Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

Turbulence-dominated CGM: the origin of UV absorbers with equivalent widths of $\sim1$\AA

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A turbulent cool inner CGM, not hot gas, explains the ~1 Å UV absorbers seen around blue star-forming galaxies.

desk verdict A solid, field-relevant paper that plausibly explains the ~1 Å Mg II/C IV absorbers around blue ~L* galaxies as saturated absorption from a volume-filling, supersonically turbulent inner CGM; the observational link is suggestive rather than definitive, and the FIRE-2 feedback/CR caveats keep the central claim from being fully established. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17001 v2 pith:NMKAUOTL submitted 2025-04-23 astro-ph.GA

Aharon Kakoly , Jonathan Stern , Claude-André Faucher-Giguère , Drummond B. Fielding , Roy Goldner , Guochao Sun , Cameron B. Hummels This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords circumgalacticmediumCGMturbulenceUVabsorptionlinesequivalentwidthMgIIabsorbersCIVFIREsimulationsgalaxyhalos
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 in halos below roughly $10^{12}$ solar masses, before the inner CGM has virialized (while the cooling time of shocked gas is shorter than the free-fall time), the inner circumgalactic medium is not a quasi-static hot phase but a cool, volume-filling, supersonically turbulent gas with velocity dispersion comparable to the halo's circular velocity. Because strong UV transitions in this gas are saturated, their equivalent widths are set by the turbulent velocity, giving W ~ 2λ v_c / c ~ 1 Å for sightlines at ~0.2 R_vir. The paper compares this prediction with existing Mg II and C IV surveys around blue ~L* galaxies and finds the observed widths match, implying that the inner CGM of these galaxies is turbulence-dominated rather than thermally supported. If correct, this changes how UV absorbers are modeled: they trace the wide lognormal density distribution of the volume-filling cool phase, not localized clouds embedded in hot gas.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the analytic equivalent-width estimate W_λ ~ 2λ v_c / c (their eq. 13), which follows from assuming saturated absorption in strong UV transitions, a line width b ≈ $\sqrt$(2/3) σ_turb, and σ_turb ≈ v_c in the pre-ICV regime. This is supported by the isothermal-turbulence relation $σ_s^{2}$ = ln(1 + $b_t^{2}$ $M_turb^{2}$) (their eq. 10) connecting the turbulent Mach number to the width of the lognormal density distribution, and by the ICV criterion t_cool^(s) < t_ff that sets when the cool turbulent phase dominates. The simulations supply σ_turb, the density distribution, and ion fractions; the identity converts those to a directly observable quantity, W_λ, which is then compared with survey data.

What would settle it

A stacked-spectrum measurement of mean Mg II rest-frame equivalent width at 0.2 R_vir around blue ~L* galaxies at z≈0.5: the turbulence-dominated prediction gives ≈1 Å, so a mean width below ≈0.3 Å with comparable signal to noise would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a transition in the nature of the inner CGM at a halo mass around $10^{12}$ Msun, identified by comparing the cooling time of shocked gas t_cool^(s) with the free-fall time t_ff at a given radius. When t_cool^(s) < t_ff, the inner CGM is dominated by cool (T << T_vir) gas with 3D turbulent velocity σ_turb ≈ v_c, so the turbulence is supersonic and the gas density distribution at fixed radius is a wide lognormal with σ_logρ ~ 0.6–0.8 dex. In this regime strong UV absorption lines are saturated, and the equivalent width is set by the Doppler width b ≈ $\sqrt$(2/3) σ_turb, yielding W_λ ~ 2λ v_c / c ~ 1 Å at impact parameters near 0.2 R_vir over 0 ≤ z ≲ 2 for a broad set of ions (Mg II, C II, C IV, Si II–IV, O III–V). The paper shows that observed mean Mg II and C IV equivalent widths around blue ~L* and dwarf galaxies match this prediction to within a factor of about two, while quenched galaxies and massive low-redshift disks such as the Milky Way and M31 show much lower widths, consistent with a hot, thermally supported inner CGM.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction inherits everything from the FIRE-2 simulations, so the load-bearing premise is that their sub-grid stellar feedback model, with no AGN or cosmic rays, faithfully reproduces the turbulent velocity and cool gas content of the inner CGM around ~L* halos; if that fails, the predicted 1 Å widths and the turbulence-dominated interpretation lose their footing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Observed ~1 Å mean Mg II and C IV widths around blue ~L* galaxies imply these systems are pre-ICV, i.e., their inner CGM is dominated by turbulent pressure rather than thermal pressure.
  • UV absorbers in turbulence-dominated CGM trace the volume-filling cool phase with a wide lognormal density distribution, so observed column densities and densities should not be interpreted as single uniform clouds.
  • Quenched galaxies and massive low-redshift disks (Milky Way, M31) are expected to show mean equivalent widths well below 1 Å at 0.2 R_vir, consistent with a hot, thermally supported inner CGM.
  • The transition from ~1 Å to ≪1 Å absorption at a given halo mass provides a way to identify which galaxies have formed a quasi-static hot inner CGM, connecting CGM thermodynamics to the quenching and morphology of the central galaxy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same saturated-absorption argument could be extended to other strong UV/EUV transitions not listed, and the scaling W ∝ λ v_c implies that measuring W and an independent v_c estimate could serve as a probe of halo mass at fixed impact parameter.
  • If cosmic-ray pressure is significant at the Milky-Way mass scale, the ICV mass threshold could shift; the paper's predictions at lower masses and higher redshifts are less affected, so observations there offer a cleaner test of the turbulence-dominated picture.
  • The lognormal density distribution suggests a natural modeling scheme for UV absorbers: replace single-cloud photoionization models with lognormal-distributed density grids, which would produce different inferred metallicities and densities than the cloud paradigm.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper uses FIRE-2 cosmological zoom simulations to study the inner circumgalactic medium (CGM) of halos below roughly 10^12 Msun before 'inner CGM virialization' (ICV), i.e., when the cooling time of shock-heated gas is shorter than the free-fall time. The authors find that in this pre-ICV regime the inner CGM is dominated by cool gas with supersonic turbulence, that the turbulent velocity is comparable to the circular velocity, and that the gas density distribution is broad and approximately lognormal. They derive an analytic estimate W_lambda ~ 2 lambda v_c / c ~ 1 Å for saturated strong UV transitions, verify this in mock sightlines through FIRE-2, and compare the predicted Mg II and C IV equivalent widths with literature measurements around blue, star-forming ~L* galaxies, dwarf galaxies, and red galaxies. They conclude that the inner CGM of star-forming ≲L* and dwarf galaxies is turbulence-dominated rather than thermal-pressure-dominated, whereas red galaxies and massive disks such as the Milky Way and M31 are post-ICV with a thermal-pressure-supported inner CGM.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a simple and falsifiable explanation for the ubiquitous ~1 Å UV absorbers around star-forming galaxies, connects inner CGM thermodynamics to galaxy quenching and disk settling, and challenges the standard picture in which UV absorbers are cool clouds embedded in a hot, volume-filling medium. The analytic estimate in eq. (13) is transparent, the prediction is not fitted to the observed equivalent widths, and the paper tests resolution dependence and a range of ions and halo masses. These are genuine strengths. The significance is moderated, however, by the fact that the conclusion depends on a CR-free version of FIRE-2 and by the coarseness of the observational comparison; the paper itself concedes in Section 5.4 that neither a thermal-pressure-dominated origin nor a cosmic-ray-pressure-supported cool phase can be strictly ruled out in the relevant mass and redshift regime.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.4, Figs. 10-11] The central observational conclusion that ~1 Å absorbers around blue ≲L* galaxies imply a turbulence-dominated, rather than thermal-pressure-dominated, inner CGM is not uniquely established by the presented evidence. The authors state in Section 5.4 that resolution prevents them from strictly ruling out a thermal-pressure-dominated origin, and that FIRE simulations including cosmic-ray physics can prevent a volume-filling hot phase at the Milky-Way mass scale at z ≲ 1, replacing thermal pressure support with cosmic-ray pressure support. The blue ~L* samples in Fig. 10 and the C IV comparison in §4.2 sit precisely in this mass and redshift regime, and eq. (13) together with the lognormal density argument are inherited from CR-free FIRE-2. As the manuscript stands, the observations are equally consistent with a cool, cosmic-ray-pressure-supported CGM, so the claim should either be backed by CR-including simulations or explicitly weakened to a consistency statement.
  2. [§4.1, Fig. 10, Table 3] The comparison of predicted and observed Mg II equivalent widths is too heterogeneous to carry the weight of the central inference. The samples in Table 3 combine co-added low-resolution spectra (zCOSMOS, SDSS composites), individual sightlines (COS-Halos, Huang et al.), and lensed arcs, with Rvir inferred through abundance matching and an assumed NFW profile; several entries quote zero uncertainties (e.g., the DESI rows with 1.8±0.0 and 3.0±0.0), and the agreement is only within a factor of about two. The predicted post-ICV drop is not present in the blue-galaxy data and is attributed to a mass mismatch, which means the comparison is not actually testing the ICV transition. A homogeneous analysis or an explicit propagation of systematic uncertainties is needed before concluding that the observed values match the turbulence-dominated prediction.
  3. [§4.4, eq. (20)] The derived t_cool(s)/t_ff ≈ 0.2–0.7, presented as supporting evidence for the turbulence-dominated interpretation, is not independent of the model being tested: it adopts N_Si+/N_Si = 0.2 from the same m12i simulation used to generate the predictions, and the resulting ratio is within a factor of about two of unity given the stated uncertainties. The authors should show how the inferred ratio changes for a plausible range of N_Si+/N_Si (e.g., 0.05–0.5) and ideally use observationally constrained ionization corrections, or present eq. (20) solely as a consistency check rather than as independent confirmation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Abstract] The description of the pre-ICV cool gas as a 'volume-filling' phase is overstated relative to the numbers in Fig. 2: at z = 0.75 the hot T > 10^5.5 K gas occupies 58% of the volume (with only 14% of the mass), so the cool phase occupies a minority of the volume. Please clarify whether 'volume-filling' is meant only in the sense of sightline coverage rather than volume fraction.
  2. [Table 1, §4.1] The listing of z_ICV = 0.27 for m12w appears inconsistent with the statement that this halo 'does not fully transition' to the thermal-energy-dominated regime by z = 0; please reconcile the table entry with the text.
  3. [§3.4.1, Abstract] The abstract's single value W ~ 1 Å for all listed transitions glosses over the explicit wavelength dependence in eq. (13): for Mg II 2796 at sigma_turb = 150 km/s the analytic estimate is roughly 2.3 Å per line, about twice the Si III value. Please state the normalization or phrase the prediction as order-of-magnitude.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors and small wording glitches that should be corrected, including 'contirubion' and 'are conclusions' in Section 2.3 and 'FURE snapshot' in Section 4.1.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor circularity in Section 4.4: the inferred t_cool/t_ff<1 support uses the turbulence-dominated simulation's own Si+ ionization fraction; the central W~1A prediction is otherwise independently grounded.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.4, eq. (20) and following paragraph]
    "We thus get t(s)cool/tff = 1.7 (N_Si+/N_Si) (vc/140 km/s)^4.1 (N_Si+/6e14 cm^-2)^-1 ... For a typical N_Si+/N_Si fraction of 0.2 in turbulence-dominated inner CGM in m12i at z=1, the observationally-inferred t(s)cool/tff is thus ≈0.2−0.7. This value is smaller than unity, which provides further supporting evidence for our conclusion that ⟨WMgII⟩∼1Å absorbers trace turbulence-dominated inner CGM."

    The 'observationally-inferred' t_cool/t_ff is not purely observational: it depends on N_Si+/N_Si = 0.2, which is taken from the turbulence-dominated FIRE m12i simulation at z=1. Plugging that model-dependent ion fraction into eq. (20) yields t_cool/t_ff < 1, which is then offered as independent supporting evidence that the observed ⟨WMgII⟩∼1Å absorbers trace turbulence-dominated inner CGM. The inference is thus calibrated by the very regime it claims to test; a different assumed ion fraction (e.g., one appropriate to a thermally supported cloud population) could change the inferred ratio, so the confirmation is partly built into the input.

full rationale

The paper's central prediction Wλ∼1Å is not circular: it follows from measured σ_turb in FIRE and the saturated-line approximation (eq. 13), and is compared to external observed equivalent widths without fitting to them. The lognormal density distribution and its Mach-number scaling use standard isothermal turbulence results (eq. 10), not self-citation. The ICV framework from Stern et al. (2021a) is cited, but the paper re-measures t_cool/t_ff in the simulations and validates against external observations, so self-citation is not load-bearing. The only visible circular step is in Section 4.4, where the t_cool/t_ff < 1 'supporting evidence' is derived using N_Si+/N_Si = 0.2 from the turbulence-dominated simulation itself, making that particular confirmation partly self-referential. This is a minor, non-central validation step; the main absorption-width prediction and its comparison with observations remain independently grounded. The cosmic-ray caveat in Section 5.4 is a robustness concern, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The W ~ 1 Å prediction is derived from simulated kinematics, not fitted to observed equivalent widths. The only fitted quantities are the pre-ICV EW relation (eq. 16) and the ion fraction in Section 4.4. The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities.

free parameters (4)
  • pre-ICV Mg II EW relation intercept and slope = intercept -0.31 dex, slope 0.05 dex/Gyr
    Eq. (16) is fit to the FIRE pre-ICV snapshots of the five m12 halos and is the curve compared to observations in Fig. 10.
  • N_Si+/N_Si ion fraction in turbulence-dominated CGM = 0.2
    Adopted from m12i at z=1 in Section 4.4 to convert observed N_Si+ to t_cool/t_ff; a simulation-calibrated input in the circularity-flagged diagnostic.
  • CGM mass fraction f_CGM = 0.5
    Assumed in eq. (15) when normalizing N_H for the saturation estimate in eq. (14).
  • Compressive driving parameter b_t = 1.0 for the supersonic stage
    Used in eq. (10); the match to FIRE is best for compressive driving, but the choice affects the density-width comparison in Fig. 3.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption FIRE-2 sub-grid feedback (SNe, stellar winds, radiation pressure) yields realistic CGM turbulence and cool gas without AGN or cosmic rays.
    All simulation results inherit this; the paper tests resolution but not feedback physics, and lists CR and AGN caveats in Section 5.4.
  • domain assumption Ionization balance for CGM gas is CIE plus PIE with the Haardt and Madau (2012) UV background, with no local stellar sources.
    Used in TRIDENT to compute f_ion in Section 2.3; the authors note a factor of about 2 uncertainty from local sources at 1 < z < 2.
  • standard math The isothermal turbulence density PDF relation (eq. 10, Krumholz 2014) applies to the non-isothermal FIRE CGM.
    Used in Section 3.3 to interpret sigma_log rho; the authors note uncertainty in averaging c_s and in the driving parameter.
  • standard math Strong UV transitions are saturated, so EW is set by velocity width W = 2 b lambda / c.
    Central to eq. (13); supported by the tau >> 1 estimate in eq. (14) with the assumed N_H.
  • domain assumption The t_cool(s)/t_ff criterion determines when a quasi-static hot phase forms (ICV).
    Defines pre-ICV and post-ICV states in the paper and is used to interpret observations in Section 4.4; it comes from prior analytic work.
  • domain assumption Behroozi et al. (2019) M*-Mhalo relation and NFW plus Dutton and Maccio (2014) concentration convert observed stellar masses to Rvir.
    Used in Appendix C to place observed samples at R_perp = 0.2 Rvir; systematic errors in this conversion would shift the comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Turbulence-dominated CGM: the origin of UV absorbers with equivalent widths of $\sim1$\AA." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NMKAUOTL

@misc{pith2026250417001,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Turbulence-dominated CGM: the origin of UV absorbers with equivalent widths of $\sim1$\AA},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NMKAUOTL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17001}
}
abstract

Theoretical arguments and observations suggest that in massive halos ($>10^{12}\,M_\odot$), the circumgalactic medium (CGM) is dominated by a 'hot' phase with gas temperature near the virial temperature ($T \approx T_{\rm vir}$) and a quasi-hydrostatic pressure profile. Lower-mass halos are however unlikely to be filled with a similar quasi-static hot phase, due to rapid radiative cooling. Using the FIRE cosmological zoom simulations, we demonstrate that the hot phase is indeed sub-dominant at inner radii ($\lesssim 0.3\,R_{\rm vir}$) of $\lesssim 10^{12}\,M_\odot$ halos, and the inner CGM is instead filled with $T \ll T_{\rm vir}$ gas originating in outflows and inflows, with a turbulent velocity comparable to the halo virial velocity. The turbulent velocity thus exceeds the mass-weighted sound speed in the inner CGM, and the turbulence is supersonic. UV absorption features from such CGM trace the wide lognormal density distributions of the predominantly cool and turbulent volume-filling phase, in contrast with tracing localized cool 'clouds' embedded in a hot medium. We predict equivalent widths of $W_\lambda \sim 2\lambda v_c/c \sim 1A$ for a broad range of strong UV and EUV transitions (Mg II, C II, C IV, Si II-IV, O III-V) in sightlines through inner CGM dominated by turbulent pressure of $\lesssim L^*$ galaxies at redshifts $0 \leq z \lesssim 2$, where $\lambda$ is the transition wavelength, $v_{\rm c}$ is the halo circular velocity and $c$ is the speed of light. Comparison of our predictions with observational constraints suggests that star-forming dwarf and $\lesssim L^*$ galaxies are generally dominated by turbulent pressure in their inner CGM, rather than by thermal pressure. The inner CGM surrounding these galaxies is thus qualitatively distinct from that around quenched galaxies and massive disks such as the Milky-Way and M31, in which thermal pressure likely dominates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17001 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A qualitative difference between UV absorbers before and after a quasi-static hot phase forms in the CGM. Columns show two snapshots of a Milky Way-mass galaxy simulated in FIRE (‘m12i’). Left panels show the 𝑧 = 0 snapshot where hot gas cools slowly so the inner halo is filled with a quasi-static hot phase, while right panels show the 𝑧 = 0.75 snapshot where hot gas cools rapidly so the hot phase is limited to loca… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Density distribution of gas in a thin shell with 𝑟 = 0.2𝑅vir, for the two snapshots shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (Top:) Evolution of mass fractions of gas with different temperatures at 𝑟 = 0.2 𝑅vir in the m12i simulation. Dots denote individual snapshots (shown only for cool gas for clarity), while lines and bands denote means and dispersions within a running 600 Myr window. The mass fraction of hot gas (red) sharply increases after 𝑡lookback ≈ 4 Gyr. (Middle:) Evolution of 3D turbulent velocity (green), circular velocity (re… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows the evolution of the ratio of turbulent pressure (𝑃turb) to the total pressure (𝑃turb + 𝑃thermal) in the same simulation (m12i), calculated as: 𝑃turb 𝑃turb + 𝑃thermal = 1 3 𝜎 2 turb 1 3 𝜎 2 turb + 3 5 ⟨𝑐s⟩ 2 𝜌 . (12) where the factor of 1/3 is because we defined …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Top row:) Maps of ion volume density in the turbulence-dominated 𝑧 = 0.75 snapshot shown in Figs. 1–2, for Mg+ (left), O++ (middle-left), C3+ (middle-right), and O5+ (right). (Middle row:) Ion density as a function of location along the mock sighline marked as a dashe…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: plots the evolution of 𝑊𝜆 versus lookback time. Each panel presents a different ion at two impact parameters (0.2𝑅vir in black and 0.5𝑅vir in red), where dots indicate individual mock sightlines (five per snapshot), while lines and bands denote averages and dispersions…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Predicted evolution of mean absorption equivalent widths of UV absorption features at an impact parameter of 0.2𝑅vir, based on the m12i simulation. Absorption features are listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (Top:) Evolution of the mass fractions of different CGM phases at 𝑟 = 0.2𝑅vir, in three FIRE simulations of halos of different masses. The panels from left to right correspond to a group-size halo (‘m13A1’), a Milky Way-mass galaxy (‘m12b’), and a dwarf galaxy (‘m11d’)…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Evolution of mean 𝑊𝜆 at 𝑅⊥ = 0.2𝑅vir for the three simulations shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Observed Mg ii absorption at 𝑅⊥ = 0.2𝑅vir from blue ∼ 𝐿 ★ galaxies versus FIRE predictions. Solid colored lines show the evolution of the mean Mg ii equivalent width ⟨𝑊2796 + 𝑊2803 ⟩ in five simulated ∼ 𝐿 ★ galaxies. Thicker segments of each curve indicate pre-ICV ( 𝑓…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Observed Mg ii absorption in dwarf galaxies (left) and in LRGs (right) versus FIRE predictions. Solid lines show predicted ⟨𝑊2796+2803 ⟩ at 𝑅⊥ = 0.2𝑅vir, with thicker segments corresponding to pre-ICV ( 𝑓cool > 0.5, turbulence-dominated) times. m11d remains turbulence…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The difference in predicted Mg ii equivalent width between turbulence-dominated and thermal energy-dominated inner CGM, versus impact parameter. Solid lines and shaded regions represent the mean and scatter of sightlines through the 𝑧 = 0.5 snapshot (blue, turbulence-…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. SPURS: Massive Stars, Dense Gas, and Ly$\alpha$ Escape in GN-z11 at $z = 10.6$

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

    GN-z11's rest-UV spectrum shows young massive stars with very massive star winds, dense gas, and a broad red Ly alpha wing that may help Ly alpha escape the largely neutral early universe.

  2. Project AMIGA: The Inner Circumgalactic Medium of Andromeda from Thick Disk to Halo

    astro-ph.GA 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    New ultraviolet spectra behind Andromeda reveal a corotating thick disk within 30 kpc and a radially stratified inner circumgalactic medium with no detected azimuthal dependence.

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

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

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

  4. Hot accretion onto spiral galaxies: the origin of extended and warped HI discs

    astro-ph.GA 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Tilted rotation of a hot galaxy halo makes inflowing gas cool into a large, warped neutral-hydrogen disc, explaining extended and warped HI around spirals and the 'HI desert'.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

125 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    W., Bryan G

    Abruzzo M. W., Bryan G. L., Fielding D. B., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3c48 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...925..199A 925, 199

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3c48 2022

  2. [2]

    Afruni A., Fraternali F., Pezzulli G., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3759 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.5575A 501, 5575

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3759 2021

  3. [3]

    Afruni A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347867 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...680A.112A 680, A112

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347867 2023

  4. [4]

    Aghanim P. C. N., Akrami Y., Ashdown M., et al., 2018, @doi [A&A, A6, 641] https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833910e

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910e 2018

  5. [5]

    Anand A., Nelson D., Kauffmann G., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab871 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504...65A 504, 65

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab871 2021

  6. [6]

    E., Churazov E., Bregman J

    Anderson M. E., Churazov E., Bregman J. N., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2314 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455..227A 455, 227

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2314 2016

  7. [7]

    Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar D., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Quataert E., 2017, @doi [MNRAS, 472, L109] https://doi.org/10.1093/mnrasl/slx161

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slx161 2017

  8. [8]

    H., Hearin A

    Behroozi P., Wechsler R. H., Hearin A. P., Conroy C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1182 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.3143B 488, 3143

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1182 2019

Show all 125 references
  1. [9]

    Bhattarai B., Loebman S., Ness M., Cunningham E., Wetzel A., Benincasa S., 2022, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 54

    2022

  2. [10]

    Birnboim Y., Dekel A., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06955.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.345..349B 345, 349

    2003

  3. [11]

    V., Werk J

    Bish H. V., Werk J. K., Peek J., Zheng Y., Putman M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abeb6b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...912....8B 912, 8

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    Bordoloi R., et al., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal, 743, 10] https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/743/1/10

    2011 doi

  5. [13]

    Bordoloi R., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...796..136B 796, 136

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    V., Chelouche D., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/727/1/47 , 727, 47

    Bowen D. V., Chelouche D., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/727/1/47 , 727, 47

    2010 doi

  7. [16]

    G., Schaye J., Frenk C

    Bower R. G., Schaye J., Frenk C. S., Theuns T., Schaller M., Crain R. A., McAlpine S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2735 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465...32B 465, 32

    2017 doi

  8. [17]

    N., Anderson M

    Bregman J. N., Anderson M. E., Miller M. J., Hodges-Kluck E., Dai X., Li J.-T., Li Y., Qu Z., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aacafe , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...862....3B 862, 3

    2018 doi

  9. [18]

    N., Hodges-Kluck E., Qu Z., Pratt C., Li J.-T., Yun Y., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac51de , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...928...14B 928, 14

    Bregman J. N., Hodges-Kluck E., Qu Z., Pratt C., Li J.-T., Yun Y., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac51de , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...928...14B 928, 14

    2022 doi

  10. [19]

    L., Norman M

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

    1998 doi

  11. [20]

    Buck T., Pfrommer C., Pakmor R., Grand R. J. J., Springel V., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1960 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497.1712B 497, 1712

    2020 doi

  12. [21]

    S., Quinn T

    Butsky I. S., Quinn T. R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaeac2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...868..108B 868, 108

    2018 doi

  13. [22]

    S., Fielding D

    Butsky I. S., Fielding D. B., Hayward C. C., Hummels C. B., Quinn T. R., Werk J. K., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abbad2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...903...77B 903, 77

    2020 doi

  14. [23]

    S., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7ebd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935...69B 935, 69

    Butsky I. S., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7ebd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935...69B 935, 69

    2022 doi

  15. [24]

    B., Hopkins P

    Byrne L., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Stern J., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar D., Wellons S., Gurvich A. B., Hopkins P. F., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad171 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.tmp..182B

    2023 doi

  16. [25]

    Chatzikos M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.22201/ia.01851101p.2023.59.02.12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023RMxAA..59..327C 59, 327

    2023 doi

  17. [26]

    E., Gauthier J.-R., Shectman S

    Chen H.-W., Helsby J. E., Gauthier J.-R., Shectman S. A., Thompson I. B., Tinker J. L., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/714/2/1521 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...714.1521C 714, 1521

    2010 doi

  18. [27]

    Chen H.-W., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acf85b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...955L..25C 955, L25

    2023 doi

  19. [28]

    Cherrey M., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451165 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...694A.117C 694, A117

    2025 doi

  20. [30]

    DeFelippis D., Bournaud F., Bouch \'e N., Tollet E., Farcy M., Rey M., Rosdahl J., Blaizot J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae837 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530...52D 530, 52

    2024 doi

  21. [31]

    Dekel A., Birnboim Y., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10145.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.368....2D 368, 2

    2006

  22. [32]

    T., 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium

    Draine B. T., 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691122144/physics-of-the-interstellar-and-intergalactic-medium

    2011

  23. [33]

    S., Sharma P., Ghosh R., Roy M., Nath B

    Dutta A., Bisht M. S., Sharma P., Ghosh R., Roy M., Nath B. B., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae977 , 531, 5117

    2024 doi

  24. [34]

    A., Macci \`o A

    Dutton A. A., Macci \`o A. V., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu742 , 441, 3359

    2014 doi

  25. [35]

    El-Badry K., Quataert E., Wetzel A., 2018, @doi [MNRAS, 473, 1930] https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx2482

    2018 doi

  26. [36]

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

    2018 doi

  27. [37]

    F., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7ffc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...893...82F 893, 82

    Faerman Y., Sternberg A., McKee C. F., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7ffc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...893...82F 893, 82

    2020 doi

  28. [38]

    P., 2023, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-125203 , 61, 131

    Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Oh S. P., 2023, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-125203 , 61, 131

    2023 doi

  29. [39]

    Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Lidz A., Zaldarriaga M., Hernquist L., 2009, @doi [PASP, 703, 1416] https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1416

    2009 doi

  30. [40]

    J., Korista K

    Ferland G. J., Korista K. T., Verner D. A., 1998, @doi [PASP, 110, 761] https://doi.org/10.1086/316190

    1998 doi

  31. [41]

    J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.1705.10877 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017RMxAA..53..385F 53, 385

    Ferland G. J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.1705.10877 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017RMxAA..53..385F 53, 385

    2017 doi arXiv

  32. [42]

    A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3326 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466.3810F 466, 3810

    Fielding D., Quataert E., McCourt M., Thompson T. A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3326 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466.3810F 466, 3810

    2017 doi

  33. [43]

    B., Ostriker E

    Fielding D. B., Ostriker E. C., Bryan G. L., Jermyn A. S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8d2c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...894L..24F 894, L24

    2020 doi

  34. [44]

    Garrison-Kimmel S., et al., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx1710 , 471, 1709

    2017 doi

  35. [45]

    Garrison-Kimmel S., et al., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz1317 , 487, 1380

    2019 doi

  36. [46]

    L., Werk J

    Garza S. L., Werk J. K., Berg T. A. M., Faerman Y., Oppenheimer B. D., Bordoloi R., Ellison S. L., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2412.12302 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241212302G p. arXiv:2412.12302

    2024 doi arXiv

  37. [47]

    Gnat O., Sternberg A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/509786 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..168..213G 168, 213

    2007 doi

  38. [48]

    P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly131 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480L.111G 480, L111

    Gronke M., Oh S. P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly131 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480L.111G 480, L111

    2018 doi

  39. [49]

    P., Ji S., Norman C., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3351 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511..859G 511, 859

    Gronke M., Oh S. P., Ji S., Norman C., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3351 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511..859G 511, 859

    2022 doi

  40. [50]

    B., et al., 2023, @doi [MNRAS, 519, 2] https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac3712

    Gurvich A. B., et al., 2023, @doi [MNRAS, 519, 2] https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac3712

    2023 doi

  41. [51]

    Haardt F., Madau P., 2012, @doi [ApJ, 746, 125] 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/125

    2012 doi

  42. [52]

    Hafen Z., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1603 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.5056H 514, 5056

    2022 doi

  43. [53]

    C., Ma X., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar D., Cochrane R

    Holguin F., Hayward C. C., Ma X., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar D., Cochrane R. K., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2405.13110 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240513110H p. arXiv:2405.13110

    2024 doi arXiv

  44. [54]

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

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

    2015 doi

  45. [55]

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

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

    2017 doi

  46. [56]

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

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

    2013 doi

  47. [57]

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

    Hopkins P. F., Kere s D., O \ n orbe J., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Quataert E., Murray N., Bullock J. S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1738 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445..581H 445, 581

    2014 doi

  48. [58]

    F., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1690 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480..800H 480, 800

    Hopkins P. F., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1690 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480..800H 480, 800

    2018 doi

  49. [59]

    F., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3321 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.3465H 492, 3465

    Hopkins P. F., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3321 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.3465H 492, 3465

    2020 doi

  50. [60]

    F., Squire J., Chan T

    Hopkins P. F., Squire J., Chan T. K., Quataert E., Ji S., Kere s D., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3691 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.4184H 501, 4184

    2021 doi

  51. [61]

    F., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3489 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.3154H 519, 3154

    Hopkins P. F., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3489 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.3154H 519, 3154

    2023 doi

  52. [62]

    D., Weiner B

    Huang Y.-H., Chen H.-W., Johnson S. D., Weiner B. J., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv2327 , 455, 1713

    2015 doi

  53. [63]

    A., Johnson S

    Huang Y.-H., Chen H.-W., Shectman S. A., Johnson S. D., Zahedy F. S., Helsby J. E., Gauthier J.-R., Thompson I. B., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 502, 4743-4761] https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab360

    2021 doi

  54. [64]

    B., Smith B

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

    2017 doi

  55. [65]

    B., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab378f10.48550/arXiv.1811.12410 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...882..156H 882, 156

    Hummels C. B., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab378f10.48550/arXiv.1811.12410 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...882..156H 882, 156

    2019 doi arXiv

  56. [66]

    Ji S., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1849 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496.4221J 496, 4221

    2020 doi

  57. [67]

    K., Stern J., Hummels C

    Ji S., Kere s D., Chan T. K., Stern J., Hummels C. B., Hopkins P. F., Quataert E., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1264 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505..259J 505, 259

    2021 doi

  58. [68]

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

    Johnson S. D., Chen H.-W., Mulchaey J. S., Schaye J., Straka L. A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9370 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...850L..10J 850, L10

    2017 doi

  59. [69]

    A., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...758..106K 758, 106

    Kassin S. A., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...758..106K 758, 106

    2012 doi

  60. [71]

    R., Knebe A., 2009, @doi [ApJS, 182, 608] https://doi.org/10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/608

    Knollmann S. R., Knebe A., 2009, @doi [ApJS, 182, 608] https://doi.org/10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/608

    2009 doi

  61. [72]

    Kroupa P., 2001, @doi [MNRAS, 322, 231] https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    2001

  62. [73]

    R., 2014, @doi [Physics Reports, 539, 49] 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.02.001

    Krumholz M. R., 2014, @doi [Physics Reports, 539, 49] 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.02.001

    2014 doi

  63. [74]

    Lan T.-W., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab989a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...897...97L 897, 97

    2020 doi

  64. [75]

    Lan T.-W., Fukugita M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa93eb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...850..156L 850, 156

    2017 doi

  65. [76]

    Lan T.-W., Mo H., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal, 866, 36] https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aadc08

    2018 doi

  66. [77]

    Lan T.-W., M \'e nard B., Zhu G., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...795...31L 795, 31

    2014 doi

  67. [78]

    Lehner N., et al., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal, 900, 9] https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aba49c

    2020 doi

  68. [79]

    arXiv:2506.16573

    Lehner N., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2506.16573 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250616573L p. arXiv:2506.16573

    2025 doi arXiv

  69. [80]

    D., 1999, @doi [ApJS, 123, 3] https://doi.org/10.1086/313233

    Leitherer C., Schaerer D., Goldader J. D., 1999, @doi [ApJS, 123, 3] https://doi.org/10.1086/313233

    1999 doi

  70. [81]

    Li F., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3322 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.500.1038L 500, 1038

    2021 doi

  71. [82]

    J., Chen H.-W., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1901 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.2061L 445, 2061

    Liang C. J., Chen H.-W., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1901 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.2061L 445, 2061

    2014 doi

  72. [83]

    L., Li Y., Li M., Fielding D., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa358 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.1461L 493, 1461

    Lochhaas C., Bryan G. L., Li Y., Li M., Fielding D., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa358 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.1461L 493, 1461

    2020 doi

  73. [84]

    Lopez S., et al., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 4442-4461] https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz3183

    2020 doi

  74. [85]

    D., Charlton J

    Manuwal A., Narayanan A., Udhwani P., Srianand R., Savage B. D., Charlton J. C., Misawa T., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1556 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.3635M 505, 3635

    2021 doi

  75. [86]

    P., O'Leary R., Madigan A.-M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2687 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.5407M 473, 5407

    McCourt M., Oh S. P., O'Leary R., Madigan A.-M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2687 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.5407M 473, 5407

    2018 doi

  76. [87]

    Mo H., Chen Y., Wang H., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1727 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.3808M 532, 3808

    2024 doi

  77. [88]

    Mortensen K., C. K. V. G., Jones T., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Sanders R. L., Ellis R. S., Leethochawalit N., Stark D. P., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal, 914, 92] https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abfa11

    2021 doi

  78. [89]

    M., Churchill C

    Nielsen N. M., Churchill C. W., Kacprzak G. G., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/115 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...776..115N 776, 115

    2013 doi

  79. [90]

    F., Faerman Y., Genel S., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.09476

    Oren Y., Sternberg A., McKee C. F., Faerman Y., Genel S., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.09476

    2024 doi arXiv

  80. [91]

    Pandya V., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf3ea , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...956..118P 956, 118

    2023 doi

  81. [92]

    S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab065410.48550/arXiv.1810.06566 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...873..129P 873, 129

    Peeples M. S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab065410.48550/arXiv.1810.06566 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...873..129P 873, 129

    2019

  82. [93]

    Pezzulli G., Fraternali F., Binney J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx029 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467..311P 467, 311

    2017 doi

  83. [94]

    X., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311849 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...511L..71P 511, L71

    Prochaska J. X., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311849 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...511L..71P 511, L71

    1999 doi

  84. [95]

    Ramesh R., Nelson D., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae237 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.3320R 528, 3320

    2024 doi

  85. [96]

    J., Ostriker J

    Rees M. J., Ostriker J. P., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/179.4.541 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977MNRAS.179..541R 179, 541

    1977 doi

  86. [97]

    L., Corlies L., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2641 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456..582S 456, 582

    Salem M., Bryan G. L., Corlies L., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2641 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456..582S 456, 582

    2016 doi

  87. [98]

    V., Navarro J

    Sales L. V., Navarro J. F., Theuns T., Schaye J., White S. D. M., Frenk C. S., Crain R. A., Dalla Vecchia C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20975.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.423.1544S 423, 1544

    2012

  88. [99]

    Samuel J., et al., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz3054 , 491, 1471

    2020 doi

  89. [100]

    Schroetter I., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1447 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506.1355S 506, 1355

    2021 doi

  90. [101]

    Silk J., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1086/154972 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJ...211..638S 211, 638

    1977 doi

  91. [102]

    T., Faerman Y., Stern J., Nagai D., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1695 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.3222S 532, 3222

    Singh P., Lau E. T., Faerman Y., Stern J., Nagai D., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1695 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.3222S 532, 3222

    2024 doi

  92. [104]

    C., Sobacchi E., Pezzulli G., Binney J., Klessen R

    Sormani M. C., Sobacchi E., Pezzulli G., Binney J., Klessen R. S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2500 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.3370S 481, 3370

    2018 doi

  93. [105]

    Spitzer Lyman J., 1956, @doi [ ] 10.1086/146200 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1956ApJ...124...20S 124, 20

    1956 doi

  94. [106]

    Springel V., 2005, @doi [MNRAS, 364, 1105] https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x

    2005

  95. [107]

    F., Prochaska J

    Stern J., Hennawi J. F., Prochaska J. X., Werk J. K., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/87 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...830...87S 830, 87

    2016 doi

  96. [108]

    Stern J., Fielding D., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Quataert E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1859 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.2549S 488, 2549

    2019 doi

  97. [109]

    Stern J., Fielding D., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Quataert E., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa198 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.6042S 492, 6042

    2020 doi

  98. [110]

    Stern J., et al., 2021b, @doi [MNRAS, 507, 2869] https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab2240

    doi

  99. [111]

    Stern J., et al., 2021a, @doi [ApJ, 911, 88] 10.3847/1538-4357/abd776

    doi

  100. [112]

    Stern J., Fielding D., Hafen Z., Su K.-Y., Naor N., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Quataert E., Bullock J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae824 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.1711S 530, 1711

    2024 doi

  101. [113]

    arXiv:2410.16359

    Sultan I., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Stern J., Rotshtein S., Byrne L., Wijers N., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.16359 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241016359S p. arXiv:2410.16359

    2024 doi arXiv

  102. [114]

    The yt Project 2025, yt: Pythonic data analysis and visualization for astrophysical simulation data, https://yt-project.org/doc/index.html

    2025

  103. [115]

    Theuns T., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3412 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.500.2741T 500, 2741

    2021 doi

  104. [116]

    L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1692 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506..323T 506, 323

    Tiley A. L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1692 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506..323T 506, 323

    2021 doi

  105. [117]

    Trident 2025, Trident Documentation, https://trident.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

    2025

  106. [118]

    S., Werk J

    Tumlinson J., Peeples M. S., Werk J. K., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055240 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ARA&A..55..389T 55, 389

    2017 doi

  107. [119]

    J., Smith B

    Turk M. J., Smith B. D., Oishi J. S., Skory S., Skillman S., Abel T., Norman M. L., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9 , 192, 9

    2011 doi

  108. [120]

    K., Prochaska J

    Werk J. K., Prochaska J. X., Thom C., Tumlinson J., Tripp T. M., O'Meara J. M., Peeples M. S., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement, 204, 17] https://doi.org/10.1088/0067-0049/204/2/17

    2013 doi

  109. [121]

    R., Hopkins P

    Wetzel A. R., Hopkins P. F., Kim J.-h., 2016, @doi [ApJL, 827, L23] https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8205/827/2/L23

    2016 doi

  110. [122]

    White S. D. M., Frenk C. S., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170483 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...379...52W 379, 52

    1991 doi

  111. [123]

    White S. D. M., Rees M. J., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/183.3.341 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978MNRAS.183..341W 183, 341

    1978 doi

  112. [124]

    Wiersma R. P. C., Schaye J., Smith B. D., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14191.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.393...99W 393, 99

    2009

  113. [125]

    Wu X., et al., 2024, @doi [eprint arXiv:2407.17809] https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.17809

    2024 doi arXiv

  114. [126]

    arXiv:2103.03888

    Yu S., et al., 2021, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210303888Y p. arXiv:2103.03888

    2021 arXiv

  115. [127]

    Yu S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1806 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.6220Y 523, 6220

    2023 doi

  116. [128]

    F., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Feldmann R., Kere s D., Chan T

    van de Voort F., Quataert E., Hopkins P. F., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Feldmann R., Kere s D., Chan T. K., Hafen Z., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2322 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.463.4533V 463, 4533

    2016 doi

  117. [129]

    C., Pakmor R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly19010.48550/arXiv.1808.04369 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482L..85V 482, L85

    van de Voort F., Springel V., Mandelker N., van den Bosch F. C., Pakmor R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly19010.48550/arXiv.1808.04369 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482L..85V 482, L85

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.