Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

You Shall Not Pass! The propagation of low/moderate powered jets through a turbulent interstellar medium

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Low-power jets can be stalled within the central kiloparsec by a turbulent interstellar medium.

desk verdict Clean, honest simulation study showing low-power jets can stall in a turbulent filamentary ISM, with a useful analytic scaling; the main caveat is the warm-phase-only ISM setup, which the authors themselves flag. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14062 v1 pith:QEAGRW5E submitted 2025-01-23 astro-ph.GA

Olga Borodina , Yueying Ni , Jake S. Bennett , Rainer Weinberger , Greg L Bryan , Michaela Hirschmann , Marion Farcy , Julie Hlavacek-Larrondo
show 1 more author
Lars Hernquist
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords AGNjetsFR0galaxiesjet-ISMinteractionturbulentinterstellarmediumrampressurestallingfeedbackhydrodynamicalsimulationsmultiphaseISM
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 asks whether the low- and moderate-power jets emitted by supermassive black holes—the kind associated with compact FR0 radio sources—can actually get out of a galaxy, given that the gas around them is not smooth but a churning tangle of dense filaments and empty cavities. Using hydrodynamical simulations of a driven, cooling turbulent box, the authors find that jets below roughly $10^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$ are stalled within the central kiloparsec: their ram pressure is too low to push through the dense walls, so the jet material simply fills the low-density cavities, bends, and mostly stays put for at least 5 Myr. Only jets at or above a minimum luminosity of about $2\times10^{41}$ erg s$^{-1}$ break out of the central region. If this is true for real galactic centers, then weak jets deposit their energy locally rather than at large radii, which changes how AGN feedback should be included in cosmological simulations.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the ram-pressure balance between a collimated jet and a log-normal turbulent medium. For a jet of power $L_{\mathrm{jet}}$, density $\rho_{\mathrm{jet}}$, and cross-section $A$, the momentum flux is $p_{\mathrm{jet}}=(\rho_{\mathrm{jet}}^{1/2}L_{\mathrm{jet}}/A)^{2/3}$. In an isothermal, driven-turbulent ISM, dense filaments exert an opposing typical momentum flux $p_{\mathrm{ISM}}\approx(1+bM)M^2\bar\rho c_s^2$, where $M$ is the Mach number, $b\approx0.5$ is a driving-mix parameter, and $\bar\rho$ is the mean density. Setting $p_{\mathrm{jet}}=p_{\mathrm{ISM}}$ yields the minimum jet luminosity needed to break out, $L_{\mathrm{jet,min}}=\bar\rho^{3/2}c_s^3(1+bM)^{3/2}M^3 A\rho_{\mathrm{jet}}^{-1/2}$. In the simulations this balance plays out as a 'walls and cavities' map: the jet advances where cavities offer low resistance and is stopped or deflected where filaments present a ram-pressure wall, while lateral expansion lets jet material fill cavities even when the head cannot advance.

What would settle it

Run the same jet-launching setup in a box that allows cooling below $10^4$ K, includes a simple galactic gravitational potential, or seeds clumpy instead of filamentary density structure: if a $10^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$ jet then reaches beyond the central kiloparsec, the stalling claim is falsified. Observationally, finding a population of FR0-class galaxies with measured central densities near $20$ cm$^{-3}$ whose jets at $10^{38}$–$10^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$ are clearly resolved beyond 1 kpc would also contradict the paper's central conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that for low- and moderate-power jets the turbulent interstellar medium, not the jet, controls how far the jet goes. In a $(2\,\mathrm{kpc})^3$ periodic box with continuously driven turbulence, radiative cooling, mean density $20\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$, and Mach number $M=4$, a $10^{38}$ erg s$^{-1}$ jet is completely stopped and a $10^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$ jet is bent and redirected, filling a pre-existing cavity while most of its mass remains within the central kiloparsec; a $10^{43}$ erg s$^{-1}$ jet escapes regardless of the medium. The authors reproduce this with a ram-pressure condition: when the jet's momentum flux falls below the typical momentum flux of the filaments, $p_{\mathrm{ISM}}\approx(1+bM)M^2\bar\rho c_s^2$, the jet cannot push through. Equating the two fluxes gives a minimum breakout luminosity for the fiducial medium of $L_{\mathrm{jet,min}}\approx2\times10^{41}$ erg s$^{-1}$. Stalled jets are not inert: they heat gas and drive hot-phase outflows (up to $\sim750$ km s$^{-1}$ for intermediate power) and, in some conditions, warm outflows up to a few hundred km s$^{-1}$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulated box—continuously driven turbulence, a $10^4$ K temperature floor, no gravity, no cold molecular gas, and no magnetic fields—produces the same filament-wall structure that a real low-power jet would meet in a galactic center; if a real ISM is clumpier, colder, or stratified by gravity, low-power jets may propagate more easily than this paper finds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Jets at FR0-like powers ($10^{38}$–$10^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$) will be confined to the central kiloparsec of a galaxy like the one simulated, so their radio emission is expected to be unresolved at kpc scales regardless of source age.
  • Intermediate-power jets do not have enough ram pressure to restructure the turbulent ISM; instead they fill pre-existing low-density cavities, which naturally produces bent, bubble-like, and asymmetric jet morphologies.
  • A sharp breakout threshold exists near $L_{\mathrm{jet,min}}\simeq2\times10^{41}$ erg s$^{-1}$ for the fiducial medium: jets below it stall, and jets at or above it escape the central kiloparsec.
  • Stalled jets still deposit energy and drive outflows: hot-phase outflows up to about $750$ km s$^{-1}$ for a $10^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$ jet, and warm-phase outflows up to a few hundred km s$^{-1}$ under the right conditions, so observed outflows do not require that the jet itself escapes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My inference: the ram-pressure threshold is sharp enough that observed compact-jet samples should show a dichotomy—most low-power sources either confined within ~1 kpc or clearly extended beyond it—rather than a smooth distribution of sizes.
  • My inference: the same wall-versus-cavity logic should apply to other momentum-driven outflows in turbulent galaxies, not only jets, so weak nuclear winds may also be channeled, bent, and delayed by the same filamentary structures.
  • My inference: if the $10^4$ K floor is replaced by a colder, clumpier ISM, the minimum breakout luminosity could shift upward or downward depending on how the ram-pressure walls change, so the model's most direct next test is to vary the cooling floor and the driving geometry while keeping everything else fixed.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper uses Arepo simulations to study how low- and intermediate-power jets (10^38–10^43 erg/s) propagate through a turbulent, cooling ISM on ~kpc scales. A (2 kpc)^3 periodic box with driven solenoidal turbulence, a 10^4 K temperature floor, and mean density 20 cm^-3 is evolved to a steady state, then jets are injected along the x-axis. The simulations are grouped into three regimes: powerful jets break out of the central kiloparsec, 10^40 erg/s jets are strongly redirected and mostly fill pre-existing cavities with only some material escaping, and 10^38 erg/s jets are fully stalled. A simple ram-pressure model yields a breakout luminosity Ljet,min ~ 2×10^41 erg/s for the fiducial M = 4 box. Radial-velocity histograms at 400–500 pc show hot-phase outflows for the higher powers and warm-phase outflows in some cases. The authors connect these results to FR0 galaxies and to subgrid AGN feedback prescriptions, and they explicitly list limitations: no cold molecular phase, no gravity, no magnetic fields, and no cosmic rays.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a physically motivated explanation for the compactness of FR0 jets and for why low-power jets may deposit their energy within the central kiloparsec of their host galaxy. The numerical work is carefully documented: resolution convergence is tested in Appendix A, metallicity sensitivity in Appendix B, stochasticity across five realizations in Appendix D, and uniform-medium controls are used throughout. The three propagation regimes are clearly demonstrated with projection maps and quantitative mass-fraction diagnostics. The main limitation is that the simulated ISM is a warm, filamentary, continuously driven medium without a cold molecular phase or gravitational stratification; as the authors themselves note in Sec. 4.3, allowing gas to cool below 10^4 K would make the medium more clumpy and likely easier for jets to penetrate. The significance for real galaxies is therefore conditional pending additional tests or a substantial reframing of the conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.3 and Sec. 5 (Conclusions)] The load-bearing claim that low-power jets (<=10^40 erg/s) are stalled within the central kiloparsec by a turbulent medium is not robust to the paper's own stated limitations. The stalling mechanism identified in Sec. 3.2 is ram-pressure balance against connected dense filament walls, and those walls arise from the 10^4 K temperature floor and continuous solenoidal driving described in Sec. 2.1. In Sec. 4.3 the authors write that if gas can cool below 10^4 K the medium will become less filamentary and more clumpy, and that jets are expected to propagate more easily. Because the real multiphase ISM that motivates the FR0 comparison contains cold molecular gas, the unqualified conclusion in Sec. 5 overstates what has been demonstrated. I request either (i) an additional simulation with a colder temperature floor or a clumpy/cloudy initial condition, or (ii) an explicit restriction of the stalling claim to warm, filamentary, continuously driven ISM, with the FR0-related implications reworded accordingly.
  2. [Sec. 3.3, Eqs. (4)-(6)] The breakout luminosity Ljet,min is not actually evaluable from the information given. The expression depends on the jet cross-sectional area A through pjet = (rho_jet^1/2 Ljet/A)^(2/3), but A is never defined numerically and is not listed in Table 2; the text simply states that evaluating for the typical ISM parameters gives Ljet,min = 2×10^41 erg/s. Since the claimed rough agreement with the simulations is used to support interpreting the 10^40 erg/s run as sub-breakout, the value of A must be specified (or shown to cancel out of the comparison), and the sensitivity of the inferred threshold to A and b should be quantified.
  3. [Sec. 2.1 and Sec. 4.3] The absence of gravity means the simulated density field has no vertical stratification and no confining potential, so the 'central kiloparsec' is not a galaxy center in a dynamical sense. The authors acknowledge this and note that existing galactic-potential simulations struggle to reach equilibrium, but the effect of stratification on wall lifetimes, cavity geometry, and the eventual fate of stalled jets is not tested. At minimum, the discussion should avoid implying that the conclusions apply directly to real galactic centers without further work; a simple test with an external potential or a stratified initial density would materially strengthen the claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 2.1] The abstract says jets are launched within a '~kpc-scale periodic box'; the box is actually (2 kpc)^3 and the analysis focuses on the central (1 kpc)^3. This is clear in Sec. 2.1 but the abstract would be more precise with '(2 kpc)^3 periodic box'.
  2. [Sec. 5 (Conclusions)] There is a typo: 'Warm ouflows can be detected' should read 'Warm outflows can be detected'.
  3. [Fig. 5] The y-axis label 'M_sun / km s^-1 of cells with r_cell in [400; 500] pc' is ambiguous; please clarify that this is mass per radial-velocity bin, and ensure the same convention is used in Figs. 5 and 8.
  4. [Table 2] The table lists jet density and the smoothing length but not the inner jet injection radius (30 pc) or the jet cross-sectional area A; these are given only in the text. Adding them to Table 2 would improve reproducibility.
  5. [Sec. 4.2] The comparison with previous clumpy-ISM simulations would be more quantitative if the filament-wall topology were characterized (e.g., volume filling factor, typical wall spacing, or density contrast), rather than only described qualitatively.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the stalling result is a direct simulation outcome, and the Eq. 6 breakout criterion is an uncalibrated consistency check using literature values.

full rationale

The paper's headline claim that low-power jets (Ljet <= 1e40 erg/s) are stalled within the central kiloparsec by a turbulent ISM is a direct simulation result from the Arepo runs with a fixed turbulent box and jet-launching prescription; it is not derived from a fitted model. The analytical model in Sec. 3.3 (Eqs. 4-6) is an independent consistency check: Ljet,min = 2e41 erg/s follows from literature values for log-normal density contrast (b = 0.5, Federrath et al. 2008), the simulated mean density (20 cm^-3), driving sound speed (20 km/s), Mach number, and fixed jet density; no parameter was fit to the simulation outcomes. The comparison with the runs is described honestly by the authors as 'rough agreement', and the caveat 'more careful calibration is required' confirms it is not presented as a forced derivation. The ram-pressure diagnostic (Eq. 3) and the analytical model share a physical concept, but sharing a mechanism is not circular: the diagnostic measures where jets stop, while the model predicts using external inputs. Self-citations (Weinberger et al. 2017a, 2023 for the jet injection prescription) are method citations, not load-bearing evidence for the ISM-stalling claim. The limitations in Sec. 4.3 (10^4 K floor, no cold phase, no gravity, no magnetic fields) are validity concerns for real galaxies, not circularity: they do not make the simulation output equivalent to its inputs. Consequently, no circular step is present.

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

The central claim rests on the simulation setup (Arepo, driven turbulence, jet injection) and the analytic breakout model. No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are simulation choices (alpha, rho_jet, threshold) and the assumed mixing parameter b; none are fit to the simulation outcomes, which keeps the analytic model partially independent. The domain assumptions (representative ISM, jet injection realism) are the main burden.

free parameters (5)
  • Turbulence driving amplitude alpha = 0.3 (M=2), 1.0 (M=4), 10.0 (M=8)
    Chosen by hand to set the Mach number in Eq. 1; the Mach number is the physical input, alpha is a derived setting.
  • Jet mass density rho_jet = 1e-26 g cm^-3
    Input parameter of the jet injection region (Table 2); enters Eq. 6, so the breakout luminosity scales as rho_jet^-1/2.
  • Turbulence driving mix parameter b = 0.5
    Assumed in Eq. 5 following Federrath et al. (2008); directly sets the predicted Ljet,min.
  • Hot/warm phase temperature threshold = log T = 4.4
    Defines hot vs warm gas in the outflow analysis (Sec 3.4); different thresholds would change reported outflow properties.
  • Jet cross-sectional area A = implicit (injection radius r = 30 pc)
    Appears in Eqs. 4 and 6; the injection radius is stated in Sec 2.2 but A is not tabulated.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption A driven periodic box with solenoidal turbulence and radiative cooling produces an ISM structure representative of real galactic centers (filaments and cavities at 10^4 K).
    Invoked throughout Sec 2.1 and 3; the entire stalling analysis depends on this structure. The authors note in Sec 4.3 that a cold phase would change the structure.
  • domain assumption The kinetic jet injection of Weinberger et al. (2017a, 2023), with a thermal floor and zero opening angle, produces a realistic low-power AGN jet.
    Sec 2.2; the jet density, injection radius, and power are imposed by this prescription.
  • standard math The ISM density PDF is log-normal and the typical high density is (1 + bM) * rho_bar with b = 0.5.
    Used in Eq. 5 to estimate p_ISM and derive Ljet,min in Eq. 6; b = 0.5 is taken from Federrath et al. (2008).
  • domain assumption Primordial-abundance radiative cooling with a 10^4 K floor captures the thermodynamics; metal cooling does not change conclusions.
    Sec 2.1 and Appendix B; tested for Z = Z_sun with minimal differences, but the 10^4 K floor excludes the cold phase.
  • standard math Euler equations with gamma = 5/3 solved by the Arepo moving-mesh scheme are adequate for jet-ISM interaction.
    Sec 2; no magnetic fields, relativity, or cosmic rays are included.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of You Shall Not Pass! The propagation of low/moderate powered jets through a turbulent interstellar medium." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QEAGRW5E

@misc{pith2026250114062,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: You Shall Not Pass! The propagation of low/moderate powered jets through a turbulent interstellar medium},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QEAGRW5E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14062}
}
abstract

Feedback from black hole-powered jets has been invoked in many cosmological simulations to regulate star formation and quench galaxies. Despite this, observational evidence of how jets might be able to affect their hosts remains scarce, especially for low power jets in halos smaller than clusters. Recent observations of outflows around FR0 galaxies, that host compact radio-loud sources, imply that lower-power jetted active galactic nuclei (AGN) may have a significant impact on their hosts through jet interactions with the interstellar medium (ISM). Using the Arepo code, we launch jets of low and intermediate power (10$^{38}$ - 10$^{43}$ erg s$^{-1}$) within a ~kpc-scale periodic box with driven turbulence to study how the jets propagate through a turbulent ISM. Our simulation results broadly fit into three different scenarios $\unicode{x2013}$ jets penetrating easily through the ISM, becoming completely stalled, or the interesting intermediate stage, when jets are highly disturbed and redirected. We suggest that intermediate power jets do not have enough ram pressure to affect the turbulent structure of the ISM, and so only fill pre-existing cavities. Low-power jets are able to drive outflows in a hot phase ($>10^{4.4}$ K). However, warm (~$10^4$ K) ionized gas outflows appear under certain conditions. This work is part of the ''Learning the Universe'' collaboration, aiming to build next-generation cosmological simulations that incorporate a new prescription for AGN feedback.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14062 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The top panel shows the temperature distribution of the cells weighted by their masses. In the beginning the gas in the box has the same temperature (yellow bins) and then develops into a multiphase medium (indigo bins). The black dashed line shows the temperature threshold we use to distinguish between gas phases. The bottom panel shows the number density distribution weighted by mass for the same snapshots as the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Jet propagation projections for jet powers of 1043 (top), 1040 (middle), and 1038 erg s−1 (bottom) in the turbulent box with Mach number M = 4. The left-hand panels show black-white density projections with overlay of jet tracer scalar. Right-hand panels show density maps colored by temperature value. Projection maps have the depth of 100 pc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of the jet material propagation as a function of time for three different jet powers — 1043 erg s−1 in the left panel, 1040 erg s−1 in the middle panel, and 1038 erg s−1 in the right panel, all in a turbulent box with Mach number M = 4. The shading represents the fraction of the jet material mass contained within the respective distance. The upper boundary of the shading indicates the furthest distance the… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The white lines represent the furthest position of jet cells along the x-axis to the left (x < 0) and to the right (x > 0) as a function of time for the simulation with M = 4 and jet power 1040 erg s−1 . The color map shows the ram pressure values along the x-axis at e…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mass-weighted radial velocity distribution of the gas phases for different jet powers — 1043 (left), 1040 (middle), and 1038 erg s−1 (right) averaged over 1 Myr. Blue and red unfilled histograms represent the radial velocity distributions for the warm and hot phases, r…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The left panel shows the evolution of jet material mass fraction as a function of time in boxes with three different Mach numbers M = 2, 4, 8. As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The white line represents the furthest position of jet cells along the x-axis as a function of time. The color map shows the mass-weighted average ram pressure values in a cylinder along the x-axis as a function of time. The left panel shows the results for M = 2, the …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mass-weighted radial velocity distribution of the gas phases for boxes with different Mach numbers M = 2, 4, 8. Blue and red unfilled histograms represent the radial velocity distributions for the warm and hot phases, respectively, with the jet launched. Blue and red f…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Projection map of jet propagation for jet power 1040 erg s−1 and M = 4 for runs with N = 2563 and N = 5123 in the top and bottom panels, respectively. Left panel shows black-white density colormap with overlay of jet tracer scalar. Right panel shows density map where c…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Evolution of the jet material distances r50, r80, and r100 as a function of time for jet power 1040 erg s−1 in a turbulent box with Mach number M = 4. The solid, dashed, and dot-dashed lines correspond to r100, r80, and r50, respectively. Blue and purple colors corres…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Jet propagation projection map for jet power 1038 erg s−1 in uniform medium with number density n = 0.1 cm−3 . Left panel shows black-white density colormap with overlay of jet tracer scalar. Right panel shows density map where colored by temperature value. 0 1 2 3 4 …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Evolution of the jet material distances r50, r80, and r100 as a function of time for jet power 1040 erg s−1 in a turbulent box with Mach number M = 4. The solid blue line and filled region correspond to mean r100 and its standard deviation, respectively. The dashed gr…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Projection maps of turbulent boxes with Mach numbers M = 2, 4, 8 in the left, middle, and right panels, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Projection map of jet propagation for jet power 1040 erg s−1 and M = 2, 4, 8 in the top, middle, and bottom panels, respectively. Left panel shows black-white density colormap with overlay of jet tracer scalar. Right panel shows density map where colored by temperatur…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Jet--ISM Interactions in Gaseous Disks: Simulating Kinetic Feedback in the Radio Galaxy 3C 326 N

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Jet–ISM coupling in multi-scale cloudy disks produces asymmetric lobes and kinematics that match the JWST-observed bubble in 3C 326 N for a 10^45 erg s^{-1} jet.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Baldi, R. D. 2023, A&A Rv, 31, 3, doi: 10.1007/s00159-023-00148-3

    doi:10.1007/s00159-023-00148-3 2023

  2. [2]

    D., Capetti, A., & Giovannini, G

    Baldi, R. D., Capetti, A., & Giovannini, G. 2015, A&A, 576, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425426 —. 2016, Astronomische Nachrichten, 337, 114, doi: 10.1002/asna.201512275

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425426 2015

  3. [3]

    D., Capetti, A., & Massaro, F

    Baldi, R. D., Capetti, A., & Massaro, F. 2018, A&A, 609, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731333

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731333 2018

  4. [5]

    C., Blandford, R

    Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J. 1984, Reviews of Modern Physics, 56, 255, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.56.255

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.56.255 1984

  5. [6]

    1995, MNRAS, 276, 663, doi: 10.1093/mnras/276.2.663

    Binney, J., & Tabor, G. 1995, MNRAS, 276, 663, doi: 10.1093/mnras/276.2.663

    doi:10.1093/mnras/276.2.663 1995

  6. [7]

    2019, ARA&A, 57, 467, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948

    Blandford, R., Meier, D., & Readhead, A. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 467, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948 2019

  7. [8]

    D., & Payne, D

    Blandford, R. D., & Payne, D. G. 1982, MNRAS, 199, 883, doi: 10.1093/mnras/199.4.883

    doi:10.1093/mnras/199.4.883 1982

  8. [9]

    A., & Sijacki, D

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2269 2017

Show all 68 references
  1. [10]

    A., & Yang, H.-Y

    Bourne, M. A., & Yang, H.-Y. K. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 73, doi: 10.3390/galaxies11030073

    2023 doi

  2. [11]

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

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

    2016 doi

  3. [12]

    2005, MNRAS, 363, L91, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00093.x

    Churazov, E., Sazonov, S., Sunyaev, R., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 363, L91, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00093.x

    2005

  4. [13]

    Cielo, S., Antonuccio-Delogu, V., Silk, J., & Romeo, A. D. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 4526, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx403

    2017 doi

  5. [14]

    Y., & Dubois, Y

    Cielo, S., Bieri, R., Volonteri, M., Wagner, A. Y., & Dubois, Y. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1336, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty708

    2018 doi

  6. [15]

    J., Springel, V., White, S

    Croton, D. J., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 11, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09675.x Dav´ e, R., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Narayanan, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2827, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz937

    2006

  7. [16]

    P., Forman, W., & Jones, C

    David, L. P., Forman, W., & Jones, C. 1991, ApJ, 369, 121, doi: 10.1086/169743

    1991 doi

  8. [17]

    W., & Tchekhovskoy, A

    Davis, S. W., & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 407, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051905 Di Matteo, T., Springel, V., & Hernquist, L. 2005, Nature, 433, 604, doi: 10.1038/nature03335

    2020 doi

  9. [18]

    K., Ciurlo, A., Morris, M

    Dinh, C. K., Ciurlo, A., Morris, M. R., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad10a5

    2024 doi

  10. [19]

    2008, A&A, 477, 79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078326 14

    Dubois, Y., & Teyssier, R. 2008, A&A, 477, 79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078326 14

    2008 doi

  11. [20]

    C., & Stone, J

    Dutta, R., Sharma, P., Sarkar, K. C., & Stone, J. M. 2024, ApJ, 973, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad67d7

    2024 doi

  12. [21]

    2022, ApJ, 938, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8ff8

    Fabbiano, G., Paggi, A., Morganti, R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8ff8

    2022 doi

  13. [22]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521

    2012 doi

  14. [23]

    L., & Riley, J

    Fanaroff, B. L., & Riley, J. M. 1974, MNRAS, 167, 31P, doi: 10.1093/mnras/167.1.31P

    1974 doi

  15. [24]

    S., & Schmidt, W

    Federrath, C., Klessen, R. S., & Schmidt, W. 2008, ApJL, 688, L79, doi: 10.1086/595280

    2008 doi

  16. [25]

    Feng, Y., Croft, R. A. C., Di Matteo, T., et al. 2011, Gaepsi: Gadget Visualization Toolkit, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1108.005

    2011

  17. [26]

    2012, MNRAS, 425, 438, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21479.x

    Gaibler, V., Khochfar, S., Krause, M., & Silk, J. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 438, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21479.x

    2012

  18. [27]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 3976, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3078

    Genel, S., Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 3976, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3078

    2018 doi

  19. [28]

    2023, A&A, 672, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245395

    Lico, R. 2023, A&A, 672, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245395

    2023 doi

  20. [29]

    M., Costa, T., Tadhunter, C

    Harrison, C. M., Costa, T., Tadhunter, C. N., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 198, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0403-6

    2018 doi

  21. [30]

    M., & Best, P

    Heckman, T. M., & Best, P. N. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 589, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722

    2014 doi

  22. [31]

    D., Longmore, S

    Henshaw, J. D., Longmore, S. N., Kruijssen, J. M. D., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 2675, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw121

    2016 doi

  23. [32]

    2022, ApJ, 925, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac449a Hitomi Collaboration, Aharonian, F., Akamatsu, H., et al

    Heywood, I., Rammala, I., Camilo, F., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac449a Hitomi Collaboration, Aharonian, F., Akamatsu, H., et al. 2016, Nature, 535, 117, doi: 10.1038/nature18627

    2022 doi

  24. [33]

    2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, 5, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 122-1

    Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., Li, Y., & Churazov, E. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, 5, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 122-1

    2022 doi

  25. [34]

    2018, A&A, 618, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832790

    Kakkad, D., Groves, B., Dopita, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 618, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832790

    2018 doi

  26. [35]

    H., & Hernquist, L

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

    1996 doi

  27. [36]

    I., Sramek, R., Schmidt, M., Shaffer, D

    Kellermann, K. I., Sramek, R., Schmidt, M., Shaffer, D. B., & Green, R. 1989, AJ, 98, 1195, doi: 10.1086/115207

    1989 doi

  28. [37]

    2021, ApJ, 919, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0c82

    Kharb, P., Subramanian, S., Das, M., Vaddi, S., & Paragi, Z. 2021, ApJ, 919, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0c82

    2021 doi

  29. [38]

    2019, ApJ, 871, 249, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafad7

    Kharb, P., Vaddi, S., Sebastian, B., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 249, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafad7

    2019 doi

  30. [39]

    2015, ARA&A, 53, 115, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122316

    King, A., & Pounds, K. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 115, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122316

    2015 doi

  31. [40]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 4194, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2240

    Koutsouridou, I., & Cattaneo, A. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 4194, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2240

    2022 doi

  32. [41]

    2023, ApJL, 944, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca973

    Liu, D., Schinnerer, E., Cao, Y., et al. 2023, ApJL, 944, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca973

    2023 doi

  33. [42]

    2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 695, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0558-1

    Man, A., & Belli, S. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 695, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0558-1

    2018 doi

  34. [43]

    R., & Nulsen, P

    McNamara, B. R., & Nulsen, P. E. J. 2012, New Journal of Physics, 14, 055023, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/14/5/055023

    2012 doi

  35. [44]

    Y., et al

    Meenakshi, M., Mukherjee, D., Wagner, A. Y., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 766, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2251

    2022 doi

  36. [45]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 3916, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1976

    Mocz, P., & Burkhart, B. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 3916, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1976

    2018 doi

  37. [46]

    V., Sutherland, R., & Wagner, A

    Mukherjee, D., Bicknell, G. V., Sutherland, R., & Wagner, A. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 967, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1368

    2016 doi

  38. [47]

    Y., Bicknell, G

    Mukherjee, D., Wagner, A. Y., Bicknell, G. V., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 80, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty067

    2018 doi

  39. [48]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040 —

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 624, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3040 —. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2306

    2018 doi

  40. [49]

    Padoan, P., Nordlund, A., & Jones, B. J. T. 1997, MNRAS, 288, 145, doi: 10.1093/mnras/288.1.145

    1997 doi

  41. [50]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Hernquist, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3112

    2018 doi

  42. [51]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Springel, V., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2338

    2019 doi

  43. [52]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.21366, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.21366

    Prunier, M., Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., Pillepich, A., Lehle, K., & Nelson, D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.21366, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.21366

    2024 doi arXiv

  44. [53]

    V., Kharb, P., Rubinur, K., et al

    Rao, V. V., Kharb, P., Rubinur, K., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1615, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1901

    2023 doi

  45. [54]

    2021, ApJ, 922, 230, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac24a0

    Roy, N., Moravec, E., Bundy, K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 230, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac24a0

    2021 doi

  46. [55]

    J., & Jamrozy, M

    Saikia, D. J., & Jamrozy, M. 2009, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 37, 63, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1002.1841

    2009 doi arXiv

  47. [56]

    A., Bower, R

    Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 521, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2058

    2015 doi

  48. [57]

    2007, MNRAS, 380, 877, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12153.x

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

    2007

  49. [58]

    Silk, J., & Rees, M. J. 1998, A&A, 331, L1, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9801013

    1998 doi arXiv

  50. [59]

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

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

    2010

  51. [60]

    2003, MNRAS, 339, 289, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06206.x

    Springel, V., & Hernquist, L. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 289, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06206.x

    2003

  52. [61]

    F., Hayward, C

    Su, K.-Y., Hopkins, P. F., Hayward, C. C., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 4393, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1494

    2019 doi

  53. [62]

    F., Bryan, G

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

    2021 doi

  54. [63]

    S., & Bicknell, G

    Sutherland, R. S., & Bicknell, G. V. 2007, ApJS, 173, 37, doi: 10.1086/520640

    2007 doi

  55. [64]

    Y., Sijacki, D., & Bourne, M

    Talbot, R. Y., Sijacki, D., & Bourne, M. A. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 4535, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1566 15

    2022 doi

  56. [65]

    Y., Bicknell, G

    Wagner, A. Y., Bicknell, G. V., & Umemura, M. 2012, ApJ, 757, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/136

    2012 doi

  57. [66]

    2017a, MNRAS, 470, 4530, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1409

    Springel, V. 2017a, MNRAS, 470, 4530, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1409

    doi

  58. [67]

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

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

    doi

  59. [68]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 4056, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1733

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V., Pakmor, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 4056, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1733

    2018 doi

  60. [69]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 1104, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1396 16 APPENDIX A

    Weinberger, R., Su, K.-Y., Ehlert, K., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 1104, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1396 16 APPENDIX A. TEST WITH HIGHER RESOLUTION Due to computational complexity, we limit the reso- lution of the simulations used throughout this paper to have a number of cells N = 2...

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.