Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 105 references

Simulating High-Velocity Clouds in the Observational Plane: An Initial Study with the Smith Cloud

T0 review · 4 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 The Smith Cloud is most consistent with a cloud that is growing as it falls through the hot Milky Way halo, and the growth physics is turbulent radiative mixing.

desk verdict A useful observational-plane pipeline for HVC simulations, but the central TRML claim is undercut by resolution dependence and a tuned column density. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00111 v1 pith:2TLYJP6B submitted 2025-05-30 astro-ph.GA

Lori E. Porter , Matthew Abruzzo , Greg L. Bryan , Mary Putman , Yong Zheng , Drummond Fielding This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords high-velocitycloudsSmithCloudcloud-windinteractionturbulentradiativemixinglayervelocitystructurefunctiongalactichalogasradioHIobservationscooling
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 tries to establish that a real high-velocity cloud, the Smith Cloud, can be compared directly with simulations of cloud-wind interactions, and that the comparison points to a specific survival mechanism. The authors build mock radio observations from four simulated clouds by projecting them onto the sky, adding noise and beam smoothing exactly as in the GALFA-HI observations, and then measure the same statistics for both: moment maps, projected velocity structure functions, and the autocovariance of column density. They find that the simulated cloud that best reproduces the Smith Cloud is the one that grows through a turbulent radiative mixing layer, in which hot wind gas mixes with cool cloud gas and cools quickly enough to be accreted. The paper argues that this makes TRML entrainment highly relevant to whether high-velocity clouds survive their passage through the hot halo, while also reporting that no single simulation reproduces all observed diagnostics, especially the large-scale autocovariance of column density.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are a suite of four 3D wind-tunnel simulations of a cool cloud in a hot wind, with radiative cooling at solar or half-solar metallicity and one adiabatic control, plus a mock-observation pipeline that projects the simulated cubes into position-position-velocity space with the same beam convolution, noise, spectral smoothing, and sigma-clipping as the GALFA-HI data. The central named mechanism is the turbulent radiative mixing layer (TRML), the boundary layer where hot wind gas and cool cloud gas mix and the mixture cools fast enough to be captured by the cloud. On top of this, the paper uses two statistics: the projected first-order velocity structure function, the mean absolute line-of-sight velocity difference between pixel pairs as a function of separation, and the normalized autocovariance function of HI column density, which measures how column-density fluctuations correlate across scales. The argumentative work is done by comparing these statistics between observations and simulations at successive cloud-crushing times, where the TRML cloud is the one whose evolution tracks the observations.

What would settle it

Run the same mock-observation pipeline on a wind-tunnel simulation that includes the Milky Way's gravitational acceleration for a cloud near 3 kpc falling at roughly 70 km/s; if that simulation reproduces the Smith Cloud's observed column-density/velocity correlation and large-scale autocovariance better than the no-gravity TRML run, the paper's central identification fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's claim is that, given the observed mass and half-solar metallicity of the Smith Cloud, the initial conditions of the simulations are tightly constrained, and among the four runs the one that survives and grows via a turbulent radiative mixing layer (TRML) is the best match to the observations. That cloud, simulation C, reproduces the observed correlation between HI column density and velocity dispersion, the column-density range, and the small-scale projected velocity structure function, especially when viewed at angles of 30-60 degrees rather than transverse to the wind. The paper is explicit that the match is partial: the simulations do not reproduce the Smith Cloud's correlation between column density and line-of-sight velocity, its velocity-versus-dispersion morphology, or the large-scale autocovariance of column density. Still, the authors conclude that TRML-mediated cooling, the physics that lets the cloud gain mass from the hot wind, is likely the reason the Smith Cloud has survived to be observed near the disk.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison depends on modelling the Smith Cloud as a single spherical cloud with no initial velocity in a uniform wind, and on omitting gravity even though the real cloud lies only about 3 kpc from the Galactic plane and is already falling at roughly 70 km/s.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because the growing TRML cloud (simulation C) is the best match, the Smith Cloud is likely gaining mass from the hot halo rather than merely being eroded while it falls.
  • Projected velocity structure functions work as a two-scale diagnostic: small separations trace internal turbulence, while large separations trace bulk velocity and viewing angle, so reproducing a cloud's VSF constrains its orientation and evolutionary stage.
  • The correlation between column density and velocity dispersion is reproduced by the simulations and is therefore a safe observational target, whereas the velocity-versus-velocity-dispersion correlation best discriminates between growing and destroyed clouds.
  • The large-scale autocovariance of HI column density is a demanding probe, and matching it will require either larger initial clouds or less idealized initial structure than a uniform sphere.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If TRML growth is really happening, the Smith Cloud's mass should be increasing over its infall time, and a measurable prediction is that the tail should show enrichment in metals from hot-halo gas mixed into the cloud.
  • The paper's failure to reproduce the large-scale ACF might be fixed by initializing clouds with the velocity gradients that infall would produce, and such gradients might also generate the column-density/velocity correlation that none of the current runs recover.
  • A direct next test would apply the same VSF-plus-ACF pipeline to other well-resolved HVCs with known distances, such as the Magellanic Stream, where differing infall geometry could separate true TRML signatures from line-of-sight projection effects.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents an initial comparison between four Enzo-E wind-tunnel simulations of cool clouds and GALFA-HI observations of the Smith Cloud, using identical analysis of spectral moment maps, projected first-order velocity structure functions (VSFs), and normalized autocovariance functions (ACFs) of HI column density. The simulations vary thermal pressure, metallicity, radius, cooling treatment, and density contrast, and the mock observations include beam convolution, noise, sigma clipping, and variations in viewing angle and distance. The paper finds that no simulation matches all observational probes, identifies simulation C, which grows via turbulent radiative mixing layer (TRML) entrainment, as the best overall match, and interprets this as evidence that TRML-mediated cooling is highly relevant to the Smith Cloud and HVCs generally.

Significance. If the comparison holds, this is a valuable step toward testing cloud-wind survival criteria in the observational plane: it applies consistent mock-observation techniques to a well-studied HVC and proposes projected VSF and ACF as potential diagnostics of cloud growth or destruction. The paper is commendably honest about its failures, including the large-scale ACF discrepancy and the unreproduced velocity correlations, and it includes a resolution investigation in Appendix A. However, the central inference rests on a qualitative best-match ranking, a column-density normalization that is partly an input, and a VSF that Appendix A shows to be resolution-dependent at the resolution used for the main runs. These issues need to be addressed before the TRML claim is fully supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3 and Section 5.1.2] The reported match of simulation C to the observed NHI distribution is not an independent success. The authors state that the relation N_cl ∝ n_cl^(2/3) motivated choosing p/kB = 5×10^3 K cm^-3 so that the initial column density would be higher by a factor of about 4 and closer to the Smith Cloud. The later statement that simulation C replicates the observed NHI values should therefore be framed as a consistency check on the assumed pressure and density rather than as evidence favoring simulation C over A or B; the paper should make this explicit when using the NHI agreement to support the TRML conclusion.
  2. [Section 4.2, Section 5.1.3, and Appendix A] The VSF-based identification of simulation C as the best TRML-growing match is not converged. All main simulations are run at R_cl/Δx = 16 (Table 1), yet Figures A2 and A4 show that for the same wind-tunnel setup the projected first-order VSF shifts upward at small ℓ and changes shape as R_cl/Δx increases from 4 to 32/64, with the Appendix text stating that low-resolution runs do not properly resolve the turbulent scales probed by the VSF. Because the small-separation VSF agreement is a principal reason C is declared the best match, a resolution test for the Smith Cloud models is needed; without it, the headline claim may rest on a numerical artifact rather than a physical statement about HVCs.
  3. [Section 5.1 and Section 5.1.3] The designation of simulation C as the 'best match' is made without a quantitative figure of merit. The paper compares four simulations against several joint moment distributions and two scale-dependent statistics and states that C is the closest match, but no criterion is specified for weighting the VSF, ACF, and moment-space agreements, and simulations A and C are acknowledged to be close overall in different metrics. A defined ranking metric, or at least a transparent per-probe score, is required to make the central claim reproducible and to prevent the TRML interpretation from depending on an informal judgment.
  4. [Section 5.4 and Figures 4 and 6] The omission of gravity is a load-bearing caveat for the central claim, not merely a future improvement. The Smith Cloud is about 3 kpc from the Galactic plane and is observed falling at v_z ~ 70 km/s; the paper itself notes that gravitational acceleration may drive the v_LSR and velocity-dispersion correlations that none of the simulations reproduce. Since the ranking of the simulations is dominated by partial agreement and the velocity-space statistics are the main failures, a test with an external gravitational acceleration, or a correspondingly weakened conclusion, is needed before the results can be read as evidence that TRML entrainment is the key physics for this cloud.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 6, item (i)] 'Statical measures' should be 'statistical measures'.
  2. [Section 5.1.3] The text refers to the 'VCF' where the velocity structure function (VSF) is meant; this typo appears in the sentence describing the small-scale turbulence and large-scale motions.
  3. [Figure 7 caption] The caption mentions a grey vertical line as a reference at ℓ = 0.5 degrees, but the shaded grey region and the resolution limit are described inconsistently with the text; please clarify the meaning of the shaded region in the caption.
  4. [Section 2 and Figure 1] Because the GALFA-HI declination coverage omits part of the Smith Cloud head, it would aid the reader if Figure 1 marked the boundary of the missing region rather than only discussing it in Section 5.4.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Column-density match of simulation C is partly constructed from observed N_HI; central TRML claim retains independent content.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3 (Simulations); see also Section 5.1.2]
    "Finding that simulations A and B produced lower column densities (N_cl) than the Smith Cloud prompted us to run simulation C. The relation N_cl ∝ n^{2/3}_cl (from R_cl ∝ n^{-1/3}_cl and N_cl ∼ R_cl n_cl) motivated our choice of conditions. We initialized simulation C with p/k_B = 5×10^3 K cm^-3, T_cl = 4430 K, and R_cl = 169 pc to maintain mass and metallicity values similar to observations, while producing column densities that are higher by a factor of ≈4."

    The observed Smith Cloud column density is put directly into the initial conditions: the paper uses N_cl ∝ n_cl^{2/3} (with R_cl ∝ n_cl^{-1/3} and N_cl ∼ R_cl n_cl) to choose p/k_B and R_cl so that simulation C starts with column densities higher by ≈4, i.e. closer to the observed Smith Cloud.

full rationale

The paper's main methodological content—projecting simulations into the observational plane and comparing VSF and ACF statistics—does not reduce to its inputs. The VSF and ACF are computed from the full simulation cubes independently of the observed Smith Cloud values, and the central claim that TRML growth is the best match is supported by the VSF/ACF comparisons, the evolution of the column-density–velocity-dispersion correlation, and the contrast with the no-cooling run D. The one genuine circular step is the tuning of simulation C's initial pressure/radius from the observed column-density scaling relation, which 'predicts' the observed N_HI distribution by construction. That tuned input does not, however, invalidate the other diagnostics, so the overall circularity is partial rather than total. The resolution caveat raised in Appendix A (VSF not converged) is a numerical robustness concern, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The core input the paper adds beyond prior cloud-wind simulation work is the choice of cloud thermal pressure, which for the best-match simulation was tuned to observed column density. The surrounding axioms are standard idealized assumptions of the wind-tunnel setup, with gravity and resolution being the most fragile.

free parameters (1)
  • Cloud thermal pressure p/kB (simulations A through D) = 10^3 K cm^-3 for A and B; 5x10^3 K cm^-3 for C and D
    Chosen as the only remaining free parameter after fixing mass and metallicity from Smith Cloud observations. For simulation C it was explicitly set to produce column densities about 4 times higher, closer to the observed N_HI (Section 3). This parameter underlies the claimed column-density match.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Smith Cloud can be represented as a uniform, spherical, pressure-confined cloud with no initial velocity in a uniform laminar wind.
    Assumed in Section 3 for all simulations. If the real cloud is not in pressure equilibrium or has internal velocity structure, the comparison basis changes.
  • domain assumption Optically thin radiative cooling in ionization equilibrium with the z=0 Haardt and Madau UV background, with no self-shielding, and with cooling shut off for T greater than 0.6 T_w.
    Invoked via Grackle in Section 3. Self-shielding is deferred to future work and can affect column densities at lower pressures (Section 5.4).
  • domain assumption Gravity, magnetic fields, and cosmic rays are negligible for the evolution and observational statistics.
    Omitted in Section 3 and listed as caveats in Section 5.4. The Smith Cloud is about 3 kpc from the Galactic plane and falling at 70 km/s, so gravity in particular may alter the velocity statistics the simulations fail to match.
  • ad hoc to paper Resolution R_cl/Delta x = 16 is adequate for the turbulence statistics compared.
    Used for all main runs (Table 1), but Appendix A shows the projected VSF at small separations changes with resolution (R_cl/Delta x = 4 to 64), and Section 5.2 states the turbulent cascade is underresolved. The small-scale VSF comparison is therefore resolution dependent.
  • domain assumption The observed velocity window 75 to 130 km/s captures the Smith Cloud without significant contamination.
    Imposed in Section 2 to avoid Galactic contamination; some Smith Cloud emission may lie outside this range (Section 5.4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simulating High-Velocity Clouds in the Observational Plane: An Initial Study with the Smith Cloud." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2TLYJP6B

@misc{pith2026250600111,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simulating High-Velocity Clouds in the Observational Plane: An Initial Study with the Smith Cloud},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2TLYJP6B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00111}
}
abstract

High-velocity clouds (HVCs) may fuel future star formation in the Milky Way, but they must first survive their passage through the hot halo. While recent work has improved our understanding of the survival criterion for cloud-wind interactions, few observational comparisons exist that test this criterion. We therefore present an initial comparison of simulations with the Smith Cloud (SC; $d=$ 12.4 kpc, $l, b = 40^{\circ}, -13^{\circ}$) as mapped with the GALFA-HI survey. We use the Smith Cloud's observed properties to motivate simulations of comparable clouds in wind tunnel simulations with Enzo-E, an MHD code. For both observations and simulations, we generate moment maps, characterize turbulence through a projected first-order velocity structure function (VSF), and do the same for HI column density with a normalized autocovariance function. We explore how initial cloud conditions (such as radius, metallicity, thermal pressure, viewing angle, and distance) affect these statistics, demonstrating that the small-scale VSF is sensitive to cloud turbulence while large scales depend on cloud bulk velocity and viewing angle. We find that some simulations reproduce key observational features (particularly the correlation between column density and velocity dispersion) but none match all observational probes at the same time (the large scales of the column density autocovariance is particularly challenging). We find that the simulated cloud (cloud C) showing growth via a turbulent radiative mixing layer (TRML) is the best match, implying the importance of TRML-mediated cooling for Milky Way HVCs. We conclude by suggesting improvements for simulations to better match observed HVCs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00111 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. GALFA-HI moment maps of the Smith Cloud, smoothed over 4 km/s in spectral resolution, then integrated across 75-130 km s−1 and with a 2.5𝜎 clipping data reduction. Grey regions represent parts of the observa￾tions that are removed by applying the 2.5𝜎 clipping to brightness tempera￾ture when calculating spectral moments. Top row shows the zeroth moment (neutral hydrogen column density; 𝑁HI), second row is the intens… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Moment maps of nearly all simulated clouds, with rows organized by simulation and columns by column density (column 1; zeroth moment), intensity-weighted mean velocity (column 2; first moment), and intensity-weighted velocity dispersion (column 3; second moment). All quantities are integrated across the entire simulations’ velocity range at 𝑡 = 3𝑡cc. Grey regions represent the entire simulated cloud (without the add… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 2-D histograms of column density (zeroth moment) and 𝑣LSR (first moment) of the Smith Cloud GALFA-HI observations (top panel) and all simulations (lower panels), colored by density of pixels. Rows are organized by simulation, while columns represent different cloud-cru…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 2-D histograms of column density (𝑁HI; zeroth moment) and velocity differences in the cloud (√︃ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: 2-D histograms of 𝑣LSR (first moment) and velocity dispersion through the cloud (√︃ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Projected first-order velocity structure functions for each simulation (shown in each column) colored by cloud-crushing time up to 12𝑡cc. Values measured from the Smith Cloud observations are represented by dashed black lines. We require at least 100 pairs of points in…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Normalized autocovariance function of column density for each simulation (column) colored by cloud-crushing time up to 12𝑡cc, similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Definition of our viewing angle 𝜙. Black dashed lines represent the ray directions for each angle or the line of sight, and the red sphere represents the initial spherical cloud of our simulations. The blue arrow along the +x￾axis shows the direction of the hot wind. 𝜙…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: 2-D histograms of column density versus intensity-weighted average velocity, similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Projected velocity structure function (top row) and normalized autocovariance function of column density (bottom row) of simulation C, for varying cloud orientations (𝜙 = 15−90◦ ). Lines are colored by cloud-crushing time, as Figures 7 & 8, respectively. The angle of …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Projected velocity structure function (top row) and normalized autocovariance function of column density (bottom row) for simulation C, but now varying cloud distances (columns) at the same angle of 𝜙 = 45◦ . The middle column represents the observed distance of the S…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    W., Bryan G

    Abruzzo M. W., Bryan G. L., Fielding D. B., 2022, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3c48 , 925, 199

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3c48 2022

  2. [2]

    W., Fielding D

    Abruzzo M. W., Fielding D. B., Bryan G. L., 2023, @doi [ArXiv eprints] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/2023arXiv230703228A/doi:10.48550/arXiv.2307.03228

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.03228 2023

  3. [3]

    W., Fielding D

    Abruzzo M. W., Fielding D. B., Bryan G. L., 2024, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e51 , 966, 181

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e51 2024

  4. [4]

    Armillotta L., Fraternali F., Marinacci F., 2016, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stw1930 , 462, 4157

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1930 2016

  5. [5]

    F., 1982, @doi [Astrophys

    Balbus S., McKee C. F., 1982, @doi [Astrophys. J.] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/1982ApJ...252..529B/doi:10.1086/159581 , 252, 529

    doi:10.1086/159581 1982

  6. [6]

    Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/200811259 , 503, 483

    Ben Bekhti N., Richter P., Winkel B., Kenn F., Westmeier T., 2009, @doi [Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/200811259 , 503, 483

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200811259 2009

  7. [7]

    L., 2012, in BW-XSEDE'12 Proc

    Bordner J., Norman M. L., 2012, in BW-XSEDE'12 Proc. Extrem. Scaling Work.. Champaign, IL, pp 1--11

    2012

  8. [8]

    Computational Cosmology and Astrophysics on Adaptive Meshes using Charm++

    Bordner J., Norman M. L., 2018, @doi [ArXiv eprints] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/2018arXiv181001319B/doi:10.48550/arXiv.1810.01319

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.01319 2018

Show all 105 references
  1. [9]

    M., Mebold U., 2000, @doi [Astron

    Br \" u ns C., Kerp J., Kalberla P. M., Mebold U., 2000, @doi [Astron. Astrophys.] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/2000A&A...357..120B/doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0003110 , 357, 120

    2000 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    L., et al., 2014, @doi [Astrophys

    Bryan G. L., et al., 2014, @doi [Astrophys. Journal, Suppl. Ser.] 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/19 , 211

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac752b , 933, 120

    Bustard C., Gronke M., 2022, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac752b , 933, 120

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    S., Fielding D

    Butsky I. S., Fielding D. B., Hayward C. C., Hummels C. B., Quinn T. R., Werk J. K., 2020, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/abbad2 , 903, 77

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    Chen Z., Peng Oh S., 2024, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stae1113 , 530, 4032

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    C., et al., 2023a, @doi [Mon

    Chen M. C., et al., 2023a, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stac3193 , 518, 2354

    doi

  7. [16]

    J.] 10.1086/321427 , 554, 1044

    Chiappini C., Matteucci F., Romano D., 2001, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1086/321427 , 554, 1044

    2001 doi

  8. [17]

    Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361:20031192 , 410, 257

    Chiappini C., Matteucci F., Meynet G., 2003, @doi [Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361:20031192 , 410, 257

    2003 doi

  9. [18]

    A., Ib \' a \ n ez-Mej \' i a J

    Chira R. A., Ib \' a \ n ez-Mej \' i a J. C., Mac Low M. M., Henning T., 2019, @doi [Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833970 , 630, 1

    2019 doi

  10. [19]

    S., 2011, @doi [Astron

    Chomiuk L., Povich M. S., 2011, @doi [Astron. J.] 10.1088/0004-6256/142/6/197 , 142

    2011 doi

  11. [20]

    L., Bicknell G

    Cooper J. L., Bicknell G. V., Sutherland R. S., Bland-Hawthorn J., 2009, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/330 , 703, 330

    2009 doi

  12. [21]

    Das S., Mathur S., Nicastro F., Krongold Y., 2019, @doi [Astrophys. J. Lett.] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab3b09 , 882, L23

    2019 doi

  13. [22]

    J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0e8e , 918, 83

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

    2021 doi

  14. [23]

    H., Appleby S., 2019, @doi [Mon

    Dav \' e R., Angl \' e s-Alc \' a zar D., Narayanan D., Li Q., Rafieferantsoa M. H., Appleby S., 2019, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stz937 , 486, 2827

    2019 doi

  15. [24]

    J., Pfrommer C., 2008, @doi [Astrophys

    Dursi L. J., Pfrommer C., 2008, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1086/529371 , 677, 993

    2008 doi

  16. [25]

    J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/aca27d , 941, 162

    Elia D., et al., 2022, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/aca27d , 941, 162

    2022 doi

  17. [26]

    K., 2008, @doi [Astrophys

    Erb D. K., 2008, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1086/524727 , 674, 151

    2008 doi

  18. [27]

    J., Gronke M., Planck M., M D.-G., 2022, @doi [Mon

    Farber R. J., Gronke M., Planck M., M D.-G., 2022, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/2022MNRAS.510..551F/doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3412 , 510, 551

    2022 doi

  19. [28]

    Federrath C., 2013, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stt1644 , 436, 1245

    2013 doi

  20. [29]

    B., Ostriker E

    Fielding D. B., Ostriker E. C., Bryan G. L., Jermyn A. S., 2020, @doi [Astrophys. J. Lett.] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8d2c , 894, L24

    2020 doi

  21. [30]

    J., et al., 2014, @doi [Astrophys

    Fox A. J., et al., 2014, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1088/0004-637X/787/2/147 , 787

    2014 doi

  22. [31]

    J., et al., 2016, @doi [Astrophys

    Fox A. J., et al., 2016, @doi [Astrophys. J. Lett.] 10.3847/2041-8205/816/1/l11 , 816, L11

    2016 doi

  23. [32]

    J., Richter P., Ashley T., Heckman T

    Fox A. J., Richter P., Ashley T., Heckman T. M., Lehner N., Werk J. K., Bordoloi R., Peeples M. S., 2019, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab40ad , 884, 53

    2019 doi

  24. [33]

    Kolmogorov

    Frisch U., 1995, Turbulence: The legacy of A.N. Kolmogorov . Cambridge University Press., Cambridge

    1995

  25. [34]

    J.] 10.1088/0004-6256/137/1/266 , 137, 266

    Fuchs B., Jahrei H., Flynn C., 2009, @doi [Astron. J.] 10.1088/0004-6256/137/1/266 , 137, 266

    2009 doi

  26. [35]

    L., 2016, @doi [Astrophys

    Galyardt J., Shelton R. L., 2016, @doi [Astrophys. J. Lett.] 10.3847/2041-8205/816/1/l18 , 816, L18

    2016 doi

  27. [36]

    P., 2018, @doi [Mon

    Gronke M., Oh S. P., 2018, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. Lett.] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly131 , 480, L111

    2018 doi

  28. [37]

    P., 2020a, @doi [Mon

    Gronke M., Oh S. P., 2020a, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stz3332 , 492, 1970

    1970 doi

  29. [38]

    P., 2020b, @doi [Mon

    Gronke M., Oh S. P., 2020b, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. Lett.] 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa033 , 494, L27

    doi

  30. [39]

    P., Ji S., Norman C., 2022, @doi [Mon

    Gronke M., Oh S. P., Ji S., Norman C., 2022, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/2022MNRAS.511..859G/doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3351 , 511, 859

    2022 doi

  31. [40]

    J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/abdbb6 , 909, 164

    Gupta A., Kingsbury J., Mathur S., Das S., Galeazzi M., Krongold Y., Nicastro F., 2021, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/abdbb6 , 909, 164

    2021 doi

  32. [41]

    Ha T., Li Y., Xu S., Kounkel M., Li H., 2021, @doi [Astrophys. J. Lett.] 10.3847/2041-8213/abd8c9 , 907, L40

    2021 doi

  33. [42]

    J.] 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/125 , 746

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

    2012 doi

  34. [43]

    E., 2009, @doi [Astrophys

    Heitsch F., Putman M. E., 2009, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1485 , 698, 1485

    2009 doi

  35. [44]

    E., Peek J

    Heitsch F., Bartell B., Clark S. E., Peek J. E., Cheng D., Putman M., 2016, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. Lett.] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw124 , 462, L46

    2016 doi

  36. [45]

    A., Shull J

    Heitsch F., Marchal A., Miville-Desch \^ e nes M. A., Shull J. M., Fox A. J., 2022, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stab3266 , 509, 4515

    2022 doi

  37. [46]

    B., Gritton J

    Henley D. B., Gritton J. A., Shelton R. L., 2017, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5df7 , 837, 82

    2017 doi

  38. [47]

    J., Gronke M., 2024, @doi [Mon

    Hidalgo-Pineda F., Farber R. J., Gronke M., 2024, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acc73f , 527, 135

    2024 doi

  39. [48]

    S., Haffner L

    Hill A. S., Haffner L. M., Reynolds R. J., 2009, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1832 , 703, 1832

    2009 doi

  40. [49]

    E., Kim D

    Holm-hansen C., Putman M. E., Kim D. A., 2025, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/2025MNRAS.536.3507H/doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2801 , 536, 3507

    2025 doi

  41. [50]

    M., McClure-Griffiths N

    Hopkins A. M., McClure-Griffiths N. M., Gaensler B. M., 2008, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1086/590494 , 682, L13

    2008 doi

  42. [51]

    H., Putman M

    Hsu W. H., Putman M. E., Heitsch F., Stanimirovi \' c S., Peek J. E., Clark S. E., 2011, @doi [Astron. J.] 10.1088/0004-6256/141/2/57 , 141

    2011 doi

  43. [52]

    S., 2022, @doi [Mon

    Hu Y., Federrath C., Xu S., Mathew S. S., 2022, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stac972 , 513, 2100

    2022 doi

  44. [53]

    D., 2007, @doi [Comput

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Comput. Sci. Eng.] https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    2007 doi

  45. [54]

    P., Masterson P., 2019, @doi [Mon

    Ji S., Oh S. P., Masterson P., 2019, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stz1248 , 487, 737

    2019 doi

  46. [55]

    R., Bryan G

    Joung M. R., Bryan G. L., Putman M. E., 2012, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/148 , 745

    2012 doi

  47. [56]

    Kanjilal V., Dutta A., Sharma P., 2021, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/staa3610 , 501, 1143

    2021 doi

  48. [57]

    C., Evans N

    Kennicutt R. C., Evans N. J., 2012, @doi [Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610 , 50, 531

    2012 doi

  49. [58]

    F., Colella P., 1994, @doi [Astrophys

    Klein R., McKee C. F., Colella P., 1994, @doi [Astrophys. J.] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/1994ApJ...420..213K/doi:10.1086/173554 , 420, 213

    1994 doi

  50. [59]

    B., Tinsley B., Caldwell N., 1980, @doi [Astrophys

    Larson R. B., Tinsley B., Caldwell N., 1980, @doi [Astrophys. J.] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/1980ApJ...237..692L/doi:10.1086/157917 , 237, 692

    1980 doi

  51. [60]

    C., Marasco A., Fraternali F., 2022, @doi [Mon

    Lehner N., Howk J. C., Marasco A., Fraternali F., 2022, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac987 , 513, 3228

    2022 doi

  52. [61]

    F., Squire J., Hummels C., 2020a, @doi [Mon

    Li Z., Hopkins P. F., Squire J., Hummels C., 2020a, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stz3567 , 492, 1841

    doi

  53. [62]

    Li Y., et al., 2020b, @doi [Astrophys. J. Lett.] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab65c7 , 889, L1

    doi

  54. [63]

    G., 2023, @doi [Mon

    Li Y., Luo R., Fossati M., Sun M., J P., Occhialini F. G., 2023, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad874 , 521, 4785

    2023 doi

  55. [64]

    C., Newman J

    Licquia T. C., Newman J. A., 2015, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/96 , 806, 96

    2015 doi

  56. [65]

    J., Benjamin R

    Lockman F. J., Benjamin R. A., Heroux A. J., Langston G. I., 2008, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1086/588838 , 679, L21

    2008 doi

  57. [66]

    H., Bullock J

    Maller A. H., Bullock J. S., 2004, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08349.x , 355, 694

    2004

  58. [67]

    Marinacci F., Binney J., Fraternali F., Nipoti C., Ciotti L., Londrillo P., 2010, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16352.x , 404, 1464

    2010

  59. [68]

    M., Madigan A

    McCourt M., O'Leary R. M., Madigan A. M., Quataert E., 2015, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stv355 , 449, 2

    2015 doi

  60. [69]

    F., Cowie L

    McKee C. F., Cowie L. L., 1977, @doi [Astrophys. J.] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/1977ApJ...215..213M/doi:10.1086/155350 , 215, 213

    1977 doi

  61. [70]

    H., Lockman F

    Minter A. H., Lockman F. J., Balashev S. A., Ford H. A., 2024, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad343d , 966, 76

    2024 doi

  62. [71]

    Mohapatra R., Jetti M., Sharma P., Federrath C., 2022, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stab3429 , 510, 2327

    2022 doi

  63. [72]

    J.] 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/1642 , 707, 1642

    Nichols M., Bland-Hawthorn J., 2009, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/1642 , 707, 1642

    2009 doi

  64. [73]

    R., Castaneda H

    O'Dell C. R., Castaneda H. O., 1987, @doi [Astrophys. J.] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/1987ApJ...317..686O/doi:10.1086/165314 , 317, 686

    1987 doi

  65. [74]

    H., 1969, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/2241158a0 , 224, 1158

    Oort J. H., 1969, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/2241158a0 , 224, 1158

    1969 doi

  66. [75]

    M., 2002, @doi [Astron

    Ossenkopf V., Low M. M., 2002, @doi [Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361:20020629 , 390, 307

    2002 doi

  67. [76]

    Peek J. E. G., Putman M. E., McKee C. F., Heiles C., Stanimirovi \' c S., 2007, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1086/510189 , 656, 907

    2007 doi

  68. [77]

    Peek J. E. G., et al., 2018, @doi [Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.] 10.3847/1538-4365/aa91d3 , 234, 2

    2018 doi

  69. [78]

    Pillepich A., et al., 2018, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stx2656 , 473, 4077

    2018 doi

  70. [79]

    E., Bland-Hawthorn J., Veilleux S., Gibson B

    Putman M. E., Bland-Hawthorn J., Veilleux S., Gibson B. K., Freeman K. C., Maloney P. R., 2003, @doi [Astrophys. J.] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/2003ApJ...597..948P/doi:10.1086/378555 , 597, 948

    2003 doi

  71. [80]

    E., Peek J

    Putman M. E., Peek J. E., Joung M. R., 2012, @doi [Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125612 , 50, 491

    2012 doi

  72. [81]

    J.] 10.1086/322866 , 555, L95

    Quilis V., Moore B., 2001, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1086/322866 , 555, L95

    2001 doi

  73. [82]

    Rennehan D., 2021, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stab1813 , 506, 2836

    2021 doi

  74. [83]

    M., Schneider E

    Richie H. M., Schneider E. E., Abruzzo M. W., Torrey P., 2024, @doi [Astrophys. J.] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/2024ApJ...974...81R/doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a1c , 974, 81

    2024 doi

  75. [84]

    P., Whitney B

    Robitaille T. P., Whitney B. A., 2010, @doi [Astrophys. J. Lett.] 10.1088/2041-8205/710/1/L11 , 710, 11

    2010 doi

  76. [85]

    Sander B., Hensler G., 2021, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/staa3952 , 501, 5330

    2021 doi

  77. [86]

    J.] 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/158 , 805, 158

    Scannapieco E., Br \" u ggen M., 2015, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/158 , 805, 158

    2015 doi

  78. [87]

    E., Robertson B

    Schneider E. E., Robertson B. E., 2017, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/144 , 834, 144

    2017 doi

  79. [88]

    R., et al., 2003, @doi [Astrophys

    Sembach K. R., et al., 2003, @doi [Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.] 10.1086/346231 , 146, 165

    2003 doi

  80. [89]

    Smith G., 1963, @doi [Bull. Astron. Institutes Netherlands] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1963BAN....17..203S/abstract , 17, 203

    1963

  81. [90]

    D., et al., 2017, @doi [Mon

    Smith B. D., et al., 2017, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stw3291 , 466, 2217

    2017 doi

  82. [91]

    Sparre M., Pfrommer C., Vogelsberger M., 2019, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/sty3063 , 482, 5401

    2019 doi

  83. [92]

    Sparre M., Pfrommer C., Ehlert K., 2020, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/staa3177 , 499, 4261

    2020 doi

  84. [93]

    J.] 10.1086/508800 , 653, 1210

    Stanimirovi \' c S., et al., 2006, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1086/508800 , 653, 1210

    2006 doi

  85. [94]

    V., Baker A

    Stark D. V., Baker A. D., Kannappan S. J., 2015, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stu2182 , 446, 1855

    2015 doi

  86. [95]

    Tan B., Peng Oh S., Gronke M., 2021, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stab053 , 502, 3179

    2021 doi

  87. [96]

    P., Gronke M., 2023, @doi [Mon

    Tan B., Oh S. P., Gronke M., 2023, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/2023MNRAS.520.2571T/doi:10.1093/mnras/stad236 , 520, 2571

    2023 doi

  88. [97]

    J., Smith B

    Turk M. J., Smith B. D., Oishi J. S., Skory S., Skillman S. W., Abel T., Norman M. L., 2011, @doi [Astrophys. Journal, Suppl. Ser.] 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9 , 192

    2011 doi

  89. [98]

    C., Varoquaux G., 2011, @doi [Comput

    Van Der Walt S., Colbert S. C., Varoquaux G., 2011, @doi [Comput. Sci. Eng.] 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 , 13, 22

    2011 doi

  90. [99]

    Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , 17, 261

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

    2020 doi

  91. [100]

    P., van Woerden H., 1997, @doi [Annu

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

    1997 doi

  92. [101]

    P., Oosterloo T

    Wakker B. P., Oosterloo T. A., Putman M. E., 2002, @doi [Astron. J.] 10.1086/339478 , 123, 1953

    2002 doi

  93. [102]

    P., York D

    Wakker B. P., York D. G., Wilhelm R., Barentine J. C., Richter P., Beers T. C., Ivezi \' c Z ., Howk J. C., 2008, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1086/523845 , 672, 298

    2008 doi

  94. [103]

    Xu S., 2020, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stz3092 , 492, 1044

    2020 doi

  95. [104]

    A., Quataert E., Murray N., 2017, @doi [Mon

    Zhang D., Thompson T. A., Quataert E., Murray N., 2017, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stx822 , 468, 4801

    2017 doi

  96. [105]

    von Hoerner S., 1951, @doi [Zeitschrift f \" u r Astrophys.] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1951ZA.....30...17V/abstract , 30, 17

    1951

  97. [106]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

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