Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

The Type Ia Supernova and Asymptotic Giant Branch Stellar Ejecta-regulated Interstellar Medium of Massive Galaxies

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

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

Pith's one-line read In massive elliptical galaxies, Type Ia supernovae and AGB stellar mass loss—not AGN feedback—can set the thermodynamic state of the inner few kiloparsecs, making it a pressure-confined extension of the surrounding circumgalactic medium.

desk verdict Resolved-SNIa simulations that make a solid qualitative case for CGM pressure setting the ISM state in massive ellipticals, but the quantitative match to NGC 1399 is partly built in and the fixed outer boundary deserves a caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05329 v3 pith:6SYLR3XS submitted 2025-02-07 astro-ph.GA

Rajsekhar Mohapatra , Eliot Quataert , Drummond Fielding , Minghao Guo This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords early-typegalaxiesinterstellarmediumTypeIasupernovaeAGBmasslossgalacticwindscoolingflowscircumgalactichydrodynamicsimulations
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

The paper argues that the hot gas filling the central few kiloparsecs of massive elliptical galaxies is regulated by stellar sources: mass returned by AGB stars and heating by Type Ia supernova remnants. In 3D hydrodynamic simulations of NGC 1399-like galaxies with black-hole feedback deliberately absent, two quasi-steady states emerge. If supernova heating beats cooling, the supernovae drive a slow subsonic outflow of AGB ejecta that is pressure-confined by the circumgalactic medium, so the interstellar medium's density and entropy track the CGM. If cooling wins instead, a cooling flow develops with much larger black-hole accretion. The fiducial run reproduces the observed density and entropy profiles of NGC 1399, suggesting that the inner ISM and black-hole accretion rate can be regulated by CGM pressure communicated through stellar-heated gas, even when AGN jets act at larger radii.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the combination of AGB stellar mass return, discrete SNIa injection resolved down to the remnant fade radius r_fade ~ 17.3 pc (n/0.3 $cm^{-3}$)^(-1/3) (T/1.5e7 K)^(-1/3), and a fixed pressure boundary at 10 kpc representing the inner CGM. Individual supernova remnants reach pressure equilibrium with the hot ISM and then rise buoyantly, which transports energy to larger radii; the resulting large-scale flow is a highly subsonic breeze whose velocity adjusts to the bounding CGM pressure. This pressure confinement is what allows the ISM to become a hydrostatic extension of the CGM even though the mass source interior to the galaxy (AGB winds) is completely different from the mass source exterior to it.

What would settle it

Run the same NGC 1399 setup with a live, evolving CGM, for example by allowing the outer boundary to respond to cooling, inflows, or AGN-driven shocks, and compare the inner density and entropy profiles and black-hole accretion rate at 100 Myr. If the ISM state ceases to track the CGM pressure or the two steady-state solutions disappear, the central claim is falsified; alternatively, a systematic X-ray survey showing no correlation between inner ISM entropy and CGM entropy across massive ellipticals would also contradict the prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the interstellar medium on galaxy scales is an AGB/SNIa-regulated system whose state is set primarily by the confining pressure of the surrounding CGM, not by the detailed initial conditions of the galaxy core. With each Type Ia supernova resolved down to its fade radius of roughly 20 pc, the remnants reach pressure equilibrium and rise buoyantly, redistributing energy away from their injection sites. For a fixed galaxy, two quasi-steady solutions emerge: a subsonic 'breeze' carrying AGB ejecta outward when the supernova heating time is shorter than the cooling time, with the ISM inheriting the CGM's entropy and density, or a cooling inflow when the cooling time is shorter than both the heating time and the AGB mass-injection time. The simulations reproduce the observed profiles of NGC 1399, and the black-hole accretion rate varies by orders of magnitude across the two branches, being largest in the cooling-flow solution and smallest in the low-density, high-entropy non-cool-core-like solution.

Load-bearing premise

The outer boundary at 10 kpc is held at fixed density and temperature for the entire simulation, effectively acting as a rigid, unchanging CGM pressure reservoir; if the real CGM cools, is shock-heated by AGN jets, or develops inflows, the pressure-confinement loop that makes the ISM inherit CGM properties may be weaker or time dependent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the same central galaxy, a low-pressure, high-entropy CGM produces a low-density, high-entropy ISM, while a high-pressure, cool-core-like CGM produces a dense, low-entropy ISM; the system preserves cool-core versus non-cool-core character.
  • Black-hole accretion increases with CGM pressure, being roughly 30 times larger in the cooling-flow branch than in the cool-core-like solution and another factor of about 10 larger still relative to the highest-entropy non-cool-core-like solution.
  • Resolving individual SNIa remnants is essential: uniform heating overheats the core and flattens the entropy profile, while clustered, more energetic supernovae underheat the inner kiloparsec and can trigger a cooling flow, so approximate treatments give incorrect ISM profiles and incorrect black-hole accretion rates.
  • In the fiducial solution, AGB ejecta enrich the inner kiloparsec to a mass fraction near unity, which can explain the near-solar metallicities in massive ellipticals, with SNIa ejecta peaking around 1 kpc.
  • At radii beyond about 10 kpc, stellar heating may be insufficient to balance cooling, and the long-duration simulation shows the onset of a cooling inflow there, implying AGN feedback is still needed at large radii while SNIa act on kiloparsec scales.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the pressure-confinement logic holds, the inner ISM entropy and density of massive ellipticals should correlate tightly with the entropy and density of the inner CGM across a galaxy sample; a strong observed correlation would support CGM-driven regulation even without directly detecting the subsonic breeze.
  • The model implies that black-hole accretion in quiescent ellipticals may be set largely by CGM pressure communicated through the hydrostatic, stellar-heated ISM, rather than by local Bondi physics alone.
  • The fixed outer boundary is an important simplification; coupling the simulation to a live, evolving CGM would test whether time-dependent pressure changes, such as those from AGN outbursts or CGM cooling, are communicated inward on the roughly 100 Myr timescale relevant to the ISM.
  • Because uniform SNIa heating overpredicts core entropy, large cosmological simulations that treat supernova feedback as a smooth, density-proportional heating term may systematically underestimate black-hole accretion in massive ellipticals.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents 3D hydrodynamic simulations of the central few kiloparsecs of massive elliptical galaxies, with a gravitational potential set by stars, dark matter, and a central black hole, and with gas physics including radiative cooling, smooth AGB mass/energy injection, and Type Ia supernovae injected as resolved discrete events. The fiducial model is initialized to match the observed density and entropy profiles of NGC 1399. The authors identify two classes of quasi-steady solutions over 100 Myr: when SNIa heating exceeds cooling, a subsonic 'breeze' expels most AGB ejecta, with the inner ISM profile set by the confining CGM pressure (giving cool-core-like or non-cool-core-like states); when cooling dominates, a cooling flow develops with a much larger black hole accretion rate. A parameter study varies the initial entropy, pressure, SNIa rate, and SNIa injection method, showing that resolved SNIa produce different density/entropy profiles and accretion rates than uniform or clustered injection schemes.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a valuable numerical demonstration of the Voit et al. (2020) picture in which the galaxy-scale ISM is a pressure-confined, stellar-heated system whose thermodynamic state is inherited from the surrounding CGM even though its mass is predominantly AGB ejecta. The resolved treatment of individual SNIa remnants (fade radius resolved by at least 4 cells) is a genuine improvement over smooth-heating models, and the systematic parameter survey provides a useful map of the solution branches and their dependence on CGM pressure and SNIa rate. The most robust quantitative results are the convergence of different initial entropy profiles at fixed pressure (Fig. 5) and the monotonic variation of the black hole accretion rate with CGM pressure and SNIa rate. The paper is also unusually candid about its limitations, including the late-time cooling at large radii and the absence of AGN feedback.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.6 and Eq. (3)] The outer boundary at 10 kpc fixes density and temperature to their initial values for the entire run. This is not a neutral buffer: the analytic argument in §2, especially Eq. (3), predicts that the outflow velocity scales inversely with the CGM density, so fixing ρ_CGM and T_CGM at the boundary imposes the pressure-confinement effect that is the paper's headline result. The simulations therefore demonstrate that the inner ISM adjusts to a maintained CGM pressure, but they do not test whether a realistic, time-dependent CGM would maintain that pressure while receiving AGB ejecta and SNIa energy from the galaxy. The one long, large-domain run ('outer-uni20-long', §6) uses uniform heating and shows cooling at r ≳ 10 kpc beginning within 1.2 Gyr; because the heating is not resolved, this run cannot exclude the possibility that discrete SNIa delay or alter the cooling. I recommend either adding a resolved-SN run with a larger outer boundary or implementing a simple live/responding CGM boundary to show that the inheritance of CGM properties is not purely built into the boundary condition.
  2. [§3.1 and footnote 3] The fiducial run's agreement with NGC 1399 is partly built in. The entropy normalization S0, slope α_S, and density n0 are chosen to match the Werner et al. (2012) profiles, and the SNIa rate is set (footnote 3) to a value that makes net stellar heating exceed radiative cooling, thereby selecting the heating-dominated branch. Consequently, the abstract's statement that the simulations 'reproduce its observed density and entropy profiles well' describes a tuned consistency check rather than an independent prediction. The more compelling results are the convergence of different S0 runs at fixed pressure and the pressure dependence of the final profiles (Figs. 5–7). I ask the authors to rephrase the reproduction claim as calibration and to place the primary evidentiary weight on the parameter study.
  3. [§4.4 and Table 1] The two-class classification rests mainly on runs of 100 Myr, which is comparable to or shorter than the cooling time at the outer boundary. The paper itself states that the 'double-SN' run has not reached a statistical steady state by 100 Myr, and the 'fid' run lies in the intermediate regime theat < tcool < tAGB (Fig. 6). Given that the only 1.2 Gyr run shows a late-time transition to cooling inflow at r ≳ 10 kpc (§6), it is not established that the inner quasi-steady states persist over multiple boundary cooling times. A convergence diagnostic, such as the time evolution of the radial mass flux and entropy profiles over several tAGB, or an explicit estimate of the steady-state timescale based on tcool at the boundary, would substantiate the 'quasi-steady-state' terminology.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1] The sentence following the reference 'Fabian 2012' is missing a space ('...Fabian 2012)he supermassive black holes'); the reference list also contains a LaTeX encoding artifact in 'B¨ ohringer'.
  2. [§6 and Figure 10] The long-duration run is labeled 'outer-uni20-long' in Table 1 but is referred to as 'uni20' in the Figure 10 caption and in the text; please unify the naming.
  3. [§3.2] The abstract says 'with black hole accretion at small radii', but the accretion rate is first quantified only in §4.2 via Fig. 7; a brief pointer in §3.6 describing how ˙M is measured from the sink would improve readability.
  4. [§1 and §3.2] The introduction cites the near-balance of SNIa heating and cooling as motivation, while footnote 3 sets the fiducial rate so that heating exceeds cooling; these statements are compatible, but an explicit reconciliation (e.g., the balance is approximate and the paper deliberately biases toward the heating-dominated branch) would avoid apparent tension.
  5. [§9 / Software section] The software list includes 'LLaMA (Grattafiori et al. 2024)' alongside numerical and plotting libraries; if a language model was used for writing or analysis, the journal's AI-use disclosure policy may require a separate statement in the acknowledgments.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the NGC 1399 match and outflow-branch placement are partly tuned inputs, and the CGM-pressure inheritance is imposed by the fixed outer boundary; resolved-SN physics provides independent content.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1 (Galaxy Model and Initial Conditions), with the claimed 'reproduction' in the Abstract and Section 4.2]
    "We set the initial radial profile of gas entropy (S) at t = 0 as: S = S0(1 + r/rS)^αS, where S0 = 2.88 keVcm2, rS = 0.5 kpc, and αS = 1.1 (since the observed profiles in Werner et al. 2012 scale roughly as r1 and flatten towards the center). The density and entropy profiles at t = 0 are shown in Fig. 3 and are in rough agreement with the X-ray observations of Werner et al. (2012)."

    The abstract's claim that the simulations 'reproduce' NGC 1399's observed density and entropy profiles is not an independent prediction: the initial conditions are fitted to those same Werner et al. (2012) profiles, and the fixed outer boundary holds the density and temperature at their initial values. The fiducial run therefore starts on the observed profiles and is not pushed away from them; remaining close after 100 Myr is a consistency check, not a forecast. The convergence of the S02 and S04 fixed-pressure runs to a common profile is independent, but the fiducial match itself is partly built in.

  2. self definitional [Section 3.6 (Boundary conditions) and Section 2 (Theoretical Background)]
    "We fix the values of density and temperature to their initial values for radii beyond the outer boundary at r = router (at 10 kpc for our fiducial model). The discussion in §2 motivates why such a boundary condition is reasonable. ... §2: the effect of Type Ia supernovae is to regulate the ISM on galactic scales to be a hydrostatic extension of the CGM/ICM, i.e., to satisfy dP/dr ∼ −ρg with the boundary condition that n ∼ nCGM and P ∼ PCGM at r ∼ Re."

    The headline result that the galaxy-scale ISM 'inherits' the thermodynamic properties of the CGM is inserted through the boundary condition: n and T at 10 kpc are permanently reset to their initial CGM values. The simulations therefore demonstrate that a maintained CGM pressure produces a corresponding inner ISM, but they do not demonstrate that the real CGM would maintain that pressure when AGB mass loss and SNIa energy cross the boundary. The paper's own outer-uni20-long run shows cooling at r≳10 kpc by 1.2 Gyr, indicating that the reservoir is not guaranteed. This is an imposed physical assumption rather than a fitted parameter, but it makes the pressure-confinement loop partly definitional.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2 (Simulated Equations), footnote; branch assignment in Section 4.4 and Section 7]
    "Note that we use a slightly higher value of the Ia rate (compared to previous studies), such that the net stellar heating is larger than the net radiative cooling. This value is still consistent with Maoz & Graur (2017). Furthermore, we test the effects of different Ia rates on our results in § 4.4."

    The fiducial SNIa rate is explicitly chosen to put the system in the regime where stellar heating exceeds cooling, and the heating-versus-cooling ratio is the criterion that selects the outflow branch rather than the cooling-flow branch. Thus the placement of the fiducial NGC 1399 model on the outflow branch is partly an input choice rather than a prediction. The half-SN and double-SN runs do probe the transition and provide independent information, so this is partial rather than complete circularity.

full rationale

Score 5 reflects partial circularity, not a self-citation chain. The fiducial NGC 1399 'reproduction' is partly built in: the initial entropy and density profiles are taken from the Werner et al. (2012) observations, and the SNIa rate is raised so that net heating exceeds cooling, placing the fiducial model on the outflow branch. The pressure-confinement conclusion is also loaded by fixing n and T at 10 kpc to their initial values for the entire run; the paper's own outer-uni20-long run shows cooling at r≳10 kpc by 1.2 Gyr, weakening the assumption that the CGM maintains that pressure. However, the paper has substantial independent content: the fixed-pressure S02/S04 runs converge to a common profile, the half/double SNIa-rate runs show an emergent threshold, and the differences between resolved, uniform, and clustered SNIa heating are not contained in the fitted inputs. Self-citations such as Mohapatra & Quataert (2024) and Guo et al. (2023) are methodological and not load-bearing. The core physics of resolved SNIa remnants and the cooling-flow transition is genuinely emergent, so this is not a case where the derivation is equivalent to its inputs.

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

The central model relies on observational inputs for the galaxy potential and initial gas state, a chosen cooling function, and several numerical parameters. The most consequential free parameters are the entropy normalization and slope, the initial density, and the SNIa rate normalization, which is adjusted upward so that heating exceeds cooling. There are no new physical entities.

free parameters (5)
  • Initial entropy normalization S0 = 2.88 keV cm^2
    Chosen so the t=0 entropy profile matches the observed NGC 1399 profile from Werner et al. (2012); the agreement at 100 Myr is therefore partly inherited from the initial condition.
  • Entropy slope alpha_S = 1.1
    Chosen to match the roughly r^1 entropy scaling of observed massive ellipticals.
  • Initial gas density n0 at rS = 0.3 cm^-3
    Chosen to match the observed density of NGC 1399 and used to construct the hydrostatic initial condition.
  • SNIa rate normalization = 600 kpc^-3 Myr^-1 per 10^10 Msun kpc^-3
    Footnote 3 states the rate is deliberately set slightly higher than previous studies so that net stellar heating exceeds radiative cooling; this selects the heating-dominated branch of the solution.
  • Outer boundary density and temperature = Fixed to initial values at 10 kpc
    The confining CGM pressure is the key independent variable, and fixing it at the boundary effectively imposes the CGM property whose influence the paper aims to demonstrate.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption AGB wind material shocks, thermalizes, and mixes with the ISM
    Stated in Sections 2 and 3.2; Li et al. (2019) suggest ejecta may survive unmixed in high-pressure cores, which would alter the mass and metal distributions.
  • domain assumption Solar-metallicity cooling function applies to the ISM, with ejecta not altering cooling
    Section 3.5 uses the Schure et al. (2009) cooling function at Zsun; Section 7 acknowledges that ejecta-rich regions would cool faster and that this is not included.
  • domain assumption The gravitational potential is static and fixed to observed stellar, dark matter, and black hole masses
    Section 3.1; gas self-gravity and potential evolution are neglected, which is reasonable for the central kiloparsecs but is a simplifying assumption.
  • domain assumption Each SNIa injects 1 Msun and 10^51 erg at the fade radius according to a Sedov-like prescription
    Section 3.5; the injection radius and energy coupling rely on the standard Sedov-Taylor remnant model, and the validity of this prescription is cited to Li et al. (2020a).
  • standard math Ideal gas with gamma = 5/3 and constant mean molecular weight
    Section 3.2; this is a standard treatment for hot, fully ionized plasma in this regime.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Type Ia Supernova and Asymptotic Giant Branch Stellar Ejecta-regulated Interstellar Medium of Massive Galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6SYLR3XS

@misc{pith2026250205329,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Type Ia Supernova and Asymptotic Giant Branch Stellar Ejecta-regulated Interstellar Medium of Massive Galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6SYLR3XS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05329}
}
abstract

Observations and theory suggest that Type Ia supernovae (SNIa) heating and mass loss from asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars play a crucial role in the interstellar medium (ISM) of massive galaxies. We perform 3D hydrodynamic simulations of the central few kiloparsecs of massive galaxies, including radiative cooling and mass and energy injection from AGB winds and SNIa (resolving each SNIa remnant, a few $\times10~\mathrm{pc}$ in size), excluding black hole feedback. We study systems with different initial core thermodynamic profiles, focusing on NGC 1399. Our simulations reproduce its observed density and entropy profiles well. Over $100~\mathrm{Myr}$, two steady-state profiles emerge, depending on the inner circumgalactic medium (CGM) pressure and the ratio of Ia heating to cooling: (i) if SNIa heating is less than cooling, a cooling flow develops; (ii) if SNIa heating is comparable to or exceeds cooling, SNIa heating drives a slow subsonic outflow of AGB ejecta, with black hole accretion at small radii. This outflow, pressure-confined by the CGM, adapts the ISM to the CGM properties: a low entropy CGM results in a dense, low entropy ISM with higher black hole accretion, while a high entropy CGM leads to a less dense, high entropy ISM with lower accretion. This suggests that the AGB-SNIa regulated ISM connects CGM and galaxy scales, potentially influencing black hole feedback in massive halos. Approximate methods of modeling Ia heating, such as clustered SNIa and smoothly distributed heating, produce unrealistic ISM profiles over $100~\mathrm{Myr}$, highlighting the importance of resolving SNIa in simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05329 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. X-ray luminosity versus the energy injection rate due to type Ia supernovae, assuming a 10 Gyr old stellar pop￾ulation with a SNIa rate given by Equation (8), and LX, M∗ from Anderson et al. (2015). We import LX for NGC 1399 from Su et al. (2017) for emission within the inner 22 kpc. For NGC 1399, the net heating by the SNIa is expected to roughly balance the net X-ray emission. Type Ia heating and AGB mass loss lar… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A cartoon summarizing our findings on the different steady state solutions to the effects of type Ia supernovae heating and AGB mass loss on the ISM of massive ellipticals. When the cooling time is longer than the heating time, our simulations form either non-cool-core like or cool-core like entropy profiles, depending on the confining circumgalactic medium (CGM)/ intracluster medium (ICM) pressure. When the cooling… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Upper panel: The radial profiles of gas density (red dotted), entropy (purple dashed), and stellar density (grey solid). The scatter points show the profiles for the el￾liptical galaxy NGC 1399 from X-ray observations (Werner et al. 2012). The grey dash-dotted line shows the stellar density distribution fit from Schuberth et al. (2010). Lower panel: The radial profiles of important time-scales: the cool￾ing time tco… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Slices (along the xy-plane) of number density (Col 1 ), temperature (Col 2 ), radial velocity (Col 3 ), AGB ejecta mass fraction (Col 4 ), and SNIa ejecta mass fraction (Col 5 ) for the non-cool-core like ‘S04.0-fixT0’ run, the cool-core like ‘fid’ (Row 2 ) run, and th…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of the radial profiles of gas density (first row), entropy (second row), and pressure (third row) for runs with different S0 and either fixed pressure or temperature (at r = 2.0 kpc, denoted by the grey dashed line). For the solutions with similar pressure bu…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radial profiles of important timescales– tcool, tAGB, theat, tflow(= r/|vr|), and tff for runs with differ￾ent S0, at t = 100 Myr. Except for the S00.75 and the ‘fid’ runs, the timescales are ordered as tff < theat < tAGB < tcool. For the ‘S00.75’ run, tcool < theat < …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The radial profiles of gas density (col 1 ), entropy (col 2 ), radial velocity (col 3 ), and mass flux (col 4 ) for different supernova injection rates ‘half’, ‘fiducial’ and ‘double’, at t = 100 Myr. Stronger SNIa heating leads to a less dense, higher entropy core, dr…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The radial profiles of gas density (col 1 ), entropy (col 2 ), radial velocity (col 3 ), and mass flux (col 4 ) for different supernova injection methods ‘uni’, ‘fiducial’, ‘bigSN10’, and ‘bigSN64’, at t = 200 Myr. The larger bubbles generated my the clustered, bigger …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Evolution of the radial profiles of gas density (first row) and entropy (second row) for runs with different rin and rout. For the simulations with smaller sink radius (left column), we observe similar trends in the evolution of the density and entropy profiles as the…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    E., Gaspari, M., White, S

    Anderson, M. E., Gaspari, M., White, S. D. M., Wang, W., & Dai, X. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 3806, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv437 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f B¨ ohringer, H., Matsushita, K., Churazov, E., Ikebe, Y., &

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv437 2015

  2. [2]

    2002, A&A, 382, 804, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011708

    Chen, Y. 2002, A&A, 382, 804, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011708

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20011708 2002

  3. [3]

    1952, MNRAS, 112, 195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/112.2.195

    Bondi, H. 1952, MNRAS, 112, 195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/112.2.195

    doi:10.1093/mnras/112.2.195 1952

  4. [4]

    2002, MNRAS, 336, 409, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05746.x Cant´ o, J., Raga, A

    Borgani, S., Governato, F., Wadsley, J., et al. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 409, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05746.x Cant´ o, J., Raga, A. C., & Rodr ´ ıguez, L. F. 2000, ApJ, 536, 896, doi: 10.1086/308983

    arXiv 2002

  5. [5]

    A., & Clegg, A

    Chevalier, R. A., & Clegg, A. W. 1985, Nature, 317, 44, doi: 10.1038/317044a0

    doi:10.1038/317044a0 1985

  6. [6]

    S., Narayan, R., et al

    Cho, H., Prather, B. S., Narayan, R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 959, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1048

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad1048 2023

  7. [7]

    1991, ApJ, 376, 380, doi: 10.1086/170289

    Ciotti, L., D’Ercole, A., Pellegrini, S., & Renzini, A. 1991, ApJ, 376, 380, doi: 10.1086/170289

    doi:10.1086/170289 1991

  8. [8]

    Ciotti, L., & Ostriker, J. P. 1997, ApJL, 487, L105, doi: 10.1086/310902 —. 2001, ApJ, 551, 131, doi: 10.1086/320053

    doi:10.1086/310902 1997

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    2013, Python and HDF5 (O’Reilly)

    Collette, A. 2013, Python and HDF5 (O’Reilly)

    2013

  2. [10]

    E., & White, M

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 486, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486

    2009 doi

  3. [11]

    G., & Kravtsov, A

    Conroy, C., van Dokkum, P. G., & Kravtsov, A. 2015, ApJ, 803, 77, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/2/77

    2015 doi

  4. [13]

    E., O’Connell, R

    Donahue, M., de Messi` eres, G. E., O’Connell, R. W., et al. 2011, ApJ, 732, 40, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/1/40

    2011 doi

  5. [14]

    Draine, B. T. 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium (Princeton University Press)

    2011

  6. [15]

    Dunn, R. J. H., Allen, S. W., Taylor, G. B., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 180, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16314.x

    2010

  7. [16]

    Fabian, A. C. 1994, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 32, 277

    1994

  8. [17]

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

    2012 doi

  9. [18]

    S., Dennerl, K., et al

    Gatuzz, E., Sanders, J. S., Dennerl, K., et al. 2023a, MNRAS, 520, 4793, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad447 —. 2023b, MNRAS, 525, 6394, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2716

    doi

  10. [19]

    C., & Metzger, B

    Generozov, A., Stone, N. C., & Metzger, B. D. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 775, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1607

    2015 doi

  11. [20]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.21783, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.21783

    Grattafiori, A., Dubey, A., Jauhri, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.21783, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.21783

    2024 doi arXiv

  12. [21]

    M., Kim, C.-G., & Quataert, E

    Guo, M., Stone, J. M., Kim, C.-G., & Quataert, E. 2023, ApJ, 946, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb81e

    2023 doi

  13. [22]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Array programming with NumPy, Nature Research, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  14. [23]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  15. [24]

    N., & Stone, J

    Lemaster, M. N., & Stone, J. M. 2009, ApJ, 691, 1092, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1092

    2009 doi

  16. [25]

    L., Ostriker, E

    Li, M., Li, Y., Bryan, G. L., Ostriker, E. C., & Quataert, E. 2020a, ApJ, 894, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab86b4 —. 2020b, ApJ, 898, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9c22

    doi

  17. [26]

    L., & Quataert, E

    Li, Y., Bryan, G. L., & Quataert, E. 2019, ApJ, 887, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4bca

    2019 doi

  18. [27]

    2017, ApJ, 848, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b6e

    Maoz, D., & Graur, O. 2017, ApJ, 848, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b6e

    2017 doi

  19. [28]

    G., & Baker, J

    Mathews, W. G., & Baker, J. C. 1971, ApJ, 170, 241, doi: 10.1086/151208

    1971 doi

  20. [29]

    G., & Loewenstein, M

    Mathews, W. G., & Loewenstein, M. 1986, ApJL, 306, L7, doi: 10.1086/184693

    1986 doi

  21. [30]

    R., & Nulsen, P

    McNamara, B. R., & Nulsen, P. E. J. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 117, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110625 —. 2012, New Journal of Physics, 14, 055023, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/14/5/055023

    2007 arXiv

  22. [31]

    2001, MNRAS, 320, L30, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04165.x

    Merritt, D., & Ferrarese, L. 2001, MNRAS, 320, L30, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04165.x

    2001

  23. [32]

    2024, ApJ, 965, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2940

    Mohapatra, R., & Quataert, E. 2024, ApJ, 965, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2940

    2024 doi

  24. [33]

    2014, MNRAS, 445, 1351, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1834

    Negri, A., Posacki, S., Pellegrini, S., & Ciotti, L. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 1351, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1834

    2014 doi

  25. [34]

    2017, in Proceedings of Workshop on Machine Learning Systems (LearningSys) in The Thirty-first Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS)

    Okuta, R., Unno, Y., Nishino, D., Hido, S., & Loomis, C. 2017, in Proceedings of Workshop on Machine Learning Systems (LearningSys) in The Thirty-first Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS). http: //learningsys.org/nips17/assets/papers/paper 16.pdf

    2017

  26. [35]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V., Nelson, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2656

    2018 doi

  27. [36]

    2008, A&A, 478, L23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078539

    Richtler, T., Schuberth, Y., Hilker, M., et al. 2008, A&A, 478, L23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078539

    2008 doi

  28. [37]

    A., Bower, R

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

    2015 doi

  29. [38]

    2010, A&A, 513, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912482 20 Mohapatra et al

    Schuberth, Y., Richtler, T., Hilker, M., et al. 2010, A&A, 513, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912482 20 Mohapatra et al

    2010 doi

  30. [39]

    2009, A&A, 508, 751, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912495

    Vink, J. 2009, A&A, 508, 751, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912495

    2009 doi

  31. [40]

    J., White, S

    Shen, S., Mo, H. J., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 978, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06740.x

    2003

  32. [41]

    M., Tomida, K., White, C

    Stone, J. M., Tomida, K., White, C. J., & Felker, K. G. 2020, ApJS, 249, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929b

    2020 doi

  33. [42]

    M., Mullen, P

    Stone, J. M., Mullen, P. D., Fielding, D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.16053, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.16053

    2024 doi arXiv

  34. [43]

    Su, Y., Nulsen, P. E. J., Kraft, R. P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 847, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8954

    2017 doi

  35. [44]

    D., Lu, Y., & Mo, H

    Tang, S., Wang, Q. D., Lu, Y., & Mo, H. J. 2009a, MNRAS, 392, 77, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14057.x

    2008

  36. [45]

    D., Mac Low, M.-M., & Joung, M

    Tang, S., Wang, Q. D., Mac Low, M.-M., & Joung, M. R. 2009b, MNRAS, 398, 1468, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15206.x

    2009

  37. [46]

    2021, Computing in Science and Engineering, 23, 10, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2021.3098509 van der Velden, E

    Trott, C., Berger-Vergiat, L., Poliakoff, D., et al. 2021, Computing in Science and Engineering, 23, 10, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2021.3098509 van der Velden, E. 2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2004, doi: 10.21105/joss.02004

    2021

  38. [47]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  39. [48]

    M., Donahue, M., O’Shea, B

    Voit, G. M., Donahue, M., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 2015, ApJL, 803, L21, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/803/2/L21

    2015 doi

  40. [49]

    M., Bryan, G

    Voit, G. M., Bryan, G. L., Prasad, D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 899, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba42e

    2020 doi

  41. [50]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 3576, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2906

    Wang, C., Li, Y., & Ruszkowski, M. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3576, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2906

    2019 doi

  42. [51]

    W., & Simionescu, A

    Werner, N., Allen, S. W., & Simionescu, A. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 2731, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21245.x

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.