Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Understanding gas mixing in the circumgalactic medium

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a simulated Milky Way-mass halo, local velocity dispersion and pure-shear deformation determine how far and in which direction circumgalactic gas mixes.

desk verdict A careful tracer-dye study of CGM mixing; the correlations are plausible and useful for calibrating subgrid models, but the robustness claim rests on a resolution comparison that does not fully rule out numerical diffusion driving the ranking. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21980 v2 pith:VLVH35YQ submitted 2025-05-28 astro-ph.GA

Hilay Shah , Freeke van de Voort , Amit Seta , Christoph Federrath This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords circumgalacticmediumgasmixingturbulentdiffusionvelocitydispersionsheartensorSmagorinskymodelcosmologicalzoom-insimulationspassivetracerdyes
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper aims to identify which local gas properties control how much and in which direction gas mixes in the circumgalactic medium (CGM) of a Milky Way-mass galaxy. Using cosmological magnetohydrodynamic zoom-in simulations with tracer dyes injected in 95 diverse CGM environments, the authors show that after 200 Myr the extent of dye spread is best predicted by velocity dispersion and the magnitude of the traceless symmetric shear tensor measured in small (≤5 kpc) regions, while the shape of the mixed dye aligns best with the dispersion of stretching and plane-of-rotation eigenvectors in larger (≥10 kpc) regions. The paper uses these correlations to calibrate diffusion constants for subgrid mixing models, finding a nearly linear (n≈1.1) power-law relation between diffusion coefficient and velocity dispersion, consistent with superdiffusive mixing. If correct, these results give simulation codes a direct, physically motivated way to model metal, heat, and magnetic-field diffusion in the CGM.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the tracer dyes, passive scalars injected into single cells and advected with the flow, and the velocity-gradient decomposition into symmetric (strain), traceless symmetric (pure shear), and antisymmetric (vorticity) tensors derived from the velocity field's partial derivatives. Eigenvectors of the traceless symmetric tensor define stretching/compression directions; the antisymmetric tensor's eigenvector gives the plane of rotation. The paper correlates dye spread magnitude and direction with these tensor statistics and velocity dispersion at multiple box sizes and times, and fits power-law and scaling-constant relations to convert the correlation into diffusion coefficients usable in subgrid models.

What would settle it

A higher-resolution simulation (e.g., ~300 pc or better in the same halo) that reduces numerical diffusion while keeping the same physics: if the Spearman correlations between velocity dispersion/shear and dye spread drop significantly or change ranking compared to the 1 kpc run, the claim that fixed resolution preserves relative mixing rates would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the local velocity structure, specifically the velocity dispersion and the pure-shear (traceless symmetric) part of the velocity gradient tensor, determines both how far and in which direction gas from a point source mixes. Extent after 200 Myr correlates most strongly (Spearman r_s≈0.86–0.87) with velocity dispersion and |S*_ij| in 5 kpc regions around the injection site, with the correlation peaking ~70–120 Myr after injection, implying a delay in the transfer of local shear to mixing. The direction of spread aligns best (≈70% of dyes within 9.6°) with the dispersion of the stretching eigenvector of the traceless symmetric shear tensor and the plane-of-rotation eigenvector of the antisymmetric (vorticity) tensor evaluated in ≥10 kpc boxes. The derived subgrid calibration constants—scaling constant C≈0.1–0.6 and Smagorinsky constant C_s≈0.2–0.4—match values used in SPH subgrid models, and the dye spread grows as t^β with β≈1.06, indicating superdiffusive/hyperballistic mixing over the 200 Myr window.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the relative ranking of mixing rates across different CGM environments is preserved even though numerical diffusion dominates the total mixing at the 1 kpc resolution used, so a 2 kpc comparison run is treated as sufficient to establish robustness without a higher-resolution run that actually reduces numerical diffusion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Subgrid mixing models in SPH and other codes can calibrate diffusivity using velocity dispersion and |S*_ij|, with C≈0.1–0.6 and C_s≈0.2–0.4, rather than assuming universal constants.
  • The diffusion coefficient scales nearly linearly (n≈1.1) with velocity dispersion, implying a dynamic, time-dependent diffusivity rather than a constant.
  • Mixing is superdiffusive/hyperballistic over 200 Myr, so constant diffusion coefficients underestimate mixing on CGM timescales.
  • The radial decrease in velocity dispersion implies less mixing at larger galactocentric radii, affecting metal and magnetic field distribution in the CGM.
  • Resolving outer CGM turbulence requires a few hundred pc resolution (vs current 1 kpc), providing a target for future simulations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The correlation framework could be tested observationally by comparing CGM metal distribution with velocity dispersion maps inferred from absorption-line kinematics.
  • The ~100 Myr delay between shear and maximum correlation suggests that mixing models might need a time-lag or memory term, not just an instantaneous diffusivity.
  • If numerical diffusion dominates absolute mixing, the derived constants may be numerical rather than physical; higher-resolution runs could reveal whether C and C_s converge to the same values.
  • The same dye method could be applied to ram-pressure stripping or satellite wakes to test whether the same shear statistics predict mixing in other environments.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses Arepo zoom-in simulations of a Milky Way-mass halo at 1 kpc and 2 kpc resolution, injects passive dye scalars at 95 CGM locations, and correlates the dye spread extent and shape at 200 Myr with local gas properties. It reports that velocity dispersion and traceless symmetric shear magnitude in small regions (≤ 5 kpc) best predict the extent, while the dispersion of stretching and plane-of-rotation eigenvectors in larger regions (≥ 10 kpc) best predicts the shape. It derives diffusion calibration constants C ≈ 0.09–0.7, Cs ≈ 0.2–0.4, a nearly linear power-law exponent n ≈ 1.1 for the diffusion coefficient versus velocity dispersion, and a superdiffusive temporal scaling. The paper acknowledges that numerical diffusion significantly affects the absolute mixing and that the resolution is insufficient to resolve the turbulent cascade, but it claims the correlation results are robust because the spatial resolution is fixed throughout the CGM.

Significance. If the correlation result is trustworthy, the paper provides practical calibration constants for subgrid-scale mixing models in SPH and moving-mesh codes, with C and Cs values consistent with literature ranges. The dye-injection methodology and the explicit treatment of different CGM flow environments are strengths, as is the transparent acknowledgment of numerical diffusion and the Reynolds-number analysis. However, the central quantitative claims—especially the n ≈ 1.1 scaling and the robustness statement—rest on an untested assumption about numerical diffusivity, so the significance is conditional on a stronger resolution or numerical-diffusion test.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.5, Fig. 12] The claim that fixed spatial resolution makes the correlation results robust is not tested by the 1 kpc versus 2 kpc comparison. Both runs are in the numerically diffusive regime: the paper states that gas mixing at these resolutions is significantly affected by numerical diffusion, and Fig. 12 shows that the dye spread doubles when going from 1 kpc to 2 kpc. In a moving-mesh code, numerical diffusivity is not a function of cell size alone; it depends on local velocity jumps, mesh motion, and concentration gradients, and it can plausibly increase with the same velocity dispersion and shear that the paper identifies as physical predictors. The offered test shows only that the correlations survive when numerical diffusion is stronger; it does not show they survive when numerical diffusion is weaker. A higher-resolution run (for example, a few hundred pc in the outer CGM, which Section 3.6 identifies as the required resolution) or a quantitative estimate of the numerical diffusivity contribution is needed to support the robustness claim.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (6)–(8), Fig. 8] The diffusion coefficient is defined from the same dye spread Δ_dye that is used to fit the power law and to compute C and Cs. The paper correctly frames this as calibration rather than prediction, but the fitted exponent n ≈ 1.1 is therefore not an independent test of physical turbulent diffusion; it is a fit to the simulation's effective diffusivity, which includes a dominant numerical component at 1 kpc resolution. Without separating numerical from physical diffusion, the n ≈ 1.1 scaling may describe how numerical diffusivity scales with velocity dispersion rather than how CGM turbulent mixing scales. The statement in Section 4, point (iii), that the exponent is 'robust to changes in resolution' is supported only by the 1 kpc versus 2 kpc comparison, which does not reduce numerical diffusivity.
  3. [Section 3.5 and Table 4] The superdiffusion/hyperballistic conclusion is based on power-law exponents β = 1.06, 1.16, and 1.63, but the simulations are in a regime where numerical diffusion is significant, and the paper itself lists numerical diffusion as a possible cause of the superdiffusive behaviour. The spread in β across resolutions and injection sizes is large, and the average is skewed by outliers (β > 4 for a few dyes). Without a demonstration that β converges as numerical diffusion is reduced, the abstract's statement that the linear temporal dependence 'suggests superdiffusion in the CGM' is not established. The caution later in the text that the behaviour may not apply to the general CGM is welcome but is in tension with the abstract's unqualified claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction, paragraph 4] The word 'resollution' should be 'resolution' in the sentence about stellar mass and H I column densities changing with resolution.
  2. [Section 2.2] The phrase 'the the dye both advects and diffuses' contains a duplicated article and should read 'the dye both advects and diffuses'.
  3. [Section 3.5, first paragraph] The text 'standard + 2kpcsspatial refinement' contains a typo ('kpcss') and should be 'standard + 2 kpc spatial refinement'.
  4. [Section 3.2, Eq. (6)] The notation Δ_dye is used elsewhere in the paper for the 1st–99th percentile spread, but in Section 3.2 it is redefined as the standard deviation for the diffusion calculation; this change of definition should be flagged more prominently to avoid confusion.
  5. [Acknowledgements] The acknowledgements thank the referee by name ('our referee, Douglas Rennehan'); this is unconventional in a submitted manuscript and should be removed or anonymized before publication.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity in the central correlation analysis; the diffusion calibration constants are self-referential fits, but the paper transparently treats them as calibration.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2, Equations (6)-(8), Figure 8]
    "With our tracer dyes, we can calculate the average diffusion coefficient over T (Myr) as ⟨DC⟩T=|Δdye|2/T ... where we substitute T = 200 Myr ... Assuming a power-law dependence of the diffusion coefficient on the velocity dispersion, we determine the power-law exponent to be n≈1.1 ... C=|Δdye|2/(200 Myr σvel lturb) ... Cs2=|Δdye|2/(200 Myr |S∗ij|l2turb)."

    Equations (7) and (8) are algebraic rearrangements of Equation (6), using the same measured dye spread |Δdye| after 200 Myr. The derived scaling constants C and Cs, as well as the power-law exponent n, are therefore fits to the same data they are used to parameterize, rather than independent predictions. The agreement with literature values is a consistency check, not an independent validation. This is a minor self-referential calibration step; it does not invalidate the separate correlation analysis, which compares the measured dye spread with independently computed velocity-dispersion and shear statistics.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical correlation study: tracer dyes are advected in a simulated CGM, and the measured dye-spread magnitude and direction are compared with independently computed velocity dispersion, shear tensors, magnetic fields, and other gas properties. Those predictors are not constructed from the dye spread, so the Spearman correlations in Sections 3.1 and 3.3 are descriptive statistics, not circular derivations. The robustness claim regarding fixed spatial resolution is a numerical-convergence concern rather than a circularity, and the paper explicitly acknowledges that the absolute amount of mixing is not converged and is significantly affected by numerical diffusion. The only self-referential element is in Section 3.2, where the 'actual diffusion coefficient' is defined directly from the measured dye spread and then used to derive the scaling constants C and Cs. This is a calibration procedure, transparently presented as such, and the resulting constants are compared with external literature values (Clark et al. 1979; Garnier et al. 2009; Shen et al. 2010; Wadsley et al. 2017). No load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem appears. Overall circularity is minor, so the score is set to 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central analysis rests on standard passive-tracer methodology and on the assumption that the fixed-resolution simulation preserves relative mixing trends despite substantial numerical diffusion. The free parameters reflect the post hoc choice of the turbulent length scale and the fitted power-law relation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • lturb = 5 kpc
    Chosen as the turbulent length scale for estimating diffusion coefficients in Eqs. 7 and 8. It is selected based on where the correlation between dye spread and velocity dispersion is maximal (Figure 7), making it a data-informed choice that directly affects the derived C and Cs values.
  • Power-law amplitude a and exponent n = a = 0.9 ± 0.3, n = 1.12 ± 0.09
    Fit to the diffusion coefficient versus velocity dispersion relation in Figure 8. These are results of the paper, but the central claim of nearly linear scaling depends on this fit.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The dye is a passive scalar that does not affect gas dynamics.
    Invoked in Section 2.2 where dye is initialized with a scalar value and advects with the fluid. Standard for tracer studies, but assumes no back-reaction on the flow.
  • domain assumption The arepo moving-mesh code's implicit mixing model represents the relevant subgrid physics.
    The paper relies on arepo's implicit numerical diffusion to model mixing, as stated in the Introduction. This is a fundamental assumption for interpreting the dye spread as physical mixing.
  • ad hoc to paper Fixed spatial resolution preserves the relative ordering of mixing rates across environments.
    The authors argue that because resolution is fixed at 1 kpc throughout the CGM, the correlation results are robust even though numerical diffusion is significant. This is the key assumption underlying the validity of the central claim, as discussed in Section 3.5.
  • domain assumption Velocity dispersion scales as l^0.4-0.6 for the CGM turbulence.
    Used in Section 3.4 to interpret the box-size dependence of velocity dispersion and to compare with supersonic turbulence expectations. This is a physical scaling law drawn from turbulence theory.
  • domain assumption Effective numerical Reynolds number scales as N_grid^(4/3).
    Assumed in Section 3.6 to estimate the numerical Reynolds number from the number of grid cells. This is an approximation from the literature on numerical viscosity in grid-based simulations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Understanding gas mixing in the circumgalactic medium." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VLVH35YQ

@misc{pith2026250521980,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Understanding gas mixing in the circumgalactic medium},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VLVH35YQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21980}
}
read the original abstract

We study gas mixing in a simulated Milky Way-mass galaxy's circumgalactic medium (CGM) using cosmological `zoom-in' simulations. We insert tracer dyes in the CGM with different gas flows (shearing, coherent, and static) and diverse physical properties to track gas mixing. We correlate the extent and shape of the dye spread with the local gas properties to understand gas mixing. Velocity dispersion and traceless symmetric shear tensors (pure shear deformation) in small regions (<= 5 kpc) around the dye injection locations best predict the dye spread extent after 200 Myr. We use this to determine diffusion calibration constants for subgrid-scale mixing models. While the dye shape after 200 Myr aligns well with the velocity dispersion and magnetic field dispersion, the best alignment occurs with the dispersion of stretching eigenvectors (traceless symmetric shear tensor) and plane-of-rotation (antisymmetric shear or vorticity tensor) in large regions (10 kpc) around the dye injection locations. Therefore, shear statistics and velocity dispersion best predict the extent and shape of mixed gas. The linear temporal dependence of the dye spread suggests superdiffusion in the CGM, potentially due to turbulent and large-scale coherent flows or numerical diffusion. Despite significant numerical mixing from our 1 kpc resolution (insufficient to resolve Reynolds numbers ~10^2-10^3, which require a few hundred pc resolution), our correlation results are robust thanks to fixed spatial resolution throughout the CGM. These results can be used to predict diffusion coefficients to model magnetic field diffusion, heat transport, and metal mixing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21980 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: 10 kpc deep (along the line-of-sight) projection through the halo centre of the radial velocity with standard mass resolution + 1 kpc refinement in a box of 400 × 400 × 10 kpc. Right: Radial velocity of the voxelated (voxel size = 10 × 10 × 10 kpc) CGM in a 400 × 400 kpc image. The text in the centre of every voxel shows the flow type (see title) of the voxel based on its radial and total velocities (see subsu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top panels show edge-on (rotated such that the stellar disc is edge-on) gas projections centred on the main galaxy with 100 kpc depth and 400 kpc × 400 kpc width. From left to right, the panels show the radial velocity, hydrogen number density, magnetic field strength, kinetic energy density, metallicity, and temperature. The five numbers in the top panels show some locations of dye injection. The evolution of dye a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The probability density function of several volume-weighted gas properties of the CGM (orange) and the dye injection cells (blue) with logarithmic binning (bins=10). The text in every panel shows the standard deviation of the gas property values (in log10) for the dyed cells and the CGM (50 kpc < 𝑟 < 200 kpc). The standard deviation for the dyed cells is similar to that of the CGM for all gas properties, meaning tha… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Dye mass 200 Myr after dye injection along the three coordinate axes in a single dye region. The dashed lines represent the 1 st and 99th dye mass percentile. The width of the dashed lines (Δdye,x , Δdye,y , Δdye,z ) is the dye spread in the 𝑥, 𝑦, and 𝑧 directions, res…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The size of the dyed area after 200 Myr (|Δdye |) averaged over injection regions with the same dye colours (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The magnitude of dye spread after 200 Myr as a function of different gas properties averaged in a 10 kpc region around the dye injection locations at injection time. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (𝑟s) is shown in the panel titles. From left to right, the to…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Spearman rank coefficient (𝑟s) of the correlation between the magnitude of dye spread after 200 Myr and averaged gas properties in differently sized boxes (see legend) around the injected dye at each simulation output time. The error bars represent 1𝜎 confidence interv…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The top panel shows the average diffusion coefficients for dyes over 200 Myr, calculated as |Δdye | 2 /(200 Myr), as a function of velocity dispersion. The standard deviation definition of Δdye is used. Black lines show a power law fit (parameters mentioned in the titl…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The top panel shows the PDF of possible angles between two ran￾dom vectors in the positive 3D octant. The black curve shows an asymmetric beta function fit (for smoothing) to blue data points (generated using 105 uniformly-spaced random vector pairs). The bottom panel …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The percentage of dyes, Δ® dye, with the direction of dye spread (after 200 Myr) aligned within 9.6 ◦ of 𝜎®vel (top-left panel), 𝜎® 𝐵 (top-right panel), 𝜎®S∗,max (bottom-left panel) and 𝜎® Ω,sum (bottom-right panel), computed in different analysis box sizes as per the…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Velocity dispersion as a function of distance from the galactic centre (𝑟). Three different characteristic length scales/diameters of the spher￾ical regions (5, 10, 20 kpc) are used to calculate 𝜎vel by bootstrapping 100 samples of 100 data points at each 𝑟. The shade…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The top panel shows the magnitude of spread for all dyes 200 Myr after injection in different simulations as a function of the average resolution of dyed cells (dye mass fraction > 10−7 ). Three different resolution simula￾tions – standard (mass refinement), standard …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Left axis (blue) shows the physical Re (solid) and numerical Re (dashed), and the right axis (red) shows the resolution required for the physical Re to be equal to numerical Re (essentially, resolve turbulence) as a function of distance from the centre (𝑟). The small …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Accurate Extragalactic Magnetic Fields from Faraday Rotation with Optimal Dispersion Measure Estimators

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

    Calibrated on MHD galaxy simulations, an EM-based power-law estimator converts Faraday rotation measures to magnetic field strengths with ~0.1 dex error.

  2. The Synthetic Absorption Line Spectral Almanac (SALSA)

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

    A new public library generates millions of mock quasar absorption spectra from cosmological simulations, using a novel mesh-free Voronoi ray-tracing algorithm.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

138 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    D., Vernstrom T., Gaensler B

    Amaral A. D., Vernstrom T., Gaensler B. M., 2021, @doi [mnras] 10.1093/mnras/stab564 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.tmp..583A

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab564 2021

  2. [2]

    K., Prochaska J

    Armillotta L., Fraternali F., Werk J. K., Prochaska J. X., Marinacci F., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx1239 , 470, 114–125

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1239 2017

  3. [3]

    Arámburo-García A., Bondarenko K., Boyarsky A., Neronov A., Scaife A., Sokolenko A., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac3728 , 519, 4030–4035

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3728 2023

  4. [4]

    G., 2008, Turbulence and Diffusion , @doi 10.1007/978-3-540-68222-6

    Bakunin O. G., 2008, Turbulence and Diffusion , @doi 10.1007/978-3-540-68222-6

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-68222-6 2008

  5. [5]

    E., Federrath C., Crocker R

    Banda-Barrag \'a n W. E., Federrath C., Crocker R. M., Bicknell G. V., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2541 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.3454B 473, 3454

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2541 2018

  6. [8]

    C., Fabian A

    Begelman M. C., Fabian A. C., 1990, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990MNRAS.244P..26B 244, 26P

    1990

  7. [9]

    S., Conroy C., Wechsler R

    Behroozi P. S., Conroy C., Wechsler R. H., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/379 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...717..379B 717, 379

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/717/1/379 2010

  8. [10]

    L., Miniati F., Lilly S

    Bernet M. L., Miniati F., Lilly S. J., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/2041-8205/772/2/l28 , 772, L28

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/772/2/l28 2013

Show all 138 references
  1. [11]

    Bigiel F., et al., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/2041-8205/730/2/l13 , 730, L13

    2011 doi

  2. [12]

    B\" o ckmann K., et al., 2023, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346777 , 678, A56

    2023 doi

  3. [13]

    Bouchaud J.-P., Georges A., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1016/0370-1573(90)90099-N , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990PhR...195..127B 195, 127

    1990 doi

  4. [14]

    Brandenburg A., Subramanian K., 2005, @doi [Physics Reports] 10.1016/j.physrep.2005.06.005 , 417, 1

    2005 doi

  5. [15]

    J., Mohammed A., 2004, @doi [Physics of Fluids] 10.1063/1.1651480 , 16, 1020–1027

    Brandenburg A., K\" a pyl\" a P. J., Mohammed A., 2004, @doi [Physics of Fluids] 10.1063/1.1651480 , 16, 1020–1027

    2004 doi

  6. [16]

    B., Stinson G., Gibson B

    Brook C. B., Stinson G., Gibson B. K., Shen S., Macci \`o A. V., Obreja A., Wadsley J., Quinn T., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1406 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.443.3809B 443, 3809

    2014 doi

  7. [17]

    Burnecki K., Kepten E., Garini Y., Sikora G., Weron A., 2015, @doi [Scientific Reports] 10.1038/srep11306 , 5

    2015 doi

  8. [18]

    Clarendon Press

    Chandrasekhar S., 1968, Hydrodynamic and hydromagnetic stability. Clarendon Press

    1968

  9. [19]

    R., Davé R., Brooks A., Quinn T., Shen S., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae374 , 867, 142

    Christensen C. R., Davé R., Brooks A., Quinn T., Shen S., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae374 , 867, 142

    2018 doi

  10. [20]

    A., Ferziger J

    Clark R. A., Ferziger J. H., Reynolds W. C., 1979, @doi [Journal of Fluid Mechanics] 10.1017/S002211207900001X , 91, 1–16

    1979 doi

  11. [21]

    J., Ma X., Hopkins P

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

    2017 doi

  12. [22]

    A., van de Voort F., 2023, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-041923-043618 , 61, 473–515

    Crain R. A., van de Voort F., 2023, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-041923-043618 , 61, 473–515

    2023 doi

  13. [23]

    E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2015.06.001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015NewAR..68....1D 68, 1

    Dale J. E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2015.06.001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015NewAR..68....1D 68, 1

    2015 doi

  14. [24]

    K., Gronke M., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad3125 , 527, 991–1013

    Das H. K., Gronke M., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad3125 , 527, 991–1013

    2023 doi

  15. [25]

    Das S., Mathur S., Gupta A., Krongold Y., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0e8e , 918, 83

    2021 doi

  16. [26]

    C., MacFadyen A

    Duffell P. C., MacFadyen A. I., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..197...15D 197, 15

    2011 doi

  17. [27]

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

    2018 doi

  18. [28]

    P., 2023, Key Physical Processes in the Circumgalactic Medium, @doi 10.48550/ARXIV.2301.10253 , https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.10253

    Faucher-Giguere C.-A., Oh S. P., 2023, Key Physical Processes in the Circumgalactic Medium, @doi 10.48550/ARXIV.2301.10253 , https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.10253

    2023 doi arXiv

  19. [29]

    P., 2023, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-125203 , 61, 131–195

    Faucher-Giguère C.-A., Oh S. P., 2023, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-125203 , 61, 131–195

    2023 doi

  20. [30]

    S., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637x/761/2/156 , 761, 156

    Federrath C., Klessen R. S., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637x/761/2/156 , 761, 156

    2012 doi

  21. [31]

    S., Schmidt W., Mac Low M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912437 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A

    Federrath C., Roman-Duval J., Klessen R. S., Schmidt W., Mac Low M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912437 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A

    2010 doi

  22. [32]

    S., Iapichino L., Beattie J

    Federrath C., Klessen R. S., Iapichino L., Beattie J. R., 2021, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-020-01282-z , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021NatAs...5..365F 5, 365

    2021 doi

  23. [33]

    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

  24. [34]

    J., Wakker B

    Fox A. J., Wakker B. P., Smoker J. V., Richter P., Savage B. D., Sembach K. R., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/718/2/1046 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...718.1046F 718, 1046

    2010 doi

  25. [35]

    Fukugita M., Peebles P. J. E., 2006, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/499556 , 639, 590–599

    2006 doi

  26. [36]

    J., Peebles P

    Fukugita M., Hogan C. J., Peebles P. J. E., 1998, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/306025 , 503, 518–530

    1998 doi

  27. [37]

    M., Madsen G

    Gaensler B. M., Madsen G. J., Chatterjee S., Mao S. A., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1071/AS08004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008PASA...25..184G 25, 184

    2008 doi

  28. [38]

    Springer Netherlands, @doi 10.1007/978-90-481-2819-8 , http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2819-8

    Garnier E., Adams N., Sagaut P., 2009, Large Eddy Simulation for Compressible Flows. Springer Netherlands, @doi 10.1007/978-90-481-2819-8 , http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2819-8

    2009 doi

  29. [39]

    H., 1991, @doi [Physics of Fluids A: Fluid Dynamics] 10.1063/1.857955 , 3, 1760

    Germano M., Piomelli U., Moin P., Cabot W. H., 1991, @doi [Physics of Fluids A: Fluid Dynamics] 10.1063/1.857955 , 3, 1760

    1991 doi

  30. [40]

    Grand R. J. J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx071 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467..179G 467, 179

    2017 doi

  31. [41]

    Grand R. J. J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2928 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490.4786G 490, 4786

    2019 doi

  32. [42]

    Grand R. J. J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2492 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507.4953G 507, 4953

    2021 doi

  33. [44]

    Gr nnow A., Tepper-Garc \' a T., Bland-Hawthorn J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aada0e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...865...64G 865, 64

    2018 doi

  34. [45]

    Y., 2022, meshoid: A meshless finite-volume code for hydrodynamics, https://github.com/mikegrudic/meshoid

    Grudi \'c M. Y., 2022, meshoid: A meshless finite-volume code for hydrodynamics, https://github.com/mikegrudic/meshoid

    2022

  35. [46]

    Hafen Z., et al., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa902 , 494, 3581–3595

    2020 doi

  36. [47]

    R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357–362

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357–362

    2020 doi

  37. [48]

    Heavens A., Panter B., Jimenez R., Dunlop J., 2004, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature02474 , 428, 625

    2004 doi

  38. [49]

    Heesen V., et al., 2023, @doi [Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346008 , 670, L23

    2023 doi

  39. [50]

    H., Brunt C

    Heyer M. H., Brunt C. M., 2004, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/425978 , 615, L45–L48

    2004 doi

  40. [51]

    F., et al., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty1690 , 480, 800–863

    Hopkins P. F., et al., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty1690 , 480, 800–863

    2018 doi

  41. [52]

    H., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3363 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.6091H 509, 6091

    Huang S., Katz N., Cottle J., Scannapieco E., Dav \'e R., Weinberg D. H., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3363 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.6091H 509, 6091

    2022 doi

  42. [53]

    B., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab378f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...882..156H 882, 156

    Hummels C. B., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab378f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...882..156H 882, 156

    2019 doi

  43. [54]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science &amp; Engineering] 10.1109/mcse.2007.55 , 9, 90–95

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science &amp; Engineering] 10.1109/mcse.2007.55 , 9, 90–95

    2007 doi

  44. [55]

    Ilievski E., De Nardis J., Gopalakrishnan S., Vasseur R., Ware B., 2021, @doi [Phys. Rev. X] 10.1103/PhysRevX.11.031023 , 11, 031023

    2021 doi

  45. [56]

    S., Sijacki D., Dubois Y., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3426 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.5215J 518, 5215

    Jennings F., Beckmann R. S., Sijacki D., Dubois Y., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3426 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.5215J 518, 5215

    2023 doi

  46. [57]

    P., Masterson P., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz1248 , 487, 737

    Ji S., Oh S. P., Masterson P., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz1248 , 487, 737

    2019 doi

  47. [58]

    G., Churchill C

    Kacprzak G. G., Churchill C. W., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/2041-8205/743/2/l34 , 743, L34

    2011 doi

  48. [59]

    A., Wang H., Pope S

    Kemenov K. A., Wang H., Pope S. B., 2011, @doi [Flow, Turbulence and Combustion] 10.1007/s10494-011-9380-x , 88, 529–561

    2011 doi

  49. [60]

    C., Evans N

    Kennicutt R. C., Evans N. J., 2012, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610 , 50, 531

    2012 doi

  50. [61]

    S., Lin D

    Klessen R. S., Lin D. N. C., 2003, @doi [Phys. Rev. E] 10.1103/PhysRevE.67.046311 , 67, 046311

    2003 doi

  51. [62]

    R., Seta A., Federrath C., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac969 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.2457K 513, 2457

    Kriel N., Beattie J. R., Seta A., Federrath C., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac969 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.2457K 513, 2457

    2022 doi

  52. [63]

    G., Norman M

    Kritsuk A. G., Norman M. L., Padoan P., Wagner R., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/519443 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...665..416K 665, 416

    2007 doi

  53. [64]

    B., Shelton R

    Kwak K., Henley D. B., Shelton R. L., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/739/1/30 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...739...30K 739, 30

    2011 doi

  54. [65]

    X., 2020, @doi [mnras] 10.1093/mnras/staa1750 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496.3142L 496, 3142

    Lan T.-W., Prochaska J. X., 2020, @doi [mnras] 10.1093/mnras/staa1750 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496.3142L 496, 3142

    2020 doi

  55. [66]

    Landau L., Lifshitz E., 2013, Fluid Mechanics: Volume 6. No. v. 6, Pergamon, https://books.google.com.au/books?id=CeBbAwAAQBAJ

    2013

  56. [67]

    B., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/194.4.809 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981MNRAS.194..809L 194, 809

    Larson R. B., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/194.4.809 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981MNRAS.194..809L 194, 809

    1981 doi

  57. [68]

    18, Turbulent Diffusion in Environmental Pollution

    Leonard A., 1975, in Frenkiel F., Munn R., eds, Advances in Geophysics, Vol. 18, Turbulent Diffusion in Environmental Pollution. Elsevier, pp 237--248, @doi https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2687(08)60464-1 , https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065268708604641

    1975 doi

  58. [69]

    Lesieur M., Metais O., 1996, @doi [Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics] https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.fl.28.010196.000401 , 28, 45

    1996

  59. [70]

    Locatelli N., et al., 2024, @doi [Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347061 , 681, A78

    2024 doi

  60. [71]

    Marinacci F., Vogelsberger M., Mocz P., Pakmor R., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv1692 , 453, 4000–4020

    2015 doi

  61. [72]

    Mastropietro C., Moore B., Mayer L., Wadsley J., Stadel J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09435.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.363..509M 363, 509

    2005

  62. [73]

    J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19972.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.419.3319M 419, 3319

    McCourt M., Sharma P., Quataert E., Parrish I. J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19972.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.419.3319M 419, 3319

    2012

  63. [74]

    S., Schombert J

    McGaugh S. S., Schombert J. M., de Blok W. J. G., Zagursky M. J., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/2041-8205/708/1/l14 , 708, L14–L17

    2009 doi

  64. [75]

    Meneveau C., Katz J., 2000, @doi [Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics] https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.fluid.32.1.1 , 32, 1

    2000 doi

  65. [76]

    S., Brandenburg A., Zweibel E

    Miesch M. S., Brandenburg A., Zweibel E. G., 2000, @doi [Physical Review E] 10.1103/physreve.61.457 , 61, 457–467

    2000 doi

  66. [77]

    J., Bregman J

    Miller M. J., Bregman J. N., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...800...14M 800, 14

    2015 doi

  67. [78]

    D., Schaye J., Bower R

    Mitchell P. D., Schaye J., Bower R. G., Crain R. A., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa938 , 494, 3971–3997

    2020 doi

  68. [79]

    Mohapatra R., Jetti M., Sharma P., Federrath C., 2021a, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab3429 , 510, 2327–2343

    doi

  69. [80]

    Mohapatra R., Jetti M., Sharma P., Federrath C., 2021b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab3603 , 510, 3778–3793

    doi

  70. [81]

    Murante G., Monaco P., Borgani S., Tornatore L., Dolag K., Goz D., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu2400 , 447, 178–201

    2014 doi

  71. [82]

    L., et al., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx667 , 468, 4170–4188

    Muratov A. L., et al., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx667 , 468, 4170–4188

    2017 doi

  72. [83]

    E., Ji A

    Nugent A. E., Ji A. P., Fong W.-f., Shah H., van de Voort F., 2025, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/adbb6a , 982, 144

    2025 doi

  73. [85]

    J., Ohlmann S

    Pakmor R., Springel V., Bauer A., Mocz P., Munoz D. J., Ohlmann S. T., Schaal K., Zhu C., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv2380 , 455, 1134

    2015 doi

  74. [86]

    Pakmor R., et al., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx1074 , 469, 3185–3199

    2017 doi

  75. [87]

    Pakmor R., et al., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa2530 , 498, 3125–3137

    2020 doi

  76. [88]

    Pan L., Scannapieco E., Scalo J., 2012, @doi [Journal of Fluid Mechanics] 10.1017/jfm.2012.143 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012JFM...700..459P 700, 459

    2012 doi

  77. [89]

    S., Werk J

    Peeples M. S., Werk J. K., Tumlinson J., Oppenheimer B. D., Prochaska J. X., Katz N., Weinberg D. H., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637x/786/1/54 , 786, 54

    2014 doi

  78. [90]

    S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0654 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...873..129P 873, 129

    Peeples M. S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0654 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...873..129P 873, 129

    2019 doi

  79. [91]

    Piomelli U., Liu J., 1995, @doi [Physics of Fluids] 10.1063/1.868607 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995PhFl....7..839P 7, 839

    1995 doi

  80. [92]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321591 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...571A..16P 571, A16

    2014 doi

  81. [93]

    Prandtl L., 1925, @doi [ZAMM - Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics / Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik] https://doi.org/10.1002/zamm.19250050212 , 5, 136

    1925 doi

  82. [94]

    E., 2017, in , Gas Accretion onto Galaxies

    Putman M. E., 2017, in , Gas Accretion onto Galaxies. Springer International Publishing, pp 1--13, @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-52512-9_1 , https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52512-9_1

    2017 doi

  83. [95]

    Ramesh R., Nelson D., Heesen V., Br\" u ggen M., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad3104 , 526, 5483–5493

    2023 doi

  84. [96]

    Rennehan D., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab1813 , 506, 2836–2852

    2021 doi

  85. [97]

    F., Dav \'e R., Moa B., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3376 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.3810R 483, 3810

    Rennehan D., Babul A., Hopkins P. F., Dav \'e R., Moa B., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3376 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.3810R 483, 3810

    2019 doi

  86. [98]

    (A.)] 10.1098/rsta.1895.0004 , 186, 123

    Reynolds O., 1895, @doi [Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. (A.)] 10.1098/rsta.1895.0004 , 186, 123

  87. [99]

    S., Moin P., 1984, @doi [Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics] 10.1146/annurev.fl.16.010184.000531 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984AnRFM..16...99R 16, 99

    Rogallo R. S., Moin P., 1984, @doi [Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics] 10.1146/annurev.fl.16.010184.000531 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984AnRFM..16...99R 16, 99

    1984

  88. [100]

    B., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3142 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527..265R 527, 265

    Roy M., Su K.-Y., Tonnesen S., Fielding D. B., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3142 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527..265R 527, 265

    2024 doi

  89. [101]

    Saeedzadeh V., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2637 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.5677S 525, 5677

    2023 doi

  90. [102]

    Springer-Verlag, @doi 10.1007/b137536 , http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/b137536

    Sagaut P., 2006, Large Eddy Simulation for Incompressible Flows . Springer-Verlag, @doi 10.1007/b137536 , http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/b137536

    2006 doi

  91. [103]

    Scannapieco E., Br \"u ggen M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/158 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...805..158S 805, 158

    2015 doi

  92. [104]

    Schmidt W., 2015, @doi [Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics] 10.1007/lrca-2015-2 , 1

    2015 doi

  93. [105]

    G., 2007, @doi [Comptes Rendus

    Schmitt F. G., 2007, @doi [Comptes Rendus. M\'ecanique] 10.1016/j.crme.2007.08.004 , 335, 617

    2007 doi

  94. [106]

    E., Robertson B

    Schneider E. E., Robertson B. E., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/144 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...834..144S 834, 144

    2017 doi

  95. [107]

    E., Ostriker E

    Schneider E. E., Ostriker E. C., Robertson B. E., Thompson T. A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8ae8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...895...43S 895, 43

    2020 doi

  96. [108]

    Seta A., Federrath C., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2978 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.499.2076S 499, 2076

    2020 doi

  97. [109]

    Seta A., Federrath C., 2021, @doi [Physical Review Fluids] 10.1103/PhysRevFluids.6.103701 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhRvF...6j3701S 6, 103701

    2021 doi

  98. [110]

    Seta A., Federrath C., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1400 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514..957S 514, 957

    2022 doi

  99. [111]

    Shah H., Seta A., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab2500 , 508, 1371

    2021 doi

  100. [112]

    Shen S., Wadsley J., Stinson G., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17047.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.407.1581S 407, 1581

    2010

  101. [113]

    Shen S., Madau P., Aguirre A., Guedes J., Mayer L., Wadsley J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/50 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...760...50S 760, 50

    2012 doi

  102. [114]

    X., Wadsley J., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/89 , 765, 89

    Shen S., Madau P., Guedes J., Mayer L., Prochaska J. X., Wadsley J., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/89 , 765, 89

    2013 doi

  103. [115]

    M., Federrath C., 2025, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staf160 , 537, 2961

    Shivakumar L. M., Federrath C., 2025, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staf160 , 537, 2961

    2025 doi

  104. [116]

    M., Jones J

    Shull J. M., Jones J. R., Danforth C. W., Collins J. A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/754 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...699..754S 699, 754

    2009 doi

  105. [118]

    Smagorinsky J., 1963, @doi [Monthly Weather Review] 10.1175/1520-0493(1963)091<0099:GCEWTP>2.3.CO;2 , 91, 99

    1963 doi

  106. [119]

    Soko owska A., Babul A., Mayer L., Shen S., Madau P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae43a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...867...73S 867, 73

    2018 doi

  107. [120]

    Sparre M., Pfrommer C., Vogelsberger M., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty3063 , 482, 5401

    2018 doi

  108. [121]

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

    1956 doi

  109. [122]

    Springel V., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.401..791S 401, 791

    2010

  110. [123]

    C., Erb D

    Steidel C. C., Erb D. K., Shapley A. E., Pettini M., Reddy N., Bogosavljevi \'c M., Rudie G. C., Rakic O., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/289 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...717..289S 717, 289

    2010 doi

  111. [124]

    Stern J., Fielding D., Faucher-Giguère C.-A., Quataert E., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz1859 , 488, 2549–2572

    2019 doi

  112. [125]

    S., et al., 2012, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21522.x , 425, 1270–1277

    Stinson G. S., et al., 2012, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21522.x , 425, 1270–1277

    2012

  113. [126]

    L., Gulian M., Zayernouri M., D’Elia M., 2022, @doi [Journal of Peridynamics and Nonlocal Modeling] 10.1007/s42102-022-00085-2 , 5, 392–459

    Suzuki J. L., Gulian M., Zayernouri M., D’Elia M., 2022, @doi [Journal of Peridynamics and Nonlocal Modeling] 10.1007/s42102-022-00085-2 , 5, 392–459

    2022 doi

  114. [127]

    A., Quataert E., Zhang D., Weinberg D

    Thompson T. A., Quataert E., Zhang D., Weinberg D. H., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv2428 , 455, 1830–1844

    2015 doi

  115. [128]

    R., Pontzen A., Anderson L., Bellovary J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1160 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.1121T 470, 1121

    Tremmel M., Karcher M., Governato F., Volonteri M., Quinn T. R., Pontzen A., Anderson L., Bellovary J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1160 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.1121T 470, 1121

    2017 doi

  116. [129]

    A., et al., 2004, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/423264 , 613, 898

    Tremonti C. A., et al., 2004, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/423264 , 613, 898

    2004 doi

  117. [130]

    Tumlinson J., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/733/2/111 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...733..111T 733, 111

    2011 doi

  118. [131]

    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

  119. [132]

    Valdarnini R., 2011, @doi [Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015340 , 526, A158

    2011 doi

  120. [133]

    Virtanen P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , 17, 261–272

    2020 doi

  121. [134]

    W., Veeravalli G., Couchman H

    Wadsley J. W., Veeravalli G., Couchman H. M. P., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13260.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.387..427W 387, 427

    2008

  122. [135]

    W., Keller B

    Wadsley J. W., Keller B. W., Quinn T. R., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1643 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471.2357W 471, 2357

    2017 doi

  123. [136]

    P., van Woerden H., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.217 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ARA&A..35..217W 35, 217

    Wakker B. P., van Woerden H., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.217 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ARA&A..35..217W 35, 217

    1997 doi

  124. [137]

    P., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/524222 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...670L.113W 670, L113

    Wakker B. P., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/524222 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...670L.113W 670, L113

    2007 doi

  125. [138]

    Weinberger R., Springel V., Pakmor R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab908c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..248...32W 248, 32

    2020 doi

  126. [139]

    K., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...792....8W 792, 8

    Werk J. K., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...792....8W 792, 8

    2014 doi

  127. [140]

    Williamson D., Martel H., Kawata D., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637x/822/2/91 , 822, 91

    2016 doi

  128. [141]

    C., Pakmor R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly190 , 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/sly190 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482L..85V 482, L85

    2019 doi

  129. [142]

    van de Voort F., Pakmor R., Grand R. J. J., Springel V., G \'o mez F. A., Marinacci F., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa754 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.4867V 494, 4867

    2020 doi

  130. [143]

    A., Grand R

    van de Voort F., Bieri R., Pakmor R., Gómez F. A., Grand R. J. J., Marinacci F., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa3938 , 501, 4888

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.