy budget and can escape the halo to heat the IGM. Warm outflows dominate the mass budget and are recycled back into the ISM. A gradual transition occurs at about 5 Gyr from ejective feedback, where outflows sweep up mass, to preventive feedback that maintains the high t_cool/t_ff ratio and suppresses approximately 75 percent of the expected baryon accretion rate.

What carries the argument

The ratio of cooling time to free-fall time (t_cool/t_ff) maintained above 10 by high-specific-energy supernova outflows, which enables the transition to preventive feedback.

If this is right

  • The CGM in these dwarf halos stays hot and stable for long periods despite cooling tendencies.
  • Hot gas escapes the halo and contributes to heating the surrounding intergalactic medium.
  • Most baryons are prevented from accreting onto the galaxy at late cosmic times.
  • The feedback mode changes from removing gas to stopping gas from arriving.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This could account for the low baryon content observed in many dwarf galaxies today.
  • The mechanism might scale to slightly larger galaxies but with a later transition time.
  • Future observations of CGM temperatures and densities around dwarfs could test the predicted stability.

Load-bearing premise

That the numerical method with discrete supernovae and adaptive mesh refinement accurately tracks the energy deposition and propagation of outflows without artificial effects changing the cooling time ratio or the timing of the feedback transition.

What would settle it

Detection of a substantial cool gas component in the outer CGM of dwarf galaxies at late times with t_cool/t_ff below 10, or a baryon fraction much higher than 0.1.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.18987 by Greg L. Bryan, Michael Messere.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The gas spatial resolution as a function of dis￾tance from the center of the halo. We present both M8-h and the median of the fiducial sample. For each individual halo, we calculate the volume-weighted average gas spatial resolution between 0.04 Rvir and 2 Rvir. The highest spatial resolution in both M8-h and the fiducial sample is in the ISM (∼ 452 pc). dian volume-weighted average across the fiducial sam… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The z = 0 stellar mass–halo mass relationship for our dwarf galaxy sample compared to Behroozi et al. (2019) and Voit et al. (2024a,b). In comparison with the minimalist regulator model presented in Voit et al. (2024a) (where radiative loss is assumed to be negligible), we find that our high stellar mass is likely driven by ηE = 0.01−0.05. 3.3. Sustaining the Virial Temperature The first question we addres… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left Panel: M8-h (z = 0.28) temperature slice out to ∼ 3 Rvir. Upper-Right Panel: M8-h pressure slice normalized by the volume-weighted three dimensional pressure profile out to ∼ 1 Rvir. Lower-Right Panel: M8-h radial velocity slice out to ∼ 1 Rvir, where vr > 0 km s−1 is outflow away from the galaxy center. The M8-h image in each panel is viewed edge-on (calculated from the inner galaxy angular momentum … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Upper-Top Panel: The ISM volume-weighted temperature evolution in both the fiducial sample (red; left) and M8-h (blue; right). We also include the full range (minimum to maximum) temperature in the fiducial sample. It is important to note that this isn’t the traditional ISM temperature definition. Since the temperature is volume-weighted, it is probing the outflow temperature close to ∼ 0.1 Rvir (the outer… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The specific energy (es) time evolution for the warm gas (blue; T ≤ 3 × 105K) and hot gas (red; T > 3 × 105K). The solid line is the sample median and the shaded region is bounded by the minimum and maximum value. We also use a simple scaling relation (Equation 9; see Li & Bryan (2020)) to determine whether the outflow can escape the halo. This can be compared to the black dashed line, representing the med… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Upper Panels: The median and full range (minimum to maximum) energy flow rate (Equation 10) in the fiducial sample at the ISM-scale (left) and CGM-scale (right). We also compare the ISM energy outflow rate (red) to the CGM cooling rate (green) in the upper right panel. Middle Panels: The same energy flow rate, but for M8-h. We also repeat E˙ out,ISM on the right for better comparison with E˙ out,CGM. Lower… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Upper Left: The fiducial sample cumulative Eout,ISM (red) and Ecool,CGM (blue). We include both the sample median and individual halo time evolution. In addition, the upper panel shows the cumulative ratio of both the sample median and individual halo time evolution. The ‘x’ marker denotes the most recent timestep when an individual halo has its ratio Eout,ISM/ECGM,cool cross a value of 1. Importantly, by … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Upper Panels: The median and full range (minimum to maximum) mass flow rate (Equation 10, where Ei is replaced with Mi) in the fiducial sample at the ISM-scale (left) and CGM-scale (right). We also compare the CGM mass inflow rate (red) to the expected baryon accretion rate (black) in the upper left panel. Middle Panels: M8-h M evolution, where ˙ we repeat M˙ out,ISM on the right panel for comparison. Lowe… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The smoothened median of M˙ CGM,out/M˙ ISM,out for both the fiducial sample and M8-h. There is clear evi￾dence of mass entrainment in SNe-induced outflows at early times, since M˙ CGM,out > M˙ ISM,out before ∼ 5 Gyr. After ∼ 5 Gyr M˙ CGM,out/M˙ ISM,out is more consistent with 1. most evident beyond 0.5 Rvir. tcool/tff ≲ 1 is indicative of rapid cooling of gas in the CGM onto the ISM. There is a modest enha… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: First Panel: The fiducial sample median time evolution of tcool/tff , where we bin the profile every ∼ 0.5 Gyr. We include the approximate ‘transition’ time pe￾riod, where the outer CGM tcool/tff profile exceeds the pre￾cipitation limit of tcool/tff ∼ 10. Second Panel: The same tcool/tff profile time evolution, but for M8-h. Third Panel: The tcool/tff time evolution for the M8-h outburst that oc￾curred at… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Upper Panel: fCGM evolution for the fiducial sample (solid black) and M8-h (solid dark blue). We also show the full sample range (minimum to maximum) and fCGM for each individual halo. Middle Panel: The halo dark matter mass (Mh; solid) and CGM gas mass (MCGM; dashed) growth history. We show this for both the fiducial sample (black) and M8-h (dark blue). Lower Panel: The ratio of the fiducial sample cumul… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The cumulative baryon fraction (fb(< r)) normalized by the cosmic baryon fraction (fb,cosmic) as a function of radius for each dwarf galaxy in our sample. There is one system where the presence of a nearby halo skews the Rc measurement (M10; dotted black). The M8-h profile is shown as the dashed dark blue line. The shaded region surrounding fb,cosmic = 1 represents the ∼ 5 percent uncertainty in the Planc… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The column density profiles of H i, Si ii, Si iii, Si iv, C ii, C iv, and O vi as a function of projected impact parameter normalized by the virial radius (b/Rvir). For each simulated dwarf halo, we compute the column density map across a single random projection and extract a radial profile. Note that only H i and O vi go out to b/Rvir = 3 even though each ion projection is computed from a sphere centere… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate the role of ejective and preventive feedback in $\mathrm{\sim10^{10}-10^{11}\,M_\odot}$ dwarf halos using cosmological zoom-in simulations. These simulations use adaptive mesh refinement to capture high-specific-energy outflows, together with an implementation of discrete supernovae (SNe). We show that episodic, SNe-driven shock heating sustains the circumgalactic medium (CGM) at $\mathrm{\sim T_{vir}}$. This process also increases the ratio $\mathrm{t_{cool}/t_{ff} > 10}$ in the outer CGM and intergalactic medium (IGM), placing the gas in a radiatively stable regime. Hot outflows ($\mathrm{\gtrsim10^5\, K}$) dominate the energy budget, and their high specific energy allows them to traverse the CGM, escape the halo, and heat the IGM. In contrast, warm outflows ($\mathrm{\lesssim10^5\, K}$) dominate the mass budget and are largely recycled back into the interstellar medium (ISM), where they fuel future star formation. We identify a gradual transition at $\mathrm{\sim 5\, Gyr}$ that marks a shift in the balance between ejective and preventive feedback. At early times ($\mathrm{< 5\, Gyr}$), although the CGM cooling rate dominates for a larger fraction of time, the infrequent yet powerful SNe energy injection into the CGM is able to quickly dominate the cumulative energy balance. These outflows and their high specific energy are able to 'sweep' up mass in the CGM and IGM. At late times ($\mathrm{> 5\, Gyr}$), the CGM baryon fraction is only $\mathrm{\sim0.1}$, leading to a transition toward a preventive feedback mode in which SNe maintain $\mathrm{t_{cool}/t_{ff} > 10}$ and prevent $\mathrm{\sim75\%}$ of the expected baryon accretion rate.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents cosmological zoom-in simulations of ~10^{10}-10^{11} M_⊙ dwarf halos using adaptive mesh refinement and discrete supernova implementations. It claims that episodic SNe-driven shock heating sustains the CGM at ~T_vir, elevates t_cool/t_ff >10 in the outer CGM and IGM to a radiatively stable regime, with hot outflows (≳10^5 K) dominating the energy budget and escaping while warm outflows (≲10^5 K) dominate the mass budget and recycle to the ISM. The work identifies a gradual transition at ~5 Gyr from ejective to preventive feedback, where the CGM baryon fraction drops to ~0.1 and SNe prevent ~75% of the expected baryon accretion rate.

Significance. If the quantitative results hold under numerical scrutiny, the paper provides a concrete mechanism linking high-specific-energy outflows to CGM regulation, low baryon fractions, and the shift to preventive feedback in dwarfs. The emergence of episodic behavior from discrete SNe (rather than imposed continuous injection) and the falsifiable prediction of a ~5 Gyr transition with 75% suppression are strengths that could be tested against observations of CGM kinematics and baryon content.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (results on feedback transition): The central claim of a transition to preventive feedback at ~5 Gyr with ~75% accretion suppression and sustained t_cool/t_ff >10 rests on the accuracy of hot outflow propagation and phase separation. No resolution or subgrid variation tests are shown to demonstrate that AMR numerical diffusion or artificial mixing between hot (≳10^5 K) and warm phases does not artificially shorten cooling times or alter the reported CGM baryon fraction evolution and transition timing.
  2. [Methods] Methods (discrete SNe implementation): The distinction that hot outflows dominate energy while warm dominate mass (and the resulting ejective vs. preventive balance) is load-bearing for the overall picture. Without quantified sensitivity to supernova energy per event or mass-loading scaling, it is unclear whether the reported 75% suppression and t_cool/t_ff threshold are robust or depend on the specific subgrid choices whose effects are not varied.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figures 3-5] Figure captions and text should explicitly state the temperature threshold used to separate hot (≳10^5 K) and warm outflows and show that results are insensitive to small changes in this cut.
  2. [Abstract and §5] The abstract and §5 would benefit from a brief statement on how the expected baryon accretion rate is defined for the 75% suppression calculation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of the significance of our work and for the constructive major comments. We address each point below and have incorporated revisions to enhance the robustness of our conclusions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (results on feedback transition): The central claim of a transition to preventive feedback at ~5 Gyr with ~75% accretion suppression and sustained t_cool/t_ff >10 rests on the accuracy of hot outflow propagation and phase separation. No resolution or subgrid variation tests are shown to demonstrate that AMR numerical diffusion or artificial mixing between hot (≳10^5 K) and warm phases does not artificially shorten cooling times or alter the reported CGM baryon fraction evolution and transition timing.

    Authors: We agree that demonstrating numerical convergence is crucial for claims involving phase separation and cooling times in the CGM. In response, we have performed additional simulations at higher resolution and included a new appendix (Appendix C) showing that the key results—the timing of the transition around 5 Gyr, the CGM baryon fraction dropping to ~0.1, and t_cool/t_ff remaining above 10—are robust to changes in resolution. We also discuss how the AMR refinement criteria minimize artificial mixing between phases, and provide quantitative measures of the hot and warm phase separation in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods (discrete SNe implementation): The distinction that hot outflows dominate energy while warm dominate mass (and the resulting ejective vs. preventive balance) is load-bearing for the overall picture. Without quantified sensitivity to supernova energy per event or mass-loading scaling, it is unclear whether the reported 75% suppression and t_cool/t_ff threshold are robust or depend on the specific subgrid choices whose effects are not varied.

    Authors: We acknowledge the importance of testing sensitivity to subgrid parameters such as supernova energy injection and mass loading. Our current study focuses on a fiducial discrete SN implementation with standard values calibrated to observations. To address this, we have added a discussion in Section 2.2 explaining the rationale for our choices and why the qualitative distinction between hot and warm outflows is expected to persist across reasonable parameter variations. However, a full parameter study would require significant additional computational resources and is planned for future work. We believe the core mechanism is physically motivated and not overly sensitive to exact values within the explored regime. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Simulation outcomes measured from numerical evolution; no reduction of claims to inputs by construction

full rationale

The paper reports results from cosmological zoom-in simulations using AMR and discrete supernova implementation. Claims such as episodic SNe-driven shock heating sustaining CGM at ~T_vir, t_cool/t_ff >10 in outer regions, transition at ~5 Gyr, CGM baryon fraction ~0.1, and prevention of ~75% baryon accretion are direct measurements of quantities evolved in the simulation runs. These are not analytic derivations, parameter fits renamed as predictions, or self-citation chains; the reported fractions and timings emerge from the time-dependent hydrodynamics and feedback implementation rather than being imposed tautologically. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks as a numerical experiment whose outputs can be reproduced or falsified by independent simulations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard subgrid supernova feedback prescriptions and cooling functions whose precise parameter values and numerical implementation details are not supplied in the abstract; these constitute the main free parameters and domain assumptions.

free parameters (2)
  • supernova energy injection per event
    Determines the specific energy of outflows that must exceed ~10^5 K to traverse the CGM; value is set by the discrete SNe implementation.
  • mass loading factor or wind velocity scaling
    Controls the partition between hot energy-dominated and warm mass-dominated outflows; not numerically specified in abstract.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The cooling function and radiative losses are accurately captured by the simulation's subgrid model at CGM densities and temperatures.
    Invoked when claiming t_cool/t_ff >10 places gas in a radiatively stable regime.
  • domain assumption Adaptive mesh refinement sufficiently resolves the shock heating and propagation of high-specific-energy winds without excessive numerical mixing.
    Required for the statement that hot outflows dominate the energy budget and escape the halo.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5900 in / 1708 out tokens · 35362 ms · 2026-05-20T08:44:35.933551+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

127 extracted references · 127 canonical work pages · 8 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    W., Fielding, D

    Abruzzo, M. W., Fielding, D. B., & Bryan, G. L. 2024, ApJ, 966, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e51 Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Kereˇ s, D., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4698, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1517

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e51 2024

  2. [2]

    M., Christensen, C

    Applebaum, E., Brooks, A. M., Christensen, C. R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 906, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcafa Arjona-G´ alvez, E., Di Cintio, A., & Grand, R. J. J. 2024, A&A, 690, A286, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449439 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

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

  3. [3]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 5391, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2046

    Ayromlou, M., Nelson, D., & Pillepich, A. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 5391, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2046

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2046 2023

  4. [4]

    Barai, P., & de Gouveia Dal Pino, E. M. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 5549, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1616

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1616 2019

  5. [5]

    W., et al

    Baumschlager, B., Shen, S., Wadsley, J. W., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.19396, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.19396

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.19396 2025

  6. [6]

    2019 , note =

    Behroozi, P., Wechsler, R. H., Hearin, A. P., & Conroy, C. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3143, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1182

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1182 2019

  7. [7]

    S., Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Wu, H.-Y. 2013a, ApJ, 762, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/762/2/109

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/762/2/109

  8. [8]

    S., Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., Wu, H.-Y., et al. 2013b, ApJ, 763, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/18

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/763/1/18

  9. [9]

    S., Smith, M

    Bennett, J. S., Smith, M. C., Fielding, D. B., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 1456, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1440

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1440 2025

  10. [10]

    , keywords =

    Birnboim, Y., & Dekel, A. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 349, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06955.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06955.x 2003

  11. [11]

    X., Tumlinson, J., et al

    Bordoloi, R., Prochaska, J. X., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad8ac

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad8ac 2018

  12. [12]

    K., et al

    Bordoloi, R., Tumlinson, J., Werk, J. K., et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/136

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/796/2/136 2014

  13. [13]

    L., & Norman, M

    Bryan, G. L., & Norman, M. L. 1998, ApJ, 495, 80, doi: 10.1086/305262

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/305262 1998

  14. [14]

    Ostriker, J. P. 1995, Computer Physics Communications, 89, 149, doi: 10.1016/0010-4655(94)00191-4

    work page doi:10.1016/0010-4655(94)00191-4 1995

  15. [15]

    L., Norman, M

    Bryan, G. L., Norman, M. L., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 2014, ApJS, 211, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/19

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/19 2014

  16. [16]

    Somerville, R. S. 2023, ApJ, 949, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc4c7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc4c7 2023

  17. [17]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

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

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

  18. [18]

    M., Webb, J

    Chen, H.-W., Lanzetta, K. M., Webb, J. K., & Barcons, X. 1998, ApJ, 498, 77, doi: 10.1086/305554

    work page doi:10.1086/305554 1998

  19. [19]

    A., Leitherer, C., & Chen, Y

    Chisholm, J., Tremonti, C. A., Leitherer, C., & Chen, Y. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 4831, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1164

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1164 2017

  20. [20]

    F., McKee, C

    Cioffi, D. F., McKee, C. F., & Bertschinger, E. 1988, ApJ, 334, 252, doi: 10.1086/166834

    work page doi:10.1086/166834 1988

  21. [21]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 2535, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1026

    Concas, A., Maiolino, R., Curti, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 2535, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1026

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1026 2022

  22. [22]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1226, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02566-y 31

    Connor, L., Ravi, V., Sharma, K., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1226, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02566-y 31

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02566-y 2025

  23. [23]

    Cook, A. W. S., van de Voort, F., Pakmor, R., & Grand, R. J. J. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 1224, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1537

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1537 2025

  24. [24]

    A., Schaye, J., Wyithe, J

    Correa, C. A., Schaye, J., Wyithe, J. S. B., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 538, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2332

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2332 2018

  25. [25]

    A., & van de Voort, F

    Crain, R. A., & van de Voort, F. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 473, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-041923-043618

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-041923-043618 2023

  26. [26]

    A., Schaye, J., Bower, R

    Crain, R. A., Schaye, J., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1937, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv725

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv725 2015

  27. [27]

    , keywords =

    Dekel, A., & Birnboim, Y. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10145.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10145.x 2006

  28. [28]

    1986, ApJ, 303, 39, doi: 10.1086/164050

    Dekel, A., & Silk, J. 1986, ApJ, 303, 39, doi: 10.1086/164050

    work page doi:10.1086/164050 1986

  29. [29]

    Donahue, M., & Voit, G. M. 2022, PhR, 973, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2022.04.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2022.04.005 2022

  30. [30]

    J., & Hu, W

    Eisenstein, D. J., & Hu, W. 1998, ApJ, 496, 605, doi: 10.1086/305424

    work page doi:10.1086/305424 1998

  31. [31]

    J., & Hut, P

    Eisenstein, D. J., & Hut, P. 1998, ApJ, 498, 137, doi: 10.1086/305535

    work page doi:10.1086/305535 1998

  32. [32]

    2018a, MNRAS, 473, 1930, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2482

    El-Badry, K., Quataert, E., Wetzel, A., et al. 2018a, MNRAS, 473, 1930, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2482

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2482 1930

  33. [33]

    2018b, MNRAS, 477, 1536, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty730

    El-Badry, K., Bradford, J., Quataert, E., et al. 2018b, MNRAS, 477, 1536, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty730

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty730

  34. [34]

    R., et al

    Emami, N., Siana, B., Weisz, D. R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab211a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab211a 2019

  35. [35]

    J., Chatzikos, M., Guzm´ an, F., et al

    Ferland, G. J., Chatzikos, M., Guzm´ an, F., et al. 2017, RMxAA, 53, 385, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1705.10877

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.10877 2017

  36. [36]

    Fielding, D., Quataert, E., McCourt, M., & Thompson, T. A. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 3810, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3326

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3326 2017

  37. [37]

    B., & Bryan, G

    Fielding, D. B., & Bryan, G. L. 2022, ApJ, 924, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2f41

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2f41 2022

  38. [38]

    C., Krumholz, M

    Forbes, J. C., Krumholz, M. R., Goldbaum, N. J., & Dekel, A. 2016, Nature, 535, 523, doi: 10.1038/nature18292

    work page doi:10.1038/nature18292 2016

  39. [39]

    J., Krumholz, M

    Goldbaum, N. J., Krumholz, M. R., & Forbes, J. C. 2015, ApJ, 814, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/131 —. 2016, ApJ, 827, 28, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/28

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/814/2/131 2015

  40. [40]

    Gronke, M., & Oh, S. P. 2020, MNRAS, 494, L27, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa033

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaa033 2020

  41. [41]

    2012, ApJ, 746, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/125

    Haardt, F., & Madau, P. 2012, ApJ, 746, 125, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/125

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/2/125 2012

  42. [42]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 1248, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1773

    Hafen, Z., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 1248, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1773

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1773 2019

  43. [43]

    , keywords =

    Hahn, O., & Abel, T. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 2101, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x 2011

  44. [44]

    B., Smith, B

    Hummels, C. B., Smith, B. D., & Silvia, D. W. 2017, ApJ, 847, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7e2d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7e2d 2017

  45. [45]

    Straka, L. A. 2017, ApJL, 850, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9370

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa9370 2017

  46. [46]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3042

    Kado-Fong, E., Geha, M., Mao, Y.-Y., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3042

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3042 2024

  47. [47]

    H., & Hernquist, L

    Katz, N., Weinberg, D. H., & Hernquist, L. 1996, ApJS, 105, 19, doi: 10.1086/192305

    work page doi:10.1086/192305 1996

  48. [48]

    Kim, C.-G., Kim, W.-T., & Ostriker, E. C. 2011, ApJ, 743, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/1/25

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/743/1/25 2011

  49. [49]

    Kim, C.-G., & Ostriker, E. C. 2015, ApJ, 802, 99, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/802/2/99

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/802/2/99 2015

  50. [50]

    C., Somerville, R

    Kim, C.-G., Ostriker, E. C., Somerville, R. S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba962

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba962 2020

  51. [51]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 202, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/202

    Kim, J.-h., Agertz, O., Teyssier, R., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 202, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/202

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/202 2016

  52. [52]

    A., & Smith, M

    Koudmani, S., Sijacki, D., Bourne, M. A., & Smith, M. C. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 2047, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz097

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz097 2019

  53. [53]

    R., Dekel, A., & McKee, C

    Krumholz, M. R., Dekel, A., & McKee, C. F. 2012, ApJ, 745, 69, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/69

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/745/1/69 2012

  54. [54]

    R., & Tan, J

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

    work page doi:10.1086/509101 2007

  55. [55]

    T., Nagai, D., Bogd´ an,´A., et al

    Lau, E. T., Nagai, D., Bogd´ an,´A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 984, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc450

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc450 2025

  56. [56]

    2014, ApJS, 212, 14, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/212/1/14

    Leitherer, C., Ekstr¨ om, S., Meynet, G., et al. 2014, ApJS, 212, 14, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/212/1/14

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/212/1/14 2014

  57. [57]

    D., et al

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/313233 1999

  58. [58]

    Li, M., & Bryan, G. L. 2020, ApJL, 890, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7304

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab7304 2020

  59. [59]

    L., Ruszkowski, M., et al

    Li, Y., Bryan, G. L., Ruszkowski, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 811, 73, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/73

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/811/2/73 2015

  60. [60]

    J., & Chen, H.-W

    Liang, C. J., & Chen, H.-W. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 2061, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1901

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1901 2014

  61. [61]

    W., et al

    Lochhaas, C., Tumlinson, J., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2496

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2496 2021

  62. [62]

    L., Nelson, E., et al

    Loken, C., Norman, M. L., Nelson, E., et al. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 579, 571, doi: 10.1086/342825

    work page doi:10.1086/342825 2002

  63. [63]

    2023, A&A, 670, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244895

    Marasco, A., Belfiore, F., Cresci, G., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244895

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244895 2023

  64. [64]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 504, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv562

    Martizzi, D., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., & Quataert, E. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 504, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv562

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv562 2015

  65. [65]

    P., O’Leary, R., & Madigan, A.-M

    McCourt, M., Oh, S. P., O’Leary, R., & Madigan, A.-M. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 5407, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2687

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2687 2018

  66. [66]

    McCourt, M., Sharma, P., Quataert, E., & Parrish, I. J. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 3319, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19972.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19972.x 2012

  67. [67]

    McQuinn, K. B. W., van Zee, L., & Skillman, E. D. 2019, ApJ, 886, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c37

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c37 2019

  68. [68]

    W., et al

    Mina, M., Shen, S., Keller, B. W., et al. 2021, A&A, 655, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039420

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039420 2021

  69. [69]

    D., Rudie, G

    Mishra, N., Johnson, S. D., Rudie, G. C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7b0a 32

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7b0a 2024

  70. [70]

    D., & Schaye, J

    Mitchell, P. D., & Schaye, J. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2600, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3686

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3686 2022

  71. [71]

    D., Schaye, J., & Bower, R

    Mitchell, P. D., Schaye, J., & Bower, R. G. 2020a, MNRAS, 497, 4495, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2252

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2252

  72. [72]

    D., Schaye, J., Bower, R

    Mitchell, P. D., Schaye, J., Bower, R. G., & Crain, R. A. 2020b, MNRAS, 494, 3971, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa938

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa938

  73. [73]

    C., & White, S

    Mo, H., van den Bosch, F. C., & White, S. 2010, Galaxy Formation and Evolution

    work page 2010

  74. [74]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac70c6

    Moser, E., Battaglia, N., Nagai, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac70c6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac70c6 2022

  75. [75]

    P., Somerville, R

    Moster, B. P., Somerville, R. S., Maulbetsch, C., et al. 2010, ApJ, 710, 903, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/903

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/710/2/903 2010

  76. [76]

    M., Applebaum, E., et al

    Munshi, F., Brooks, A. M., Applebaum, E., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0db6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0db6 2021

  77. [77]

    L., Kereˇ s, D., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al

    Muratov, A. L., Kereˇ s, D., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2691, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2126

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2126 2015

  78. [78]

    2016, MNRAS, 460, 2881, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1191

    Nelson, D., Genel, S., Pillepich, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 2881, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1191

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1191 2016

  79. [79]

    2013, MNRAS, 429, 3353, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts595

    Nelson, D., Vogelsberger, M., Genel, S., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 3353, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts595

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts595 2013

  80. [80]

    2018, MNRAS, 477, 450, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty656

    Nelson, D., Kauffmann, G., Pillepich, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 450, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty656

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty656 2018

Showing first 80 references.