Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 5 cited by

Properties of the Circumgalactic Medium in Cosmic Ray-Dominated Galaxy Halos

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read In cosmological simulations, cosmic-ray pressure, not heat, supports the gas halos of Milky Way-mass galaxies.

desk verdict A serious simulation study proposing CR pressure as the dominant support of MW-mass CGM gas, with testable O VI predictions, but the central claim rests on one extrapolated transport coefficient that the authors themselves flag. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00003 v2 pith:4GTF6UDO submitted 2019-08-30 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.COastro-ph.HE

Suoqing Ji , T. K. Chan , Cameron B. Hummels , Philip F. Hopkins , Jonathan Stern , Dušan Kereš , Eliot Quataert , Claude-André Faucher-Giguère
show 1 more author
Norman Murray
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.COastro-ph.HE
keywords cosmicrayscircumgalacticmediumgalaxyhaloscosmic-raypressuresupportOVIabsorptionphoto-ionizationcosmologicalzoom-insimulationsformationfeedback
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that cosmic rays—not hot gas—supply the pressure that holds up the gaseous halo (the circumgalactic medium, or CGM) around Milky Way-mass galaxies, and that this reshapes what observations see in that halo. In fully cosmological galaxy-formation simulations that track the injection, streaming, diffusion, and energy losses of cosmic rays from supernovae, the authors find that at radii of roughly 30–300 kpc the cosmic-ray pressure gradient exceeds the thermal pressure gradient by more than an order of magnitude and nearly balances gravity. The halo gas settles into a cool (a few $\times 10^4$ K), volume-filling, photo-ionized (ionized by ultraviolet background light rather than by collisions) state whose density is set by the balance between cosmic-ray pressure and gravity, independent of temperature. This matters because that state yields columns of the ion O VI (five-times-ionized oxygen) around $10^{14.5}$ cm$^{-2}$ out to $\sim150$ kpc from star-forming galaxies—columns that models built on hot, collisionally-ionized halos have struggled to reproduce. If the claim is right, a non-thermal component governs the phase structure, ionization balance, and absorption-line signatures of galactic halos.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the claim that the cosmic-ray pressure gradient balances gravity in the CGM, with a predicted equilibrium gas density $\rho_{\rm eq}(r) \propto \dot{E}_{\rm cr}/(V_c^2 \tilde{v}_{\rm st} r^2)$ that is independent of gas temperature. The CR treatment injects a fixed fraction $\epsilon_{\rm cr} = 0.1$ of supernova kinetic energy into a GeV cosmic-ray fluid that streams along magnetic field lines at the local Alfvén speed and diffuses anisotropically with constant parallel diffusivity $\kappa_\parallel = 3\times10^{29}$ cm$^2$ s$^{-1}$, chosen to match gamma-ray observations, with hadronic, Coulomb, and streaming losses included. The temperature-independence of $\rho_{\rm eq}$ is what lets cool and hot gas coexist at the same density at a given radius, making a volume-filling, thermally under-pressured cool phase possible. An analytic scaling, $$\frac{|\nabla P_{\rm cr}|}{|\rho\nabla\Phi|} \sim 0.5\,\$\alpha$\,\epsilon_{\rm cr}\,\frac{(1+z)^{3/2}}{f_{\rm gas,0.1}\,\tilde{\kappa}_{29}}\,\frac{M_*}{f_b\,M_{\rm halo}}$$, explains why CR dominance appears only near Milky Way mass and at low redshift, matching the simulated pressure-gradient profiles.

What would settle it

Measure the cosmic-ray diffusion coefficient in the outer halo ($\gtrsim$30 kpc from the disk) of a Milky Way-mass galaxy—for example from the radial gradient of radio synchrotron or gamma-ray emission, or from secondary-to-primary cosmic-ray ratios in halo gas. If the effective diffusivity there is even a few times the assumed constant value of $3\times10^{29}$ cm$^2$ s$^{-1}$, cosmic rays would escape before building the pressure gradient that balances gravity, and the predicted cool, volume-filling halo would not form.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Comparing otherwise identical cosmological zoom-in simulations with and without explicit cosmic-ray (CR) transport, the paper finds a qualitative transition at halo masses of a few $\times 10^{11}$ to $10^{12}\,M_\odot$ and redshifts $z \lesssim 1$–2. In the Milky Way-mass runs, the CR pressure gradient exceeds the thermal pressure gradient by more than an order of magnitude and approximately balances gravity across the CGM ($\approx$30–300 kpc): in the paper's words, 'the CR pressure becomes dominant over thermal (and magnetic) pressure in the CGM, and balances gravity.' In these CR-dominated halos the gas is mostly cool (a few $\times 10^4$ K), the cool phase is volume-filling rather than confined to dense filaments, and its thermal pressure lies below the level needed for local or virial pressure balance; the cool gas is thermally under-pressured but the total (thermal plus CR) pressure at fixed radius is nearly uniform because the two pressures are locally anti-correlated. The density profile follows a temperature-independent equilibrium density $\rho_{\rm eq}$ at which the CR pressure gradient balances gravity, so gas at very different temperatures coexists at the same density. As a result the low and mid ions (H I, Mg II, Si IV, N V, O VI) are predominantly photo-ionized, with O VI columns $\gtrsim 10^{14.5}$ cm$^{-2}$ out to $\gtrsim150$ kpc, while Ne VIII columns drop; runs without CRs retain the hot, collisionally-ionized, thermally-supported halo assumed by earlier models and underproduce the observed O VI.

Load-bearing premise

The entire CR-dominated halo rests on assuming that the cosmic-ray diffusion coefficient inferred within roughly 10 kpc of the disk stays constant all the way out to 300 kpc; if cosmic rays instead escape far more freely through the dilute outer halo, the predicted pressure support—and with it the cool, volume-filling, photo-ionized CGM—would not form.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • O VI columns of $\gtrsim 10^{14.5}$ cm$^{-2}$ extending to $\gtrsim150$ kpc around low-redshift star-forming galaxies are produced by photo-ionized cool gas supported by cosmic-ray pressure, not by collisionally-ionized warm gas, resolving the energy-budget problem that collisional models of the observed O VI have faced.
  • The cool CGM in Milky Way-mass halos is volume-filling and thermally under-pressured, matching the state inferred from observations of low-ion absorbers, and the sightline-to-sightline scatter in low- and mid-ion columns is much smaller than in runs without cosmic rays.
  • Cosmic-ray dominance is confined to halos near $10^{12}\,M_\odot$ at $z \lesssim 1$–2: dwarf halos and high-redshift Milky Way-mass progenitors show essentially no cosmic-ray effects, so the model predicts a sharp dependence of CGM phase structure and ion columns on halo mass and redshift.
  • Galaxies whose star formation is quenched would lack the cosmic-ray injection that sustains the cool, volume-filling halo, giving a natural explanation for the observed deficit of O VI around passive galaxies relative to star-forming ones.
  • The CGM density profile is set by the cosmic-ray pressure gradient rather than by virial temperature, so halo gas can be supported at a few $\times 10^4$ K while remaining in global force balance.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The temperature-independent equilibrium density at the heart of the argument is not specific to cosmic rays: any pressure component with a steep radial gradient and weak coupling to gas temperature—magnetic fields, Alfvén-wave pressure, or turbulent pressure—would, if sustained at comparable amplitude, produce the same volume-filling cool phase; cosmic rays are the one candidate the simulations ca
  • A diagnostic the paper leaves implicit: in the CR-supported halo, the O VI-bearing gas at 100–200 kpc should have thermal pressures below roughly $10^{-3}$ eV cm$^{-3}$ and line widths dominated by bulk motions, so density- or ionization-ratio-sensitive observations of the same absorbers could test the model without any direct cosmic-ray measurement.
  • Because the CR-to-gravity force ratio in the analytic scaling is inversely proportional to the diffusion coefficient, the mass–redshift window where cosmic rays dominate is the most fragile prediction: if the true diffusivity grows with decreasing density, as microphysical transport models suggest, the window shrinks or vanishes, making scale-dependent transport models the natural next test.
  • The model also implies that the hot $\sim10^6$ K phase is strongly suppressed at 50–200 kpc in Milky Way-mass halos; X-ray absorption measurements such as O VII around these galaxies could check this prediction independently of the O VI comparison.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents FIRE-2 cosmological zoom-in simulations of the circumgalactic medium (CGM) with explicit cosmic-ray (CR) transport, including supernova injection, anisotropic diffusion and streaming, and collisional and streaming losses. For Milky Way-mass halos at z≲1--2, it finds that the CR pressure gradient exceeds the thermal pressure gradient by more than an order of magnitude and nearly balances gravity, driving the CGM into a cool, volume-filling, largely photoionized phase. The paper predicts H I, O VI, and N V column densities that are consistent with low-redshift absorption-line observations, with O VI columns about 10^14.5 cm^-2 persisting to ~150 kpc, whereas the same halos in MHD-only runs are warm/hot and collisionally ionized. The interpretation is supported by an analytic equilibrium model, and the authors explicitly discuss caveats, most importantly the uncertainty in the CR diffusion coefficient.

Significance. If the CR-dominated state is realized in nature, the paper offers a single mechanism that simultaneously explains the observed under-pressured cool CGM, the large O VI column densities around star-forming galaxies, and the low thermal pressure of photoionized absorbers. The work uses high-resolution cosmological simulations with a comprehensive physics package (MHD, anisotropic conduction/viscosity, FIRE-2 feedback), and the ion columns are computed with the standard Trident post-processing tool. The authors show resolution tests and several Milky Way-mass halos to support generality, and the simulation code and data are publicly available. The central results make concrete falsifiable predictions: flat low/mid-ion column profiles, reduced sightline-to-sightline scatter, and anti-correlation between CR and thermal pressure at fixed radius. The main weakness is that the entire predicted state rests on a constant parallel CR diffusivity calibrated at radii ≲10 kpc and extrapolated to 30--300 kpc; the authors themselves note that a plausible rapid increase of diffusivity would allow CRs to escape and erase the CR-dominated halo.

major comments (1)
  1. [§5.2(i); central argument (Figs. 1, 6--8)] The central claim that CR pressure balances gravity in the CGM and produces the cool, photoionized phase with O VI columns ~10^14.5 cm^-2 depends entirely on the constant parallel diffusivity κ‖=3×10^29 cm^2/s and Alfvén-speed streaming remaining valid from the ISM out to r~30--300 kpc. Section 5.2(i) states explicitly that the calibrating gamma-ray observations constrain κ only within ~10 kpc and that a plausible rapid increase of diffusivity in the CGM would let CRs escape and destroy the CR-dominated halo. Because every downstream prediction (phase structure, pressure balance, ion columns) follows from the CR-dominated state, this is a load-bearing sensitivity rather than a peripheral caveat. The citation of Hopkins et al. (2020) for robustness across transport models does not fully resolve the issue, since §5.2(i) itself identifies a plausible regime in which the effect collapses. I request a quantitative treatment: either simulations with a radially or plasma-dependent κ (or at least an analytic estimate of the radius at which CR escape becomes important), or a clear reframing in the abstract and conclusions stating that all results are predictions of a specific, observationally calibrated transport model rather than a claim that CRs necessarily dominate the CGM.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (1), §4.1] As typeset, Eq. (1) places κ~29 and (1+z)^3/2 in the numerator. This appears inconsistent with the point-source steady-state solution in §4.1, where P_cr ∝ E_dot/(κ~ r) in the diffusion-dominated limit, and with the sentence immediately following the equation, which invokes the (1+z)^3/2 factor to argue that CRs decrease in importance at high redshift. Please verify the equation and correct the typesetting if needed.
  2. [§3.4] The text refers to dwarf halos 'm10b and m11b', but Table 1 lists the halo as m10q; please reconcile the naming.
  3. [§3.6] The sentence 'so this produces overall less Ne viii column compared to MHD+ case, as seen in Fig. 7' should likely reference Fig. 9, which shows the ion-weighted density-temperature diagrams.
  4. [Appendix B, first paragraph] The appendix says it compares 'HM12 and FG19', but the model is FG09 (Faucher-Giguère et al. 2009); please correct the label.
  5. [Fig. 8 caption] The caption reports '8002 sightlines'; this should presumably read '800^2 sightlines' as in the text. Please fix the typography.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CR pressure support and ion-column predictions are derived from an independently calibrated transport coefficient and checked against external observations, not constructed from the quantities they predict.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that with constant parallel diffusivity kappa_parallel = 3e29 cm^2/s, CR pressure balances gravity in MW-mass halos and changes the CGM phase structure. The diffusivity is explicitly calibrated to independent gamma-ray observations: 'with constant parallel diffusivity $\kappa\sim3\times10^{29}\,\mathrm{cm^2\ s^{-1}}$ chosen to match $\gamma$-ray observations'. This calibration does not use the CGM ion columns or O VI columns that the paper later compares to data, so the predictions are not fitted inputs renamed as predictions. The analytic equilibrium scalings in Section 4.1, including Eq. (1), are presented as a consistency check ('This analytic estimation produces resonable CR pressure gradient profiles ... consistent with our simulation results'), not as the source of the simulated CR pressure. The paper's reliance on Hopkins et al. (2019) and Chan et al. (2019) for the transport model and its calibration is self-citation, but the cited work contains independent, externally falsifiable calibrations to gamma-ray observations and is not used as an unverified authority to forbid alternatives. The robustness claim via Hopkins et al. (2020) is supportive, not load-bearing. The explicit caveat in Section 5.2(i) that observations constrain kappa only within ~10 kpc and that a rapidly increasing diffusivity could allow CRs to escape is an honest statement of external-physics sensitivity; it weakens the certainty of the conclusions but does not make the derivation circular. The ion columns are post-processed from the simulated gas using Trident, with the UV background choice discussed separately, and are then compared with observations rather than used to determine the simulation parameters. Thus, no step in the derivation chain reduces, by construction or by definition, to the result it is supposed to predict.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on three free parameters (CR diffusivity, injection fraction, streaming speed) plus the FIRE-2 galaxy formation model and UV background choices. No new physical entities are postulated. The dominant uncertainty is the extrapolation of κ‖ to the CGM.

free parameters (3)
  • κ‖ (constant parallel CR diffusivity) = 3×10^29 cm^2/s
    Chosen to match gamma-ray observations of the MW and nearby galaxies (Chan et al. 2019; Hopkins et al. 2019); not independently constrained in the CGM beyond ~10 kpc.
  • ϵ_cr (SN CR injection fraction) = 0.1
    Fixed fraction of supernova kinetic energy injected as CRs; an ad hoc but standard assumption.
  • v_stream (CR streaming speed) = v_A (local Alfvén speed)
    Assumed streaming at the Alfvén speed; microphysical streaming may differ.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption FIRE-2 sub-grid galaxy formation model (cooling, star formation, stellar feedback) adequately represents the ISM and feedback.
    The simulations rely on the FIRE-2 model presented in Hopkins et al. 2018; CGM predictions inherit its accuracy.
  • domain assumption CRs are treated as a single-bin ultra-relativistic fluid (γ=4/3) with strong coupling and isotropic pressure.
    Standard fluid approximation; neglects spectral evolution and momentum anisotropy.
  • domain assumption The sample of six representative halos is sufficient to establish mass and redshift trends.
    Authors state they verified qualitative robustness across a larger sample (Hopkins et al. 2019).
  • domain assumption The analytic scaling Eq. (1) from Hopkins et al. (2019) (point-source injection, steady state, negligible losses, isothermal sphere) applies to the simulations.
    Used in §4.1 as an interpretive model to explain the simulated CR pressure profiles.
  • domain assumption UV background models (FG09 for low ions, HM12 for high ions) are appropriate for photo-ionization post-processing.
    Choice affects quantitative columns by factors 2-3 but not qualitative trends.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Properties of the Circumgalactic Medium in Cosmic Ray-Dominated Galaxy Halos." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4GTF6UDO

@misc{pith2026190900003,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Properties of the Circumgalactic Medium in Cosmic Ray-Dominated Galaxy Halos},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4GTF6UDO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00003}
}
abstract

We investigate the impact of cosmic rays (CRs) on the circumgalactic medium (CGM) in FIRE-2 simulations, for ultra-faint dwarf through Milky Way (MW)-mass halos hosting star-forming (SF) galaxies. Our CR treatment includes injection by supernovae, anisotropic streaming and diffusion along magnetic field lines, collisional and streaming losses, with constant parallel diffusivity $\kappa\sim3\times10^{29}\,\mathrm{cm^2\ s^{-1}}$ chosen to match $\gamma$-ray observations. With this, CRs become more important at larger halo masses and lower redshifts, and dominate the pressure in the CGM in MW-mass halos at $z\lesssim 1-2$. The gas in these "CR-dominated" halos differs significantly from runs without CRs: the gas is primarily cool (a few $\sim10^{4}\,$K), and the cool phase is volume-filling and has a thermal pressure below that needed for virial or local thermal pressure balance. Ionization of the "low" and "mid" ions in this diffuse cool gas is dominated by photo-ionization, with O VI columns $\gtrsim 10^{14.5}\,\mathrm{cm^{-2}}$ at distances $\gtrsim 150\,\mathrm{kpc}$. CR and thermal gas pressure are locally anti-correlated, maintaining total pressure balance, and the CGM gas density profile is determined by the balance of CR pressure gradients and gravity. Neglecting CRs, the same halos are primarily warm/hot ($T\gtrsim 10^{5}\,$K) with thermal pressure balancing gravity, collisional ionization dominates, O VI columns are lower and Ne VIII higher, and the cool phase is confined to dense filaments in local thermal pressure equilibrium with the hot phase.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00003 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Radial profiles of the gas thermal pressure gradient ∇Pthermal (blue), turbulent pressure gradient ∇Pturbulent (orange), magnetic pressure gradient ∇Pmagnetic (green), CR pressure gradient ∇Pcr (red), analytically predicted CR pressure gradient ∇Pcr,predict (purple dashed, details presented in §4.1) and gravitational force ρ∇Φ (black dotted) in the CGM, averaged in spherical shells as a function of galacto-centric r… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Magnetic field lines (black) and strength (color) from the m12i MHD+ (left) and CR+ (right) runs at z = 0, in a slice through the galaxy. The turbulence in the CGM, while weak ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Radial profiles of gas heating and cooling rate, around m12i in the CR+ run at z = 0. Solid lines show the volume-averaged profile in spherical shells; shaded range shows the 5 − 95% inclusion interval of all resolution elements at that radius. We compare total gas cooling rate vs. heating rate from CRs via collisional (hadronic+Coulomb) and streaming losses. CR heating is weak compared to gas cooling in the CGM; th… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: CGM gas morphologies of the galaxies from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Radial profile of gas mass density (top) and temperature (bottom) weighted by volume for halos from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Gas density profiles in different phases for m12i at z = 0, com￾paring MHD+ and CR+ runs. We specifically compare the 5 − 95% range of local gas densities nH, for all resolution (gas mass) elements at a given radius and within a given temperature range (colors, labeled…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Density-temperature phase diagrams of gas in MHD+ and CR+ runs of m12i at z = 0. We show gas in the CGM with 50 kpc < r < 200 kpc. Colors show the probability density weighted by gas mass. The CR+ run is cooler, but also follows a different trend: while the probability…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Column density profiles of various ions, as a function of impact parameter normalized to virial radius b/Rvir. We compare MHD+ and CR+ for halo m12i whose virial radius is R m12i vir = 270 kpc. Lines are (linear) averages over an ensemble of sightlines and times, and s…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Density-temperature diagrams of m12i MHD+ (top) and CR+ (bottom) for CGM (50 kpc < r < 200 kpc) gas at z = 0, in the style of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Column density profiles, as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Mollweide projections of gas thermal pressure Pthermal and CR pressure Pcr in a narrow spherical shell at radius r ≈ 150 kpc, for the m12i CR+ run at z = 0. Pthermal and Pcr are locally anti-correlated at a given r, such that the total pressure Ptot(r) is closer to un…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The mass-dependent interplay of active galacitc nuclei and supernova feedback in shaping the $L_{\rm X}$--$T$ relation of early-type galaxies

    astro-ph.GA 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Mass-dependent coupling of AGN winds and supernovae, including a metal-lifting fountain in dwarfs, explains the steep L_X-T relation of early-type galaxies.

  2. CRexit observed: probing cosmic ray transport in the circumgalactic medium with absorption line spectra

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    Efficient cosmic-ray transport in CR-pressure-dominated CGM simulations produces stronger cool-gas absorption (MgII, SiII) and covering fractions matching star-forming galaxies, while slow transport underproduces them.

  3. Time-Dependent Cosmic Ray Halos from Bursty Star Formation and Active Galactic Nuclei: Semi-Analytic Formalism and Galaxy Formation Implications

    astro-ph.GA 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Time-dependent injection from bursty star formation or episodic black hole accretion substantially modifies cosmic ray pressure profiles in massive galaxy halos, flattening them at large radii relative to steady-state...

  4. CRESCENDO II: Spectral cosmic rays with improved energy losses and realistic supernova seeding

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    CRESCENDO's spectral cosmic-ray solver now includes improved energy-loss processes, non-ultra-relativistic energy/pressure integrals, and supernova-remnant template injection.

  5. The Circumgalactic Medium

    astro-ph.GA 2024-12 unverdicted novelty 1.0 of 10

    A comprehensive review of the circumgalactic medium, its multiphase structure, absorption and emission probes, and role in the baryon cycle, containing no new research results.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

131 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    E., Churazov E., Bregman J

    Anderson M. E., Churazov E., Bregman J. N., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1559 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.3905A 452, 3905

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1559 2015

  2. [2]

    F., Quataert E., Murray N., 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 4698

    Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar D., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Kere s D., Hopkins P. F., Quataert E., Murray N., 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 4698

    2017

  3. [3]

    N., Spitzer Jr L., 1969, The Astrophysical Journal, 156, L63

    Bahcall J. N., Spitzer Jr L., 1969, The Astrophysical Journal, 156, L63

    1969

  4. [4]

    C., Fabian A., 1990, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 244, 26P

    Begelman M. C., Fabian A., 1990, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 244, 26P

    1990

  5. [5]

    Beresnyak A., Yan H., Lazarian A., 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 728, 60

    2011

  6. [6]

    I., 1965, Reviews of Plasma Physics, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965RvPP....1..205B 1, 205

    Braginskii S. I., 1965, Reviews of Plasma Physics, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965RvPP....1..205B 1, 205

    1965

  7. [7]

    N., Anderson M

    Bregman J. N., Anderson M. E., Miller M. J., Hodges-Kluck E., Dai X., Li J.-T., Li Y., Qu Z., 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 862, 3

    2018

  8. [8]

    L., Norman M

    Bryan G. L., Norman M. L., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305262 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...495...80B 495, 80

    doi:10.1086/305262 1998

Show all 131 references
  1. [9]

    N., et al., 2018, arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.06560

    Burchett J. N., et al., 2018, arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.06560

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    S., Quinn T

    Butsky I. S., Quinn T. R., 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 868, 108

    2018

  3. [11]

    Cai Z., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6a1a , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...839..131C 839, 131

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    X., Hennawi J

    Cantalupo S., Arrigoni-Battaia F., Prochaska J. X., Hennawi J. F., Madau P., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature12898 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Natur.506...63C 506, 63

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    Cen R., 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 770, 139

    2013

  6. [14]

    Chan T., Kere s D., Hopkins P., Quataert E., Su K., Hayward C., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C., 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488, 3716

    2019

  7. [15]

    J., Ma X., Hopkins P

    Colbrook M. J., Ma X., Hopkins P. F., Squire J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx261 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.2421C 467, 2421

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    L., McKee C

    Cowie L. L., McKee C. F., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1086/154911 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJ...211..135C 211, 135

    1977 doi

  9. [17]

    Dekel A., Birnboim Y., 2006, Monthly notices of the royal astronomical society, 368, 2

    2006

  10. [18]

    Dursi L., Pfrommer C., 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 677, 993

    2008

  11. [19]

    Escala I., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2858 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.2194E 474, 2194

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    E., Zweibel E

    Everett J. E., Zweibel E. G., Benjamin R. A., McCammon D., Rocks L., Gallagher III J. S., 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 674, 258

    2008

  13. [21]

    F., 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, 52

    Faerman Y., Sternberg A., McKee C. F., 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, 52

    2017

  14. [22]

    Fang T., Bullock J., Boylan-Kolchin M., 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 762, 20

    2012

  15. [23]

    Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 1614

    2020

  16. [24]

    Faucher-Giguere C.-A., Lidz A., Zaldarriaga M., Hernquist L., 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 703, 1416

    2009

  17. [25]

    F., Kere s D., Muratov A

    Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Hopkins P. F., Kere s D., Muratov A. L., Quataert E., Murray N., 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449, 987

    2015

  18. [26]

    F., Murray N., 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 461, L32

    Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Feldmann R., Quataert E., Kere s D., Hopkins P. F., Murray N., 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 461, L32

    2016

  19. [27]

    Ferland G., et al., 2017, arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.10877

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    A., 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 3810

    Fielding D., Quataert E., McCourt M., Thompson T. A., 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 3810

    2016

  21. [29]

    Girichidis P., Naab T., Hanasz M., Walch S., 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 3042

    2018

  22. [30]

    F., 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 718, 1315

    Gnat O., Sternberg A., McKee C. F., 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 718, 1315

    2010

  23. [31]

    M., Hivon E., Banday A

    G \'o rski K. M., Hivon E., Banday A. J., Wandelt B. D., Hansen F. K., Reinecke M., Bartelmann M., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/427976 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...622..759G 622, 759

    2005 doi

  24. [32]

    A., Black J

    Grenier I. A., Black J. H., Strong A. W., 2015, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 53, 199

    2015

  25. [33]

    P., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12692.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.384..251G 384, 251

    Guo F., Oh S. P., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12692.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.384..251G 384, 251

    2008

  26. [34]

    Haardt F., Madau P., 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 746, 125

    2012

  27. [35]

    Hafen Z., et al., 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 469, 2292

    2017

  28. [36]

    Hafen Z., et al., 2018, arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.11753

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Hahn O., Abel T., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18820.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.415.2101H 415, 2101

    2011

  30. [38]

    F., Prochaska J

    Hennawi J. F., Prochaska J. X., Cantalupo S., Arrigoni-Battaia F., 2015, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aaa5397 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015Sci...348..779H 348, 779

    2015 doi

  31. [39]

    D., Ionson J

    Holman G. D., Ionson J. A., Scott J. S., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/156881 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...228..576H 228, 576

    1979 doi

  32. [40]

    F., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv195 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450...53H 450, 53

    Hopkins P. F., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv195 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450...53H 450, 53

    2015 doi

  33. [41]

    F., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1578 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462..576H 462, 576

    Hopkins P. F., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1578 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462..576H 462, 576

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    F., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3306 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466.3387H 466, 3387

    Hopkins P. F., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3306 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466.3387H 466, 3387

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    Hopkins P. F. e. a., 2018a, , in preparation

  36. [44]

    Hopkins P. F. e. a., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1690 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480..800H 480, 800

    doi

  37. [45]

    F., Raives M

    Hopkins P. F., Raives M. J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2180 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455...51H 455, 51

    2016 doi

  38. [46]

    F., Narayanan D., Murray N., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt723 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.432.2647H 432, 2647

    Hopkins P. F., Narayanan D., Murray N., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt723 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.432.2647H 432, 2647

    2013 doi

  39. [47]

    F., Kere s D., O \ n orbe J., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Quataert E., Murray N., Bullock J

    Hopkins P. F., Kere s D., O \ n orbe J., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Quataert E., Murray N., Bullock J. S., 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 445, 581

    2014

  40. [48]

    F., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty674 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.1578H 477, 1578

    Hopkins P. F., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty674 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.1578H 477, 1578

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    F., et al., 2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.04321

    Hopkins P. F., et al., 2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.04321

    2019 arXiv

  42. [50]

    F., Squire J., Chan T., Quataert E., Ji S., Keres D., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., 2020, arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.06211

    Hopkins P. F., Squire J., Chan T., Quataert E., Ji S., Keres D., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., 2020, arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.06211

    2020 arXiv

  43. [51]

    B., Bryan G

    Hummels C. B., Bryan G. L., Smith B. D., Turk M. J., 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 430, 1548

    2013

  44. [52]

    B., Smith B

    Hummels C. B., Smith B. D., Silvia D. W., 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 847, 59

    2017

  45. [53]

    B., et al., 2018, arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.12410

    Hummels C. B., et al., 2018, arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.12410

    2018 arXiv

  46. [54]

    D., 2007, Computing in science & engineering, 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, Computing in science & engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  47. [55]

    P., McCourt M., 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 852

    Ji S., Oh S. P., McCourt M., 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 852

    2018

  48. [56]

    P., Masterson P., 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 737

    Ji S., Oh S. P., Masterson P., 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 737

    2019

  49. [57]

    P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa6ce , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...854....5J 854, 5

    Jiang Y.-F., Oh S. P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa6ce , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...854....5J 854, 5

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    D., Chen H.-W., Mulchaey J

    Johnson S. D., Chen H.-W., Mulchaey J. S., 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449, 3263

    2015

  51. [59]

    A., et al., 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 230, 6

    Keeney B. A., et al., 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 230, 6

    2017

  52. [60]

    H., Dav \'e R., 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 363, 2

    Kere s D., Katz N., Weinberg D. H., Dav \'e R., 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 363, 2

    2005

  53. [61]

    Komarov S., Churazov E., Schekochihin A., ZuHone J., 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 440, 1153

    2014

  54. [62]

    A., Churazov E., Spitkovsky A., 2018, @doi [Journal of Plasma Physics] 10.1017/S0022377818000399 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018JPlPh..84c9005K 84, 905840305

    Komarov S., Schekochihin A. A., Churazov E., Spitkovsky A., 2018, @doi [Journal of Plasma Physics] 10.1017/S0022377818000399 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018JPlPh..84c9005K 84, 905840305

    2018 doi

  55. [63]

    C., 2013, , in press, arXiv:1304.7762, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013arXiv1304.7762K

    Kormendy J., Ho L. C., 2013, , in press, arXiv:1304.7762, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013arXiv1304.7762K

    2013 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Kroupa P., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.322..231K 322, 231

    2001

  57. [65]

    R., Gnedin N

    Krumholz M. R., Gnedin N. Y., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/36 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...729...36K 729, 36

    2011 doi

  58. [66]

    M., 2005, Plasma physics for astrophysics

    Kulsrud R. M., 2005, Plasma physics for astrophysics . Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press

    2005

  59. [67]

    P., 1969, @doi [ ] 10.1086/149981 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969ApJ...156..445K 156, 445

    Kulsrud R., Pearce W. P., 1969, @doi [ ] 10.1086/149981 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969ApJ...156..445K 156, 445

    1969 doi

  60. [68]

    L., 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 719, 523

    Kwak K., Shelton R. L., 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 719, 523

    2010

  61. [69]

    Lazarian A., 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 833, 131

    2016

  62. [70]

    M., Fox A

    Lehner N., O'Meara J. M., Fox A. J., Howk J. C., Prochaska J. X., Burns V., Armstrong A. A., 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 788, 119

    2014

  63. [71]

    Leitherer C., et al., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/313233 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJS..123....3L 123, 3

    1999 doi

  64. [72]

    D., Irwin J

    Li J.-T., Li Z., Wang Q. D., Irwin J. A., Rossa J., 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 390, 59

    2008

  65. [73]

    J., Kravtsov A

    Liang C. J., Kravtsov A. V., Agertz O., 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 458, 1164

    2016

  66. [74]

    F., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Zolman N., Muratov A

    Ma X., Hopkins P. F., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Zolman N., Muratov A. L., Kere s D., Quataert E., 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 2140

    2015

  67. [75]

    G., Prochaska J

    Mathews W. G., Prochaska J. X., 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 846, L24

    2017

  68. [76]

    M., Madigan A.-M., Quataert E., 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449, 2

    McCourt M., O'Leary R. M., Madigan A.-M., Quataert E., 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449, 2

    2015

  69. [77]

    P., O'Leary R., Madigan A.-M., 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 5407

    McCourt M., Oh S. P., O'Leary R., Madigan A.-M., 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 5407

    2017

  70. [78]

    S., Schombert J

    McGaugh S. S., Schombert J. M., De Blok W., Zagursky M. J., 2009, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 708, L14

    2009

  71. [79]

    F., Voelk H

    McKenzie J. F., Voelk H. J., 1982, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982A

    1982

  72. [80]

    K., 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 852, 33

    McQuinn M., Werk J. K., 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 852, 33

    2018

  73. [81]

    J., Bregman J

    Miller M. J., Bregman J. N., 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 770, 118

    2013

  74. [82]

    L., Kere s D., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Hopkins P

    Muratov A. L., Kere s D., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Hopkins P. F., Quataert E., Murray N., 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 454, 2691

    2015

  75. [83]

    L., et al., 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 468, 4170

    Muratov A. L., et al., 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 468, 4170

    2017

  76. [84]

    H., Bullock J

    O \ n orbe J., Garrison-Kimmel S., Maller A. H., Bullock J. S., Rocha M., Hahn O., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2020 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.437.1894O 437, 1894

    2014 doi

  77. [85]

    E., 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 10

    Oliphant T. E., 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 10

    2007

  78. [86]

    D., et al., 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 460, 2157

    Oppenheimer B. D., et al., 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 460, 2157

    2016

  79. [87]

    D., Segers M., Schaye J., Richings A

    Oppenheimer B. D., Segers M., Schaye J., Richings A. J., Crain R. A., 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 4740

    2017

  80. [88]

    S., et al., 2018, arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.06566

    Peeples M. S., et al., 2018, arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.06566

    2018 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220941 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    2013 doi

  82. [90]

    X., et al., 2017a, pyigm/pyigm: Initial release for publications, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.1045480 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1045480

    Prochaska J. X., et al., 2017a, pyigm/pyigm: Initial release for publications, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.1045480 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1045480

    doi

  83. [91]

    X., et al., 2017b, The Astrophysical Journal, 837, 169

    Prochaska J. X., et al., 2017b, The Astrophysical Journal, 837, 169

  84. [92]

    K., Zweibel E., 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 834, 208

    Ruszkowski M., Yang H.-Y. K., Zweibel E., 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 834, 208

    2017

  85. [93]

    L., Corlies L., 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 582

    Salem M., Bryan G. L., Corlies L., 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 582

    2016

  86. [94]

    Skilling J., 1971, @doi [ ] 10.1086/151210 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1971ApJ...170..265S 170, 265

    1971 doi

  87. [95]

    Rev.] 10.1103/PhysRev.89.977 , 89, 977

    Spitzer L., H\"arm R., 1953, @doi [Phys. Rev.] 10.1103/PhysRev.89.977 , 89, 977

    1953 doi

  88. [96]

    A., Quataert E., 2017a, @doi [New Journal of Physics] 10.1088/1367-2630/aa6bb1 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017NJPh...19e5005S 19, 055005

    Squire J., Schekochihin A. A., Quataert E., 2017a, @doi [New Journal of Physics] 10.1088/1367-2630/aa6bb1 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017NJPh...19e5005S 19, 055005

    doi

  89. [97]

    W., 2017b, @doi [Journal of Plasma Physics] 10.1017/S0022377817000940 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JPlPh..83f9013S 83, 905830613

    Squire J., Quataert E., Kunz M. W., 2017b, @doi [Journal of Plasma Physics] 10.1017/S0022377817000940 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JPlPh..83f9013S 83, 905830613

    doi

  90. [98]

    W., Quataert E., Schekochihin A

    Squire J., Kunz M. W., Quataert E., Schekochihin A. A., 2017c, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.155101 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhRvL.119o5101S 119, 155101

    doi

  91. [99]

    F., Prochaska J

    Stern J., Hennawi J. F., Prochaska J. X., Werk J. K., 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 830, 87

    2016

  92. [100]

    F., Hafen Z., Johnson S

    Stern J., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Hennawi J. F., Hafen Z., Johnson S. D., Fielding D., 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 865, 91

    2018

  93. [101]

    Stern J., Fielding D., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Quataert E., 2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.07737

    2019 arXiv

  94. [102]

    T., Keeney B

    Stocke J. T., Keeney B. A., Danforth C. W., Shull J. M., Froning C. S., Green J. C., Penton S. V., Savage B. D., 2013a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/763/2/148 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...763..148S 763, 148

    doi

  95. [103]

    T., Keeney B

    Stocke J. T., Keeney B. A., Danforth C. W., Shull J. M., Froning C. S., Green J. C., Penton S. V., Savage B. D., 2013b, The Astrophysical Journal, 763, 148

  96. [104]

    F., Hayward C

    Su K.-Y., Hopkins P. F., Hayward C. C., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Kere s D., Ma X., Robles V. H., 2017a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 471, 144

  97. [105]

    C., Hopkins P

    Su K.-Y., Hayward C. C., Hopkins P. F., Quataert E., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Kere s D., 2017b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 473, L111

  98. [106]

    arXiv:1812.03997

    Su K.-Y., et al., 2018, , submitted, arXiv:1812.03997, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018arXiv181203997S p. arXiv:1812.03997

    2018 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Su K.-Y., et al., 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 4393

    2019

  100. [108]

    R., Kudoh T., 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 787, 169

    Suzuki A., Takahashi H. R., Kudoh T., 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 787, 169

    2014

  101. [109]

    Thomas T., Pfrommer C., 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

    2019

  102. [110]

    Tumlinson J., et al., 2011, Science, 334, 948

    2011

  103. [111]

    S., Werk J

    Tumlinson J., Peeples M. S., Werk J. K., 2017, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 55, 389

    2017

  104. [112]

    J., Smith B

    Turk M. J., Smith B. D., Oishi J. S., Skory S., Skillman S. W., Abel T., Norman M. L., 2010, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 192, 9

    2010

  105. [113]

    C., Varoquaux G., 2011, Computing in Science & Engineering, 13, 22

    Van Der Walt S., Colbert S. C., Varoquaux G., 2011, Computing in Science & Engineering, 13, 22

    2011

  106. [114]

    M., 2018, arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.04976

    Voit G. M., 2018, arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.04976

    2018 arXiv

  107. [115]

    D., et al., 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 635, 386

    Wang Q. D., et al., 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 635, 386

    2005

  108. [116]

    G., 1968, @doi [ ] 10.1086/149611 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968ApJ...152..987W 152, 987

    Wentzel D. G., 1968, @doi [ ] 10.1086/149611 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968ApJ...152..987W 152, 987

    1968 doi

  109. [117]

    K., Prochaska J

    Werk J. K., Prochaska J. X., Thom C., Tumlinson J., Tripp T. M., O'Meara J. M., Peeples M. S., 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 204, 17

    2013

  110. [118]

    K., et al., 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 792, 8

    Werk J. K., et al., 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 792, 8

    2014

  111. [119]

    K., et al., 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 833, 54

    Werk J. K., et al., 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 833, 54

    2016

  112. [120]

    D., Rees M

    White S. D., Rees M. J., 1978, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 183, 341

    1978

  113. [121]

    G., 2013, Astrophysical Journal, 767

    Wiener J., Peng Oh S., Zweibel E. G., 2013, Astrophysical Journal, 767

    2013

  114. [122]

    P., Zweibel E

    Wiener J., Oh S. P., Zweibel E. G., 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 467, 646

    2017

  115. [123]

    Xu S., Yan H., Lazarian A., 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 826, 166

    2016

  116. [124]

    Yan H., Lazarian A., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/524771 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...673..942Y 673, 942

    2008 doi

  117. [125]

    S., Chen H.-W., Johnson S

    Zahedy F. S., Chen H.-W., Johnson S. D., Pierce R. M., Rauch M., Huang Y.-H., Weiner B. J., Gauthier J.-R., 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 2257

    2019

  118. [126]

    Zhang D., 2018, Galaxies, 6, 114

    2018

  119. [127]

    Zonca A., Singer L., Lenz D., Reinecke M., Rosset C., Hivon E., Gorski K., 2019, @doi [Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.01298 , 4, 1298

    2019 doi

  120. [128]

    G., 2013, Physics of Plasmas, 20, 055501

    Zweibel E. G., 2013, Physics of Plasmas, 20, 055501

    2013

  121. [129]

    F., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Feldmann R., Kere s D., Chan T., Hafen Z., 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 4533

    van de Voort F., Quataert E., Hopkins P. F., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Feldmann R., Kere s D., Chan T., Hafen Z., 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 4533

    2016

  122. [130]

    C., Pakmor R., 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 482, L85

    van de Voort F., Springel V., Mandelker N., van den Bosch F. C., Pakmor R., 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 482, L85

    2018

  123. [131]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.