Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 90 references

The Co-Evolution of Stellar Wind-blown Bubbles and Photoionized Gas I: Physical Principles and a Semi-Analytic Model

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 This paper argues that stellar winds and ionizing light act as coupled feedback, with the ratio ζ = Req/RSt deciding which mechanism dominates and whether the two must be modeled together.

desk verdict A genuinely useful zeta diagnostic and a careful coupled WBB/PIR model, but the headline quantitative claims lean on an instantaneous equilibrium switch that the authors themselves flag as suspect. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22730 v1 pith:3TP2BUWF submitted 2025-05-28 astro-ph.GA

Lachlan Lancaster , Jeong-Gyu Kim , Greg L. Bryan , Shyam H. Menon , Eve C. Ostriker , Chang-Goo Kim This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords stellarfeedbackwind-blownbubblesphotoionizedregionsStrömgrenradiusgiantmolecularcloudsstarformationsemi-analyticmodelmomentum-drivenwinds
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

Massive stars push on their surroundings in two ways at once: fast stellar winds inflate a hot, over-pressurized bubble, while Lyman-continuum radiation heats and ionizes the surrounding gas into a photoionized region. Standard treatments either follow one mechanism alone or fold both into a single thin shell, but this paper argues the two channels genuinely co-evolve, because each modifies the medium the other expands into. The organizing quantity is the dimensionless ratio $\zeta = R_{\rm eq}/R_{\rm St}$, where $R_{\rm eq}$ is the radius at which the wind bubble reaches pressure equilibrium with the ionized gas and $R_{\rm St}$ is the Strömgren radius. For momentum-driven winds the authors find $0.1 \lesssim \zeta \lesssim 1$ across typical Milky Way giant molecular clouds, massive OB stars, and dense low-metallicity star-forming regions, the regime in which neither mechanism dominates. On that basis they build a semi-analytic Co-Evolution Model with an early independent phase and a later coupled phase, and show that the naive sum of independent solutions misstates total feedback momentum by up to 25 percent and wind-bubble properties by factors of two or more in weak-wind systems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dimensionless ratio $\zeta \equiv R_{\rm eq}/R_{\rm St}$, with $R_{\rm eq} = \sqrt{\alpha_p \dot{p}_w/(4\pi \bar{\rho} c_i^2)}$ for momentum-driven winds and $R_{\rm St} = (3Q_0/(4\pi \alpha_B n_{\rm H}^2))^{1/3}$ the Strömgren radius; it classifies every environment, since $\zeta > 1$ means the wind bubble overruns the Strömgren sphere, $\zeta \ll 1$ means the ionized gas confines a weak wind, and $0.1 \lesssim \zeta \lesssim 1$ is the co-evolution strip. The coupled phase is carried by a thin-shell momentum equation for the ionization front, $\frac{d}{dt}\left(\tfrac{4\pi}{3}\bar{\rho} R_i^3 \dot{R}_i\right) = \alpha_p \dot{p}_w (R_i/R_w)^2$, closed by force balance $\rho_i c_i^2 = \alpha_p \dot{p}_w/(4\pi R_w^2)$ and a modified ionization-recombination equilibrium $\tfrac{4\pi}{3}(R_i^3 - R_w^3)\alpha_B n_{{\rm H},i}^2 = Q_0$ that accounts for the volume the wind bubble occupies inside the ionized gas; together these give $R_i = R_w(1 + R_w/R_{\rm ch})^{1/3}$ with $R_{\rm ch} = R_{\rm eq}^4/R_{\rm St}^3$ the radius at which the two forces would balance at a single location. An energy-driven branch replaces the WBB pressure with a hot-gas energy equation $dE_w/dt = (1-\theta)L_w - P_{\rm hot}\,dV_w/dt$, where $\theta$ is the fraction of wind energy lost to cooling. In dimensionless form the system reduces to a one-parameter family of solutions labelled by $\zeta$.

What would settle it

A numerical experiment that would settle the matter: in three-dimensional radiation-hydrodynamic simulations with turbulent clouds, record the time at which the wind bubble first reaches $R_{\rm eq}$ and the time at which the ionized-gas density profile actually becomes uniform; a lag of several sound-crossing times, which the paper's Appendix B says may occur, would falsify the instantaneous-equilibrium switch and require the CEM's radii, momenta, and pressures to be revised. On the observational side, measuring the radii of wind bubbles around isolated OB stars in the $\zeta \ll 1$ regime and comparing with free-expansion expectations would test the predicted factor-of-two-or-more suppression of $R_w$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the joint feedback bubble driven by a massive star or cluster passes through two phases: an early phase in which the wind-blown bubble (WBB) and the photoionized region (PIR) expand independently, and a co-evolution phase in which the two are in pressure equilibrium and move together, with the switch between them governed by $\zeta = R_{\rm eq}/R_{\rm St}$. For momentum-driven winds, realistic star-forming environments with $\zeta$ between roughly 0.1 and 1 sit in the regime where this co-evolution phase is dynamically important. In that regime, the WBB compresses the PIR, raising its density and recombination rate and shrinking the ionized region, while the already-ionized volume inside the WBB frees Lyman-continuum photons to ionize gas further out, and these two effects nearly cancel in the total momentum. Compared with naive predictions that simply add the independent solutions, the Co-Evolution Model shifts the total feedback-bubble momentum by up to 25 percent in the $\zeta < 1$ regime and changes WBB properties by factors of roughly two or more in the weak-wind limit $\zeta \ll 1$, while the PIR radius stays within about 20 percent of the classical Spitzer expansion.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that at the switch time $t_{\rm switch}$ the wind bubble and the ionized region are already in pressure equilibrium, with the ionized gas at uniform density and in ionization-recombination equilibrium, and that this state is reached effectively instantly; the paper itself notes that the equilibrium may instead require several sound-crossing times to establish, in which case the quantitative predictions would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Feedback prescriptions that keep only one mechanism, or collapse both into a single thin shell, will misstate the momentum delivered to the cloud in the $\zeta \lesssim 1$ regime; near $R \sim R_{\rm ch}$ the naive sum of the two forces overestimates the coupled force by roughly 35 percent.
  • In the weak-wind limit relevant to individual OB stars and low-mass clusters, the photoionized region's radius stays within about 20 percent of the classical Spitzer solution, so HII region sizes remain a reliable probe even where winds are dynamically suppressed.
  • The wind bubble is the sensitive partner: in the $\zeta \ll 1$ regime its radius is reduced by up to a factor of about three relative to free expansion, so observable WBB structure around single stars is a direct diagnostic of co-evolution.
  • Because the dimensionless equations form a one-parameter family in $\zeta$, the model results scale to other densities, wind momenta, and ionizing luminosities without re-solving the system, which makes the Co-Evolution Model convenient as a subgrid or comparison module for larger simulations.
  • Whether co-evolution matters at all rests on winds being momentum-driven: if shocked wind gas retained most of its energy with $1 - \theta \sim 1$, the energy-driven branch would make winds dominant in essentially all environments, so the $\zeta \approx 0.1$ to $1$ strip is itself a sign of strong interface cooling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A corollary the paper leaves implicit: in the co-evolution strip the WBB interior pressure is pinned to the ionized-gas pressure, so observations of electron-pressure-sensitive line ratios in HII regions around clusters should track the wind momentum input rate $\alpha_p \dot{p}_w$ as much as the ionizing luminosity.
  • The same two-region, force-balance construction should transfer to radiation pressure: substituting the combined wind-plus-trapped-infrared momentum rate into $R_{\rm eq}$ would extend the $\zeta$ classification to the densest, highest star-formation-efficiency clouds where the paper's own parameter map still leaves a gap.
  • The instantaneous switch with a discontinuous jump in $R_i$ is the most fragile part of the construction; if the companion simulations confirm a finite equilibration time, a natural repair is to replace the switch with a smooth relaxation term on the sound-crossing timescale, which would change the transient but not the asymptotic scalings.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a framework for treating stellar wind-blown bubbles (WBBs) and photoionized regions (PIRs) as coupled feedback agents rather than as independent or single-shell mechanisms. The key diagnostic is ζ = Req/RSt, the ratio of the radius at which the WBB and PIR pressures balance to the Strömgren radius. The authors survey ζ for Milky Way-like GMCs, massive OB stars, and low-metallicity dense environments, finding 0.1 ≲ ζ ≲ 1 for momentum-driven winds, and then derive two semi-analytic Co-Evolution Models (CEMs), one momentum-driven (Section 3.5) and one energy-driven (Section 3.6). Each model has an early independent-evolution phase and a later co-evolution phase with pressure equilibrium and ionization-recombination equilibrium. The dimensionless equations reduce each model to a one-parameter family parameterized by ζ. The models are used to claim up to 25% changes in total feedback-bubble momentum relative to the naive sum of idealized solutions in the ζ < 1 regime, and factors ≳ 2 changes in WBB properties in the weak-wind limit. A companion paper is said to compare the models with 3D simulations.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this paper provides a useful criterion for when stellar winds and photoionization must be modeled jointly and a compact one-parameter family of solutions for their co-evolution. The dimensionless formulation is a genuine strength, as is the explicit separation of force application locations and the back-reactions between the two phases. The paper is also honest about its assumptions, and the public code release will make the model easy to test. The headline quantitative claims (25% momentum difference and factor-of-2 changes in weak-wind WBB properties) are falsifiable and will be directly checked against the simulations of Paper II.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.5, Eq. (28), initial conditions after Eq. (37); Appendix B after Eq. (B27)] The co-evolution phase assumes that at t_switch the WBB and PIR are in instantaneous pressure equilibrium and remain so, with the PIR at uniform density. Appendix B explicitly states that establishing this equilibrium requires several sound-crossing times and that 'this may not be the case, as we see in Paper II.' This assumption is load-bearing: Eq. (28) is the momentum equation during the phase that produces the paper's headline 25% and factor-of-2 quantitative results. If equilibrium is delayed, the bubble radii, pressures, and momenta during the co-evolution phase will differ, and the model as written has no mechanism to capture that delay. I ask the authors to either (i) quantify the sensitivity of their results to a finite equilibration timescale, for example by comparing with a model that keeps the early-phase dynamics for several sound-crossing times before switching, or (ii) explicitly soften the quantitative claims in the abstract and Section 4 and defer their validation to Paper II. As written, the manuscript flags a correctness risk in the very assumption on which its central numerical claims rest.
  2. [Equation (42)] Equation (42) defines ζ_ED for the energy-driven CEM using (α_p ẋ_w)^(1/2) and c_i^-1, which is the functional form of ζ_MD in Eq. (38), not the energy-driven equilibrium radius in Eq. (23). The dimensionless parameter in Appendix D, Eq. (D46), correctly uses [(1-θ)L_w]^(1/2) and c_i^(-3/2). Since ζ parameterizes the entire one-parameter family of energy-driven solutions and is used to locate the model in Figures 1-2, this inconsistency must be fixed in the main text. If the printed Eq. (42) is what was used in the numerical solutions, then the labeling of the ED-CEM solutions in Figures 5-6 should be re-examined.
  3. [Section 4, Figure 6 right panels; Appendix A, Eqs. (A13)-(A14)] The abstract and Section 4 state that the weak-wind limit with factors ≳ 2 differences in WBB properties is applicable to individual OB stars. However, the single-star models in Figure 6 assume a uniform background and explicitly ignore LyC radiation trapping, while Appendix A argues that trapping is important precisely for individual massive stars expanding into steep density profiles. The breakout time and radius in Eqs. (A13)-(A14) suggest that an individual star's PIR is initially confined by the WBB shell, which is a different dynamical regime from the uniform-density co-evolution modeled here. The factor-of-2 claim should be restricted to low-density or nearly uniform environments, or the authors should justify why the trapping physics does not alter the back-reaction on the WBB in the weak-wind limit.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.6] The text contains 'For for ζ_ED < 1' in the paragraph describing initial conditions; remove the duplicated word.
  2. [Section 3.4] The phrase 'nearly adiabtically' should read 'nearly adiabatically.'
  3. [Figure 1 caption] The caption says 'The position of the simulations presented in this work are indicated' but these simulations are in Paper II; revise to avoid confusion about which paper presents the simulations.
  4. [References] The manuscript refers repeatedly to 'Paper II' without a bibliographic entry; please add a reference or a footnote identifying the companion paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CEM is derived from conservation equations with explicit, stated inputs, and the headline numerical differences are model outputs rather than fitted constants.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained in the sense required by the circularity pass. The momentum-driven CEM is obtained by starting from the Spitzer momentum equation (Eq. 14) and substituting the force-balance condition Pi = alpha_p pdot_w/(4 pi R_w^2), giving Eq. 28; this is combined with ionization-recombination equilibrium in the region between R_w and R_i (Eq. 30), yielding the closure relation Eq. 32 and the characteristic scale R_ch (Eq. 33). The energy-driven CEM similarly solves a coupled energy equation (Eqs. 39-40) with the same ionization-equilibrium closure. The quantities alpha_p and theta are explicit inputs chosen from prior work, not parameters fitted to the outputs being predicted; the model is solved for arbitrary alpha_p (e.g., alpha_p = 6.25 in Figure 6) and for the energy-driven alternative, so the central derivation does not reduce to a self-citation. The 25% total-momentum difference and the factor-of-2 WBB suppression in the weak-wind limit are obtained by numerically solving these ODEs and comparing them to the classical solutions; they are not imposed by an initial condition that already contains the answer. The initial condition Eq. 37 sets the co-evolution momentum equal to the sum of the idealized momenta at t_switch, but the subsequent evolution is governed by the force equation, so the eventual difference is a model output. The zeta parameter is a comparison of independently defined radii (R_eq and R_St), not a fitted quantity. Self-citations do appear in the justification for adopting alpha_p ~ 1 from Lancaster et al. (2021b, 2024), but the paper presents this as a stated assumption, includes an energy-driven alternative, and explicitly notes that the dynamical importance of winds hinges on this input; this is a caveat or correctness risk rather than a circular reduction. Appendix B flags the instantaneous-equilibrium assumption: after Eq. B27 the text says 'our model assumes that the equilibrium is set up relatively quickly, and this may not be the case, as we see in Paper II.' This is an honest limitation on the validity of the co-evolution phase, not a step that equates the prediction to the input. No fitted input is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is merely relabeled; the framework's quantitative claims are derived from stated conservation laws and equilibrium closures.

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

The central model adds no new entities and fits no constants to data. Its inputs are physical parameters from stellar atmosphere models and prior simulations. The main assumptions are spherical symmetry, uniform background density, ionization equilibrium, instantaneous pressure equilibrium between the two bubbles, and the choice of momentum- or energy-driven wind behavior. The free parameters alpha_p and theta are not fitted here but are set by hand to represent uncertain cooling physics.

free parameters (2)
  • alpha_p (momentum enhancement factor) = chosen values: 1 (fiducial zeta survey), 6.25 (Figure 6 cluster CEM)
    Constant in the momentum-driven CEM. Its value is uncertain and set by hand based on prior simulations, not fitted in this paper. The zeta survey uses alpha_p = 1, while Figure 6 uses alpha_p = 6.25.
  • theta (energy loss fraction) = chosen values: 0 (fiducial), 0.92 and 0.98 (Figure 6)
    Constant energy-loss fraction in the energy-driven CEM. Values are chosen to represent strong cooling based on earlier simulations. The fiducial zeta survey uses theta = 0.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Spherically symmetric expansion into a uniform background density with thin-shell mass M_sh = 4 pi R^3 rho_bar / 3.
    Used throughout Sections 3.5 and 3.6. The authors note in Section 5.2 and Paper II that inhomogeneous gas structure causes model-simulation disagreement.
  • domain assumption The photoionized region is always in ionization-recombination equilibrium with constant density and Case B recombination coefficient alpha_B.
    Invoked in Equations 13, 30, and 31. Justified because teq >> trec, but the PIR internal density structure is ignored.
  • domain assumption At t_switch the WBB and PIR are in pressure equilibrium, and this equilibrium is maintained during the co-evolution phase.
    Used to derive Equation 28 and the energy-driven analogue. Appendix B explicitly warns that equilibrium may require several sound-crossing times and may not be established quickly.
  • domain assumption The WBB is either momentum-driven with constant alpha_p or energy-driven with constant theta.
    These are the two limiting behaviors from Section 2.2. Section 2.2.3 shows both alpha_p and theta are time-dependent in general, so holding them constant is an idealization.
  • domain assumption Radiation trapping by the WBB shell is negligible except at extremely high densities.
    Section 3.1 and Appendix A compute nH,trap and argue it matters only at densities near 3.76e8 cm^-3 for cluster feedback, or around individual stars in steep density profiles.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Co-Evolution of Stellar Wind-blown Bubbles and Photoionized Gas I: Physical Principles and a Semi-Analytic Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3TP2BUWF

@misc{pith2026250522730,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Co-Evolution of Stellar Wind-blown Bubbles and Photoionized Gas I: Physical Principles and a Semi-Analytic Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3TP2BUWF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22730}
}
abstract

We propose a new framework for the simultaneous feedback of stellar winds and photo-ionizing radiation from massive stars, distinguishing the locations where forces are applied, and consequences for internal spatio-temporal evolution of the whole feedback bubble (FB). We quantify the relative dynamical importance of wind-blown bubbles (WBB) versus the photoionized region (PIR) by the ratio of the radius at which the WBB is in pressure equilibrium with the PIR, $R_{\rm eq}$, to the Str\"{o}mgren radius, $R_{\rm St}$. $\zeta \equiv R_{\rm eq}/R_{\rm St}$ quantifies the dynamical dominance of WBBs ($\zeta > 1$) or the PIR ($\zeta < 1$). We calculate $\zeta$ and find that, for momentum-driven winds, $0.1 \lesssim \zeta \lesssim 1$ for the star-forming regions in (i) typical Milky Way-like giant molecular clouds (GMCs), (ii) the most massive of individual OB stars, and (iii) dense, low-metallicity environments, relevant in the early universe. In this regime, both WBBs and the PIR are dynamically important to the expansion of the FB. We develop a semi-analytic Co-Evolution Model (CEM) that takes into account the spatial distribution of forces and the back reactions of both the WBB and PIR. In the $\zeta <1$ regime where the CEM is most relevant, the model differs in the total FB momentum by up to 25% compared to naive predictions. In the weak-wind limit of $\zeta \ll 1$, applicable to individual OB stars or low-mass clusters, the CEM has factors $\gtrsim 2$ differences in WBB properties. In a companion paper we compare these models to three-dimensional, turbulent hydro-dynamical simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22730 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The fraction of the Str¨omgren radius occupied by the wind when it comes into force balance with the PIR, Req/RSt, versus the fraction of the cloud occupied by the Str¨omgren Sphere. The case for momentum-driven winds with αp = 1 is shown in the left panel (using Equation 21) while the case for energy-driven winds with θ = 0 is shown on the right (using Equation 23). Purple, blue, and green lines indicate clouds of … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Identical to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A schematic diagram of the distinct evolution￾ary stages of a stellar WBB interacting with its surrounding PIR, here specifically for the ζ < 1 regime. The top panels show schematics of the phase distributions (indicated with correspondingly colored text) while the bottom panels show the thermal pressure of the gas. All panels are based on the highest resolution MWR simulation of Paper II. Left: Early phase of a Str… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The force exerted by the FB in the co-evolution phase of the momentum-driven CEM. We show the forces ex￾erted by the PIR (red), the momentum-driven WBB (blue), the sum of these (purple), the CEM (black), and the CEM in limits of strong and weak winds (yellow dashed and…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Solutions to the dimensionless form of the co-evolution model (CEM) for several different values of the controlling free-parameter ζ. The momentum-driven CEM is shown in the left hand panels and the energy-driven CEM is shown in the right hand panels. In all panels CEM…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A comparison of physical variables for the two co-evolution models discussed in the text: the momentum-driven CEM shown in blue (Section 3.5) and the energy driven CEM shown in red (Section 3.6). Panels at the left show the evolution of a FB from a star cluster (ζ ≈ 0.…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Ferland, G

    Abel, N. P., Ferland, G. J., Shaw, G., & van Hoof, P. A. M. 2005, ApJS, 161, 65, doi: 10.1086/432913

    doi:10.1086/432913 2005

  2. [2]

    D., Vanzella, E., et al

    Adamo, A., Bradley, L. D., Vanzella, E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.03224, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.03224

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.03224 2024

  3. [3]

    Blinnikov, S. I. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 2188, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw790

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw790 2016

  4. [4]

    2022, A&A, 659, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141859

    Belfiore, F., Santoro, F., Groves, B., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141859

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141859 2022

  5. [5]

    A., & Povich, M

    Binder, B. A., & Povich, M. S. 2018, ApJ, 864, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad7b2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad7b2 2018

  6. [6]

    R., & Kozminski, J

    Capriotti, E. R., & Kozminski, J. F. 2001, PASP, 113, 677, doi: 10.1086/320809

    work page doi:10.1086/320809 2001

  7. [7]

    I., Abbott, D

    Castor, J. I., Abbott, D. C., & Klein, R. I. 1975, ApJ, 195, 157, doi: 10.1086/153315

    doi:10.1086/153315 1975

  8. [8]

    R., McLeod, A

    Chevance, M., Krumholz, M. R., McLeod, A. F., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    2023

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed

    Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 1, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09570

    doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Chevance, M., Kruijssen, J. M. D., Hygate, A. P. S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 2872, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3525

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    Chevance, M., Kruijssen, J. M. D., Krumholz, M. R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 272, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2938

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    Dale, J. E. 2015, NewAR, 68, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2015.06.001

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    E., Ngoumou, J., Ercolano, B., & Bonnell, I

    Dale, J. E., Ngoumou, J., Ercolano, B., & Bonnell, I. A. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 694, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu816 Dav´ e, R., Finlator, K., & Oppenheimer, B. D. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 98, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20148.x

    2014

  6. [14]

    Draine, B. T. 2011a, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium —. 2011b, ApJ, 732, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/100

    doi

  7. [15]

    A., Kreckel, K., et al

    Drory, N., Blanc, G. A., Kreckel, K., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 198, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad6de9

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    Weisz, D. R. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 1961, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2773

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    L., Bolatto, A

    Emig, K. L., Bolatto, A. D., Leroy, A. K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb67d Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Quataert, E., & Hopkins, P. F. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1970, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt866

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 3325, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2466 32 Lancaster et al

    Fielding, D., Quataert, E., & Martizzi, D. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3325, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2466 32 Lancaster et al

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    2006, A&A, 459, 1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053898

    Folini, D., & Walder, R. 2006, A&A, 459, 1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053898

    2006 doi

  12. [20]

    1990, ApJ, 349, 126, doi: 10.1086/168300

    Franco, J., Tenorio-Tagle, G., & Bodenheimer, P. 1990, ApJ, 349, 126, doi: 10.1086/168300

    1990 doi

  13. [21]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 1832, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2667

    Geen, S., Bieri, R., de Koter, A., Kimm, T., & Rosdahl, J. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 1832, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2667

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 1352, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3705

    Geen, S., Bieri, R., Rosdahl, J., & de Koter, A. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 1352, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3705

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    2022, MNRAS, 509, 4498, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3245

    Geen, S., & de Koter, A. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 4498, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3245

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 915, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3491

    Geen, S., Pellegrini, E., Bieri, R., & Klessen, R. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 915, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3491

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    Klessen, R. S. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15718.x Grudi´ c, M. Y., Guszejnov, D., Hopkins, P. F., Offner, S. S. R., & Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2199, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1347 Grudi´ c, M. Y., Hopkins, P. F., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A.,...

    2010

  18. [26]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 4799, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1315

    Haid, S., Walch, S., Seifried, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 4799, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1315

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    2009, ApJ, 693, 1696, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1696

    Harper-Clark, E., & Murray, N. 2009, ApJ, 693, 1696, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1696

    2009 doi

  20. [28]

    R., Jarrod Millman, K., van der Walt, S

    Harris, C. R., Jarrod Millman, K., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2006.10256. https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.10256

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    2006, ApJ, 646, 240, doi: 10.1086/504789

    Hosokawa, T., & Inutsuka, S.-i. 2006, ApJ, 646, 240, doi: 10.1086/504789

    2006 doi

  22. [30]

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

    2007 doi

  23. [31]

    U., Baes, M., van der Wel, A., et al

    Kapoor, A. U., Baes, M., van der Wel, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 3871, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2977

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    C., Fielding, D

    Kim, C.-G., Ostriker, E. C., Fielding, D. B., et al. 2020, ApJL, 903, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abc252

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    Kim, J.-G., Kim, W.-T., & Ostriker, E. C. 2016, ApJ, 819, 137, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/137 —. 2018, ApJ, 859, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabe27

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    C., & Filippova, N

    Kim, J.-G., Ostriker, E. C., & Filippova, N. 2021, ApJ, 911, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe934

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    Koo, B.-C., & McKee, C. F. 1992a, ApJ, 388, 93, doi: 10.1086/171132 —. 1992b, ApJ, 388, 103, doi: 10.1086/171133

    doi

  28. [36]

    V., Egorova, E., et al

    Kreckel, K., Egorov, O. V., Egorova, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A352, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449943

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D., Schruba, A., Chevance, M., et al. 2019, Nature, 569, 519, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1194-3

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    R., Burkhart, B., Forbes, J

    Krumholz, M. R., Burkhart, B., Forbes, J. C., & Crocker, R. M. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 2716, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty852

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    R., & Matzner, C

    Krumholz, M. R., & Matzner, C. D. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1352, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1352

    2009 doi

  32. [40]

    R., McKee, C

    Krumholz, M. R., McKee, C. F., & Bland -Hawthorn, J. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 227, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104430

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    R., & Tan, J

    Krumholz, M. R., & Tan, J. C. 2007, ApJ, 654, 304, doi: 10.1086/509101

    2007 doi

  34. [42]

    R., Bate, M

    Krumholz, M. R., Bate, M. R., Arce, H. G., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 243–266, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816531240-ch011

    2014 doi

  35. [43]

    Bryan, G. L. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.02396, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.02396

    2024 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    C., Kim, J.-G., & Kim, C.-G

    Lancaster, L., Ostriker, E. C., Kim, J.-G., & Kim, C.-G. 2021a, ApJL, 922, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3333 —. 2021b, ApJ, 914, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf8ab —. 2021c, ApJ, 914, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf8ac

    doi

  37. [45]

    2018, A&A, 611, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731522

    Lee, Y.-N., & Hennebelle, P. 2018, A&A, 611, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731522

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    1992, ApJ, 401, 596, doi: 10.1086/172089

    Leitherer, C., Robert, C., & Drissen, L. 1992, ApJ, 401, 596, doi: 10.1086/172089

    1992 doi

  39. [47]

    D., et al

    Leitherer, C., Schaerer, D., Goldader, J. D., et al. 1999, ApJS, 123, 3, doi: 10.1086/313233

    1999 doi

  40. [48]

    K., Schinnerer, E., Hughes, A., et al

    Leroy, A. K., Schinnerer, E., Hughes, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7fef

    2017 doi

  41. [49]

    C., Bolatto, A

    Levy, R. C., Bolatto, A. D., Leroy, A. K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abec84

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    C., Bolatto, A

    Levy, R. C., Bolatto, A. D., Mayya, D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.04135, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.04135

    2024 doi arXiv

  43. [51]

    A., Krumholz, M

    Lopez, L. A., Krumholz, M. R., Bolatto, A. D., Prochaska, J. X., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2011, ApJ, 731, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/2/91

    2011 doi

  44. [52]

    A., Krumholz, M

    Lopez, L. A., Krumholz, M. R., Bolatto, A. D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/121 Mac Low, M.-M., & McCray, R. 1988, ApJ, 324, 776, doi: 10.1086/165936

    2014 doi

  45. [53]

    F., van Buren, D., & Lazareff, B

    McKee, C. F., van Buren, D., & Lazareff, B. 1984, ApJL, 278, L115, doi: 10.1086/184237 M´ endez-Delgado, J. E., Skillman, E. D., Aver, E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.17381, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.17381 Co-Evolution of Winds and Photoionized Gas I 33

    1984 doi arXiv

  46. [54]

    H., Burkhart, B., Somerville, R

    Menon, S. H., Burkhart, B., Somerville, R. S., Thompson, T. A., & Sternberg, A. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.14591, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.14591

    doi arXiv

  47. [55]

    H., Federrath, C., & Krumholz, M

    Menon, S. H., Federrath, C., & Krumholz, M. R. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 1313, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2702 —. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 5160, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad856

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    H., Lancaster, L., Burkhart, B., et al

    Menon, S. H., Lancaster, L., Burkhart, B., et al. 2024b, ApJL, 967, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad462d

    doi

  49. [57]

    Murray, N., Quataert, E., & Thompson, T. A. 2010, ApJ, 709, 191, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/709/1/191

    2010 doi

  50. [58]

    F., Klein, R

    Nakamura, F., McKee, C. F., Klein, R. I., & Fisher, R. T. 2006, ApJS, 164, 477, doi: 10.1086/501530

    2006 doi

  51. [59]

    E., & Burkert, A

    Ngoumou, J., Hubber, D., Dale, J. E., & Burkert, A. 2015, ApJ, 798, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/32

    2015 doi

  52. [60]

    2011, ApJ, 731, 13, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/13

    Ntormousi, E., Burkert, A., Fierlinger, K., & Heitsch, F. 2011, ApJ, 731, 13, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/13

    2011 doi

  53. [61]

    C., & Kim, C.-G

    Ostriker, E. C., & Kim, C.-G. 2022, ApJ, 936, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7de2

    2022 doi

  54. [62]

    C., McKee, C

    Ostriker, E. C., McKee, C. F., & Leroy, A. K. 2010, ApJ, 721, 975, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/975

    2010 doi

  55. [63]

    C., & Shetty, R

    Ostriker, E. C., & Shetty, R. 2011, ApJ, 731, 41, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/41

    2011 doi

  56. [64]

    S., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., et al

    Pandya, V., Somerville, R. S., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc3c1

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    B., Bryan, G

    Pandya, V., Fielding, D. B., Bryan, G. L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf3ea

    2023 doi

  58. [66]

    F., & Tsang, B

    Pascale, M., Dai, L., McKee, C. F., & Tsang, B. T. H. 2023, ApJ, 957, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf75c

    2023 doi

  59. [67]

    W., Baldwin, J

    Pellegrini, E. W., Baldwin, J. A., & Ferland, G. J. 2011, ApJ, 738, 34, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/34

    2011 doi

  60. [68]

    W., Baldwin, J

    Pellegrini, E. W., Baldwin, J. A., Brogan, C. L., et al. 2007, ApJ, 658, 1119, doi: 10.1086/511258

    2007 doi

  61. [69]

    Pittard, J. M. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 3600, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1552

    2013 doi

  62. [70]

    M., Kupilas, M

    Pittard, J. M., Kupilas, M. M., & Wareing, C. J. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 2797, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3707

    2022 doi

  63. [71]

    W., Glover, S

    Rahner, D., Pellegrini, E. W., Glover, S. C. O., & Klessen, R. S. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4453, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1532 —. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 2547, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3295

    2017 doi

  64. [72]

    2014, MNRAS, 442, 2701, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1037

    Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 2701, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1037

    2014 doi

  65. [73]

    P., Robert, C., et al

    Rousseau-Nepton, L., Martin, R. P., Robert, C., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 5530, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2455

    2019 doi

  66. [74]

    2020, PASP, 132, 104301, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aba840

    Schneider, N., Simon, R., Guevara, C., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 104301, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aba840

    2020 doi

  67. [75]

    2013, ApJ, 765, 43, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/43

    Silich, S., & Tenorio-Tagle, G. 2013, ApJ, 765, 43, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/43

    2013 doi

  68. [76]

    A., & Ostriker, E

    Skinner, M. A., & Ostriker, E. C. 2015, ApJ, 809, 187, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/2/187

    2015 doi

  69. [77]

    S., & Dav´ e, R

    Somerville, R. S., & Dav´ e, R. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 51, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951

    2015 doi

  70. [78]

    1978, Physical processes in the interstellar medium, doi: 10.1002/9783527617722

    Spitzer, L. 1978, Physical processes in the interstellar medium, doi: 10.1002/9783527617722

    1978 doi

  71. [79]

    A., & Williams, R

    Steigman, G., Strittmatter, P. A., & Williams, R. E. 1975, ApJ, 198, 575, doi: 10.1086/153636 Str¨ omgren, B. 1939, ApJ, 89, 526, doi: 10.1086/144074

    1975 doi

  72. [80]

    K., Rosolowsky, E., et al

    Sun, J., Leroy, A. K., Rosolowsky, E., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac74bd

    2022 doi

  73. [81]

    2024, ApJ, 967, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3de6

    Sun, J., He, H., Batschkun, K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3de6

    2024 doi

  74. [82]

    1979, A&A, 71, 59

    Tenorio-Tagle, G. 1979, A&A, 71, 59

    1979

  75. [83]

    S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H

    Vink, J. S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 2001, A&A, 369, 574, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010127

    2001 doi

  76. [84]

    S., & Sander, A

    Vink, J. S., & Sander, A. A. C. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 2051, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab902

    2021 doi

  77. [85]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  78. [86]

    Vishniac, E. T. 1983, ApJ, 274, 152, doi: 10.1086/161433 —. 1994, ApJ, 428, 186, doi: 10.1086/174231

    1983 doi

  79. [87]

    T., & Ryu, D

    Vishniac, E. T., & Ryu, D. 1989, ApJ, 337, 917, doi: 10.1086/167161

    1989 doi

  80. [88]

    M., Carr, C., Fielding, D

    Voit, G. M., Carr, C., Fielding, D. B., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 976, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad81d5

    doi

  81. [89]

    M., Pandya, V., Fielding, D

    Voit, G. M., Pandya, V., Fielding, D. B., et al. 2024b, ApJ, 976, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad81d6

    doi

  82. [90]

    1977, ApJ, 218, 377, doi: 10.1086/155692

    Weaver, R., McCray, R., Castor, J., Shapiro, P., & Moore, R. 1977, ApJ, 218, 377, doi: 10.1086/155692

    1977 doi

Pith tools

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