arxiv: 2604.16294 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-17 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

The hydrodynamical response of cold circumgalactic clouds to quasar radiation

Nicolas Ledos , Sebastiano Cantalupo , Titouan Lazeyras , Gabriele Pezzulli , Kentaro Nagamine , Shinsuke Takasao , Marta Galbiati , Andrea Travascio

show 3 more authors

Giada Quadri Weichen Wang Antonio Pensabene

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 07:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA

keywords circumgalactic mediumquasar radiationhydrodynamicsionization frontsLy alpha emissioncold gas cloudsrocket effect

0 comments

The pith

An analytical framework identifies three evolutionary paths for cold circumgalactic clouds under quasar radiation, with ionization state depending on quasar brightness.

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

The paper develops an analytical model for the hydrodynamical evolution of cold 10^4 K gas clouds exposed to quasar EUV radiation. It introduces a radiation-shielding threshold that divides clouds into an optically thin regime of uniform ionization, a shielded regime with little change, or a rocket-effect regime where the ionization front compresses the far side and accelerates the surviving clump. A reader would care because the model shows that bright quasars fully ionize surrounding cold gas while faint ones leave most of it in the compressed rocket-effect state, altering expected Ly alpha luminosities by up to an order of magnitude. The framework is checked against radiation-hydrodynamic simulations of single clouds and then applied to rays through cloud populations and streams.

Core claim

We introduce a new threshold defining when a cloud becomes radiation-shielded and use it to predict three evolutionary paths: an optically thin regime in which radiation uniformly ionises the cloud, a radiation-shielded regime where the cloud remains largely unaffected, and a rocket-effect regime in which the ionisation front ionises the illuminated side while compressing the opposite side and later accelerating the surviving cold clump. In the rocket-effect regime the cloud's Ly alpha luminosity can reach up to ten times the optically thin value and as much as 70 percent of the fluorescent value without hydrodynamical response. Unless shielded, at least 50-60 percent of the Ly alpha arises,

What carries the argument

The radiation-shielding threshold that partitions cold clouds into optically thin, shielded, or rocket-effect evolutionary regimes under quasar EUV radiation.

If this is right

Bright quasars with L_nu,LL around 10^31.6 erg s^-1 Hz^-1 fully ionize the cold CGM.
Faint quasars with L_nu,LL around 10^28.6 erg s^-1 Hz^-1 leave most cold gas in the rocket-effect regime with compressed, accelerated clumps.
Rocket-effect clouds produce Ly alpha luminosities up to an order of magnitude higher than the optically thin case.
At least 50-60 percent of Ly alpha emission comes from recombination unless the cloud is shielded.
Physical properties of cold CGM must be derived with hydrodynamical response included, especially around faint quasars.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The predicted acceleration in the rocket-effect regime could produce observable high-velocity cold gas components in quasar fields.
Extending the model to include turbulence or magnetic fields would test whether the three regimes remain distinct in more realistic CGM conditions.
Ly alpha observations around faint quasars might reveal spatial offsets or velocity gradients matching the compressed far-side clumps.
The ionization predictions could revise estimates of cold-gas accretion rates onto galaxies in quasar environments.

Load-bearing premise

Cold clouds are assumed to start as static, uniform spheres with no magnetic fields, external turbulence, or full 3D geometric effects on ionization-front propagation.

What would settle it

A radiation-hydrodynamic simulation or observation of a cold cloud around a faint quasar showing no far-side compression and acceleration after ionization-front passage would falsify the rocket-effect regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.16294 by Andrea Travascio, Antonio Pensabene, Gabriele Pezzulli, Giada Quadri, Kentaro Nagamine, Marta Galbiati, Nicolas Ledos, Sebastiano Cantalupo, Shinsuke Takasao, Titouan Lazeyras, Weichen Wang.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Illustration of the different evolutionary paths of the cloud illuminated by a quasar. Starting from an initial neutral cloud which is suddenly illuminated by extreme UV (EUV) radiation at an infinitesimal time δt. The Strömgren number St ∝ rc,0n 2 H,0 F −1 q (equation 2) defines the cloud’s evolution as described in Sec. 2. The cloud follows three characteristic regimes: an optically thin regime, a rocket… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: St (dotted-black) and Υ (dashed-grey) parameter contour lines for typical values of nH,0 and Fq in the CGM and a cloud radius of 50 pc. The left y-axis shows the corresponding quasar Lyman-Limit specific luminosities Lν,LL assuming a cloud at a distance of 10 pkpc from the quasar. Red dots represent the simulation’s initial parameters. 2014; Borisova et al. 2016; Arrigoni Battaia et al. 2018; Fossati et a… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Temperature colour maps slices. Cloud evolution at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Same as Fig. 3, but for di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Cold gas mean temperature (top) and number density evolution (bottom). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Cold gas hydrogen number density PDFs weighted by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Resulting cold gas clumping factor due to the e [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Emission properties of the clouds as a function of St (x [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Properties of a cloud ensemble as a function of the hy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Recent simulations increasingly resolve the small-scale structure of the circumgalactic medium (CGM), but the dynamical impact of ionising radiation on its cold $10^4$ K component remains poorly understood. We investigate the evolution of cold gas structures exposed to quasars' EUV radiation. We develop an analytical framework to describe the evolution of such clouds, introducing a new threshold that defines when a cloud becomes radiation-shielded. The framework is validated using radiation-hydrodynamic simulations of single static clouds. It predicts three evolutionary paths: (i) an optically thin regime, in which radiation uniformly ionises the cloud; (ii) a radiation-shielded regime, where the cloud remains largely unaffected; and (iii) a rocket-effect regime, in which the propagation of the ionisation front ionises the illuminated side while compressing the opposite side, later accelerating the surviving cold clump. In the latter regime, the cloud's Ly$\alpha$ luminosity can be up to one order of magnitude higher than the optically thin case. Such luminosities are as high as $70\%$ of the values obtained from a fluorescent regime without considering hydrodynamical response. Unless the cloud is shielded, at least $\sim 50$-$60\,\%$ of Ly$\alpha$ emission arises from recombination. Applying this framework to both a ray crossing a population of clouds, and a ray propagating inside a cold stream, we find that the cold CGM around bright quasars ($L_{\mathrm{\nu,LL}} \sim 10^{31.6} \, \mathrm{erg\, s^{-1}\, Hz^{-1}}$) is likely fully ionised, whereas the one around faint quasars ($L_{\mathrm{\nu,LL}} \sim 10^{28.6} \, \mathrm{erg\, s^{-1}\, Hz^{-1}}$) predominantly experiences a rocket-effect regime. These results imply that the hydrodynamical response of cold CGM structures to quasar radiation must be considered when deriving their physical properties, particularly for faint quasars.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper gives a clean analytical split of cold CGM clouds into three radiation-response regimes, with a new shielding threshold and a rocket-effect Lyα boost that their static-cloud simulations support.

read the letter

The paper's main advance is a straightforward analytical framework that predicts three paths for cold clouds hit by quasar EUV: full ionization when optically thin, survival when shielded, and a rocket-effect regime where the ionization front compresses and accelerates the cloud while raising its Lyα output by up to a factor of ten. They back the threshold and regimes with radiation-hydrodynamic runs on single static clouds and then apply the same logic to a population or a stream, concluding that bright quasars ionize the cold gas while faint ones mostly drive the rocket phase. That distinction is new and directly useful for Lyα modeling around quasars. The derivation stays within standard radiation-hydro equations, the simulation check is independent, and the Lyα recombination fraction they quote is a clear, falsifiable number. The work is aimed at CGM modelers and observers who need a quick way to estimate hydro effects without full 3D runs every time. The math and citations are standard and the validation step is reproducible in principle. The soft spot is the starting assumption of static, uniform clouds with no turbulence or magnetic fields. Real CGM gas has subsonic motions and B-fields that could change how the front propagates or whether the compressed clump survives, so the bright-versus-faint classification is an extrapolation from the idealized case. The extension to streams and populations is also analytical rather than simulated, which keeps the central claims from being circular but leaves the robustness untested. I would send this to peer review. The framework is grounded enough and the limitations are stated plainly enough that referees can usefully tighten the assumptions or ask for turbulence tests.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops an analytical framework for the hydrodynamical evolution of cold (10^4 K) circumgalactic clouds exposed to quasar EUV radiation, introducing a radiation-shielding threshold. The framework is validated against radiation-hydrodynamic simulations of single static, uniform clouds and predicts three regimes: (i) optically thin, with uniform ionization; (ii) radiation-shielded, with minimal effect; and (iii) rocket-effect, with ionization-front compression and acceleration of surviving clumps. In the rocket-effect regime, Lyα luminosity can increase by up to an order of magnitude relative to the optically thin case, with at least 50-60% arising from recombination unless shielded. Application to a ray through a cloud population or cold stream indicates that cold CGM around bright quasars (L_ν,LL ~ 10^31.6 erg s^{-1} Hz^{-1}) is likely fully ionized, while around faint quasars (L_ν,LL ~ 10^28.6 erg s^{-1} Hz^{-1}) the rocket-effect regime dominates.

Significance. If the idealized assumptions hold, the work supplies a parameter-free analytical framework (validated by RHD simulations) that cleanly delineates evolutionary regimes and quantifies the hydrodynamical boost to Lyα emission. This is a useful advance for interpreting quasar-CGM observations, particularly the previously under-considered dynamical response in faint-quasar environments. The direct mapping from single-cloud analytics to population/stream predictions is a strength.

major comments (1)

[Application to populations and streams] Application to populations and streams (final paragraph of abstract and corresponding section): The central claim that bright quasars fully ionize cold CGM while faint quasars drive rocket-effect regimes rests on direct extrapolation of the radiation-shielding threshold and three regimes derived for initially static, uniform clouds. No robustness tests against subsonic turbulence or magnetic fields are reported; such effects could suppress ionization-front compression or alter cloud survival, shifting the luminosity thresholds that separate the regimes. This extrapolation is load-bearing for the observational conclusions.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract / framework introduction] The abstract and framework section would benefit from an explicit statement of the radiation-shielding threshold (e.g., in terms of column density or optical depth) to make the regime boundaries immediately quantifiable.
[Simulation validation] Simulation validation paragraph: provide the grid resolution, box size, and initial cloud density profile used in the RHD runs so readers can assess numerical convergence of the rocket-effect compression.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of the manuscript and for the constructive comment on the application to populations and streams. We address this point below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Application to populations and streams (final paragraph of abstract and corresponding section): The central claim that bright quasars fully ionize cold CGM while faint quasars drive rocket-effect regimes rests on direct extrapolation of the radiation-shielding threshold and three regimes derived for initially static, uniform clouds. No robustness tests against subsonic turbulence or magnetic fields are reported; such effects could suppress ionization-front compression or alter cloud survival, shifting the luminosity thresholds that separate the regimes. This extrapolation is load-bearing for the observational conclusions.

Authors: We agree that the mapping from single static uniform clouds to populations and streams constitutes an extrapolation of the derived thresholds. The analytical framework and the three regimes are explicitly developed and validated under the idealized conditions stated in the manuscript (initially static, uniform clouds). The application in the final paragraph of the abstract and the corresponding section is presented as an illustrative estimate of which regime dominates for given quasar luminosities, rather than a definitive prediction for realistic, turbulent, magnetized clouds. We have not performed robustness tests including subsonic turbulence or magnetic fields, as these would require a separate suite of simulations beyond the scope of the current work. In the revised manuscript we will add a new paragraph in the discussion section that explicitly lists these assumptions, notes that turbulence and magnetic fields could modify ionization-front compression and cloud survival, and states that the reported luminosity thresholds separating the regimes should therefore be regarded as indicative. We maintain that the core hydrodynamical response (rocket effect and associated Lyα boost) remains a relevant physical effect that must be considered even in more complex environments. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation from standard equations with independent validation

full rationale

The analytical framework is constructed from standard radiation-hydrodynamic equations for ionization-front propagation and cloud compression, then validated against separate RHD simulations of initially static uniform clouds. The three regimes (optically thin, shielded, rocket-effect) and the luminosity thresholds for bright vs. faint quasars are direct consequences of these equations and the shielding criterion, without any reduction to a fitted parameter renamed as prediction, self-citation load-bearing premise, or ansatz smuggled from prior author work. No load-bearing step equates output to input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 2 invented entities

The framework rests on standard radiation-hydrodynamics assumptions and introduces one new definitional threshold plus the rocket regime as a derived outcome; no free parameters are fitted to data in the central claims.

axioms (2)

standard math Ionization equilibrium and optically thin/thick approximations hold for the EUV radiation propagation through the cloud.
Invoked when deriving the shielding threshold and ionization-front propagation.
domain assumption Initial clouds are static, uniform, and isolated with no external pressure gradients or magnetic support.
Used to simplify the analytical evolution equations and single-cloud simulations.

invented entities (2)

Radiation-shielding threshold no independent evidence
purpose: Defines the transition between optically thin and shielded regimes based on cloud properties and incident flux.
Newly introduced quantity that organizes the three evolutionary paths.
Rocket-effect regime no independent evidence
purpose: Describes the hydrodynamical acceleration and compression of the surviving cold clump by the propagating ionization front.
Identified as a distinct outcome with enhanced Lyα output.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5729 in / 1618 out tokens · 68660 ms · 2026-05-10T07:29:47.049100+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

[1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....
[3]

K., Prochaska , J

Armillotta , L., Fraternali , F., Werk , J. K., Prochaska , J. X., & Marinacci , F. 2017, , 470, 114

2017
[4]

F., Prochaska, J

Arrigoni Battaia , F., Hennawi, J. F., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 482, 3162

2018
[5]

2024, , 532, 2965

Aung , H., Mandelker , N., Dekel , A., et al. 2024, , 532, 2965

2024
[6]

2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

Bacon , R., Accardo , M., Adjali , L., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed. I. S. McLean , S. K. Ramsay , & H. Takami , 773508

2010
[7]

1989, The Astrophysical Journal, 346, 735

Bertoldi, F. 1989, The Astrophysical Journal, 346, 735

1989
[8]

& McKee, C

Bertoldi, F. & McKee, C. F. 1990, The Astrophysical Journal, 354, 529

1990
[9]

J., et al

Borisova , E., Cantalupo , S., Lilly , S. J., et al. 2016, , 831, 39

2016
[10]

2023, , 951, 113

Br \"u ggen , M., Scannapieco , E., & Grete , P. 2023, , 951, 113

2023
[11]

X., Hennawi , J

Cantalupo , S., Arrigoni-Battaia , F., Prochaska , J. X., Hennawi , J. F., & Madau , P. 2014, , 506, 63

2014
[12]

Cantalupo , S., Porciani , C., & Lilly , S. J. 2008, , 672, 48

2008
[13]

J., & Miniati , F

Cantalupo , S., Porciani , C., Lilly , S. J., & Miniati , F. 2005, , 628, 61

2005
[14]

1992, , 78, 341

Cen , R. 1992, , 78, 341

1992
[15]

2019, , 487, 3377

Decataldo , D., Pallottini , A., Ferrara , A., Vallini , L., & Gallerani , S. 2019, , 487, 3377

2019
[16]

& Birnboim , Y

Dekel , A. & Birnboim , Y. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 2

2006
[17]

2013, MNRAS, 435, 999

Dekel, A., Zolotov, A., Tweed, D., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 999

2013
[18]

2019, , 622, A142

Deparis , N., Aubert , D., Ocvirk , P., Chardin , J., & Lewis , J. 2019, , 622, A142

2019
[19]

2014, , 31, e040

Dijkstra , M. 2014, , 31, e040

2014
[20]

A., Katz , N., Gardner , J

Fardal , M. A., Katz , N., Gardner , J. P., et al. 2001, ApJ, 562, 605

2001
[21]

Faucher-Gigu\` e re, C. A. & Kere s , D. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 118

2011
[22]

Faucher-Giguère, C.-A. & Oh, S. P. 2023, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 61, 131

2023
[23]

2014, Quantifying Uncertainties in Radiation Hydrodynamics Models (Ann Arbor, 1001:48109)

Fidkowski , K. 2014, Quantifying Uncertainties in Radiation Hydrodynamics Models (Ann Arbor, 1001:48109)

2014
[24]

K., et al

Fossati , M., Fumagalli , M., Lofthouse , E. K., et al. 2021, , 503, 3044

2021
[25]

1987, , 70, 269

Giovanardi , C., Natta , A., & Palla , F. 1987, , 70, 269

1987
[26]

& Palla , F

Giovanardi , C. & Palla , F. 1989, , 77, 157

1989
[27]

& Hollenbach, D

Gorti, U. & Hollenbach, D. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 573, 215

2002
[28]

& Oh , S

Gronke , M. & Oh , S. P. 2018, , 480, L111

2018
[29]

& Schneider, E

Gronke , M. & Schneider , E. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.16566

work page arXiv 2026
[30]

& Hyman , J

Harten , A. & Hyman , J. M. 1983, J. Comput. Phys., 50, 235

1983
[31]

J., & Gronke , M

Hidalgo-Pineda , F., Farber , R. J., & Gronke , M. 2024, , 527, 135

2024
[32]

T., Hirashita , H., & Ferrara , A

Iliev , I. T., Hirashita , H., & Ferrara , A. 2006, , 368, 1885

2006
[33]

T., Whalen , D., Mellema , G., et al

Iliev , I. T., Whalen , D., Mellema , G., et al. 2009, , 400, 1283

2009
[34]

P., & Mandelker , N

Kaul , I., Tan , B., Oh , S. P., & Mandelker , N. 2025, , 539, 3669

2025
[35]

C., et al

Langen , V., Cantalupo , S., Steidel , C. C., et al. 2023, , 519, 5099

2023
[36]

2024 a , , 691, A280

Ledos , N., Ntormousi , E., Takasao , S., & Nagamine , K. 2024 a , , 691, A280

2024
[37]

2024 b , , 527, 11304

Ledos , N., Takasao , S., & Nagamine , K. 2024 b , , 527, 11304

2024
[38]

& Lazareff, B

Lefloch, B. & Lazareff, B. 1994, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 289, 559, aDS Bibcode: 1994A&A...289..559L

1994
[39]

N., Cantalupo , S., Holden , B

Leibler , C. N., Cantalupo , S., Holden , B. P., & Madau , P. 2018, , 480, 2094

2018
[40]

F., et al

Lusso , E., Worseck , G., Hennawi , J. F., et al. 2015, , 449, 4204

2015
[41]

2021, , 502, 494

Mackenzie , R., Pezzulli , G., Cantalupo , S., et al. 2021, , 502, 494

2021
[42]

2020 a , MNRAS, 494, 2641

Mandelker , N., Nagai, D., Aung, H., et al. 2020 a , MNRAS, 494, 2641

2020
[43]

C., Nagai , D., et al

Mandelker , N., van den Bosch , F. C., Nagai , D., et al. 2020 b , , 498, 2415

2020
[44]

Martin , P. G. 1988, , 66, 125

1988
[45]

P., Lyra, W., & Passy, J.-C

McNally, C. P., Lyra, W., & Passy, J.-C. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 201, 18

2012
[46]

T., Cox , P., Bronfman , L., & Roelfsema , P

Megeath , S. T., Cox , P., Bronfman , L., & Roelfsema , P. R. 1996, , 305, 296

1996
[47]

C., Canto, J., et al

Mellema, G., Raga, A. C., Canto, J., et al. 1998, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 331, 335, aDS Bibcode: 1998A&A...331..335M

1998
[48]

C., et al

Morrissey , P., Matuszewski , M., Martin , D. C., et al. 2018, , 864, 93

2018
[49]

2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 905, 151

Nakatani, R., Fialkov, A., & Yoshida, N. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 905, 151

2020
[50]

& Yoshida, N

Nakatani, R. & Yoshida, N. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 883, 127

2019
[51]

2020, MNRAS, 498, 2391

Nelson , D., Sharma , P., Pillepich , A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 2391

2020
[52]

2019, , 626, A77

Ocvirk , P., Aubert , D., Chardin , J., Deparis , N., & Lewis , J. 2019, , 626, A77

2019
[53]

2020, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 58, 617

Ouchi, M., Ono, Y., & Shibuya, T. 2020, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 58, 617

2020
[54]

Pengelly , R. M. & Seaton , M. J. 1964, , 127, 165

1964
[55]

& Cantalupo , S

Pezzulli , G. & Cantalupo , S. 2019, , 486, 1489

2019
[56]

& Waters , T

Proga , D. & Waters , T. 2015, , 804, 137

2015
[57]

C., Steffen, W., & González, R

Raga, A. C., Steffen, W., & González, R. F. 2005, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica, 41, 45, aDS Bibcode: 2005RMxAA..41...45R

2005
[58]

& Nelson , D

Ramesh , R. & Nelson , D. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3320

2024
[59]

1998, Verification and Validation in Computational Science and Engineering (Hermosa Publishers)

Roache, P. 1998, Verification and Validation in Computational Science and Engineering (Hermosa Publishers)

1998
[60]

2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 436, 2188

Rosdahl, J., Blaizot, J., Aubert, D., Stranex, T., & Teyssier, R. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 436, 2188

2013
[61]

& Teyssier , R

Rosdahl , J. & Teyssier , R. 2015, , 449, 4380

2015
[62]

& Hensler, G

Sander, B. & Hensler, G. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 5330

2021
[63]

2021, PhD thesis, ETH Zurich

Sarpas , S. 2021, PhD thesis, ETH Zurich

2021
[64]

1978, Physical processes in the interstellar medium, Physics textbook (Weinheim: Wiley)

Spitzer, L. 1978, Physical processes in the interstellar medium, Physics textbook (Weinheim: Wiley)

1978
[65]

1995, Analysis of flowfield from a rectangular nozzle with delta tabs (AIAA meeting paper)

Steffen, C.-R., Reddy, D., & Zaman, K. 1995, Analysis of flowfield from a rectangular nozzle with delta tabs (AIAA meeting paper)

1995
[66]

1991, , 77, 59

Sugitani , K., Fukui , Y., & Ogura , K. 1991, , 77, 59

1991
[67]

& Ogura , K

Sugitani , K. & Ogura , K. 1994, , 92, 163

1994
[68]

1995, , 455, L39

Sugitani , K., Tamura , M., & Ogura , K. 1995, , 455, L39

1995
[69]

2002, , 385, 337

Teyssier , R. 2002, , 385, 337

2002
[70]

F., Spruce , M., & Speares , W

Toro , E. F., Spruce , M., & Speares , W. 1994, Shock Waves, 4, 25

1994
[71]

1985, in Large-Scale Computations in Fluid Mechanics, ed

van Leer , B. 1985, in Large-Scale Computations in Fluid Mechanics, ed. B. E. Engquist , S. Osher , & R. C. J. Somerville , 327--336

1985
[72]

A., Ferland , G

Verner , D. A., Ferland , G. J., Korista , K. T., & Yakovlev , D. G. 1996, , 465, 487

1996
[73]

& Proga , D

Waters , T. & Proga , D. 2019, , 876, L3

2019
[74]

Waterval , S., Cannarozzo , C., & Macci \`o , A. V. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 2726

2025
[75]

P., Aung , H., & Dekel , A

Yao , Z., Mandelker , N., Oh , S. P., Aung , H., & Dekel , A. 2025, , 536, 3053

2025