pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2512.11062 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-11 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.HE

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Effects of Varied Cosmic Ray Feedback from AGN on Massive Galaxy Properties

Charvi Goyal , Sam B. Ponnada , Philip F. Hopkins , Sarah Wellons , Jose A. Benavides , Kung-Yi Su
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 22:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE
keywords cosmic raysAGN feedbackgalaxy quenchingcircumgalactic mediummassive galaxiesstar formation regulationnumerical simulations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Varying AGN cosmic ray feedback by 1.5 dex still produces galaxies matching observed scaling relations but with vastly different circumgalactic media.

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

This paper examines how different assumptions about cosmic rays from active galactic nuclei affect the evolution of massive galaxies in simulations. It finds that despite changing the cosmic ray injection efficiency over a wide range and altering transport models, the galaxies self-regulate to match key observed properties like stellar mass and star formation rates. The bulk properties of the galaxies themselves are similar across models, but the gas in the surrounding halos shows dramatic differences in density and other properties. These results imply that looking at the circumgalactic medium through observations could help determine which feedback model is correct for how AGN turn off star formation in big galaxies.

Core claim

High-resolution simulations including explicit cosmic ray feedback from AGN show that all tested parameterizations, with injection efficiencies varying by roughly 1.5 orders of magnitude and different transport prescriptions, lead to quenched massive galaxies whose bulk properties agree with observations. However, the circumgalactic medium gas properties differ by orders of magnitude between the models. This indicates that multi-wavelength observations of halo gas can distinguish the physical processes by which AGN quench star formation.

What carries the argument

Spectrally-resolved cosmic ray feedback from the central black hole with variable injection efficiencies and locally-variable transport, evolved alongside kinetic and radiative AGN feedback channels.

If this is right

  • All explored CR feedback models self-regulate to produce quenched galaxies consistent with observed scaling relations.
  • Galaxy bulk properties remain reasonable across ~1.5 dex variation in CR injection efficiency.
  • CGM gas properties vary by orders of magnitude with different CR transport assumptions.
  • Multi-wavelength synthetic observations of halo properties can constrain AGN quenching mechanisms.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Future observations of CGM in massive galaxies could rule out certain CR feedback models.
  • The similarity in galaxy properties suggests other feedback processes may dominate regulation in massive halos.
  • Extending these simulations to larger samples would allow statistical comparisons with surveys of halo gas.

Load-bearing premise

The cosmic ray transport and injection physics calibrated using Milky Way interstellar medium conditions holds for the environments around massive galaxies.

What would settle it

Measuring the X-ray emission or absorption lines from the circumgalactic medium around quenched massive galaxies and finding no significant variation across different systems would contradict the predicted order-of-magnitude differences.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.11062 by Charvi Goyal, Jose A. Benavides, Kung-Yi Su, Philip F. Hopkins, Sam B. Ponnada, Sarah Wellons.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Scaling relations for all h206, h113, h029, and h236 runs at z = 0, indicated by squares, circles, triangles, and stars, respectively. Blue, green, red, and purple markers indicate runs with the CD, VDLoCR, VDMidCR, and VD￾HiCR model, respectively. Irrespective of the details of CR physics, all models produce well-regulated, quenched galaxies with reasonable SMBH masses, in agreement with the scaling relat… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Cosmic ray injection rate (top) and cumulative injected energy (bottom) by source of the h206 runs, from 0 to 13.8 Gyr. Stellar feedback is plotted in solid; AGN feedback is plotted in dashed lines with ‘x’ markers. Vertical dashed lines correspond to snapshots showcased below in Figures 3 - 5. The injection rate is binned at ∼30 Myr intervals for both stellar and AGN injection. Stellar injection rate is r… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Radial profiles of the volume-weighted mean ecr in the halos of the h206 runs, binned in ∼1.7 kpc spherical annuli. Snapshots at τ = 2.4, 6.8, 10.3, 13.8 Gyr are shown in the left to right panels respectively. The gray dashed line is the 1/r2 profile expected from steady state CR injection and κeff ∝ r (Butsky et al. 2023). VD models have increasingly flatter profiles over time, with a nonlinear relationsh… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radial profiles of the volume-weighted mean ngas for the h206 runs, from 10 kpc to 750 kpc binned in ∼1.7 kpc spherical annuli. Snapshots at τ = 2.4, 6.8, 10.3, 13.8 Gyr are shown in the left to right panels respectively. Similar trends as the CR density profile suggest dynamical coupling of CRs to gas. 10 1 10 2 Radius [kpc] 10 28 10 29 10 30 10 31 eff [c m 2 s 1 ] 2.4 Gyr 10 1 10 2 Radius [kpc] 10 28 10 … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Radial profiles of the volume-weighted mean cosmic ray diffusivity κeff in the halos of the h206 runs, from 10 kpc to 750 kpc binned in ∼1.7 kpc annuli. Snapshots at τ = 2.4, 6.8, 10.3, 13.8 Gyr are shown in the left to right panels respectively. The presences of troughs suggests the possibility of CR winds. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Active galactic nuclei (AGN) provide energetic feedback necessary to `turn off' star formation in high-mass galaxies (M$_{\rm halo} \geq $ 10$^{12.5}$ M$_{\odot}$, $10.4 \leq \log(\frac{M_*}{M_\odot}) \leq 11$) as observed. Cosmic rays (CRs) have been proposed as a promising channel of AGN feedback, but the nature of CR feedback from AGN remains uncertain. We analyze a set of high-resolution simulations of massive galaxies from the Feedback in Realistic Environments (FIRE-3) project including multi-channel AGN feedback, explicitly evolving kinetic/mechanical, radiative, and spectrally-resolved CRs from the central black hole. Specifically, we explore different CR feedback and transport assumptions, calibrated to Milky Way local ISM constraints, and compare them to observed galaxy scaling relations. We find that all parameterizations explored self-regulate within agreement with observed galaxy scaling relations, demonstrating that CR injection efficiencies varied by $\sim$1.5 dex and locally-variable transport produce quenched galaxies with reasonable bulk properties; however, they feature orders-of-magnitude variant circumgalactic medium (CGM) gas properties. Our results indicate that multi-wavelength synthetic observations probing these varied halo properties from larger simulated samples in conjunction with observational comparisons may place novel constraints on how AGN physically quench star formation in massive galaxies.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents results from a suite of high-resolution FIRE-3 simulations of massive galaxies (M_halo ≥ 10^{12.5} M_⊙) that incorporate multi-channel AGN feedback, explicitly evolving kinetic, radiative, and spectrally-resolved cosmic rays (CRs) injected from the central black hole. By exploring CR injection efficiencies varied by ∼1.5 dex together with different locally-variable transport models (diffusion, streaming, losses) calibrated to Milky Way local ISM constraints, the authors conclude that all parameterizations self-regulate to produce quenched galaxies whose bulk properties agree with observed scaling relations, while the circumgalactic medium (CGM) gas properties vary by orders of magnitude across the models. The work suggests that multi-wavelength synthetic observations of the CGM could help constrain AGN quenching physics.

Significance. If the quantitative comparisons hold, the result is significant because it demonstrates robustness of CR AGN feedback in achieving realistic massive-galaxy properties across a substantial range of injection and transport assumptions. The large variation in CGM properties is a useful prediction that could guide future observational tests. The technical approach of spectrally-resolved CR evolution within a multi-channel feedback framework is a clear strength that advances the modeling of AGN feedback.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods] The transfer of CR transport parameters (diffusion, streaming, and loss rates) calibrated exclusively to Milky Way local ISM conditions to central AGN injection in halos with M_halo ≥ 10^{12.5} M_⊙ is not sufficiently justified. Differences in CR injection geometry (central point source versus distributed supernovae), magnetic-field structure, CR spectrum, and CGM density/turbulence could shift the effective transport outside the explored range, which would make the reported self-regulation and the orders-of-magnitude CGM variations dependent on the specific calibration choice rather than a general outcome (see abstract and methods description of calibration).
  2. [Results] The central claim that all models 'self-regulate within agreement with observed galaxy scaling relations' requires explicit quantitative support. The manuscript should report specific metrics (e.g., mean offsets, scatter, or statistical measures with uncertainties) for the comparison of simulated stellar mass, star-formation rate, and other scaling relations against observations, including how the agreement was assessed across the different CR parameterizations.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The stellar-mass range quoted in the abstract (10.4 ≤ log(M_*/M_⊙) ≤ 11) should be clarified as applying to the simulated sample or the observational comparison sample.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and legends for scaling-relation plots should explicitly reference the observational datasets used and indicate whether error bars or scatter are shown for both simulations and observations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments and positive assessment of the significance of our results. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] The transfer of CR transport parameters (diffusion, streaming, and loss rates) calibrated exclusively to Milky Way local ISM conditions to central AGN injection in halos with M_halo ≥ 10^{12.5} M_⊙ is not sufficiently justified. Differences in CR injection geometry (central point source versus distributed supernovae), magnetic-field structure, CR spectrum, and CGM density/turbulence could shift the effective transport outside the explored range, which would make the reported self-regulation and the orders-of-magnitude CGM variations dependent on the specific calibration choice rather than a general outcome (see abstract and methods description of calibration).

    Authors: We acknowledge that calibrating CR transport parameters to Milky Way local ISM conditions and applying them to AGN injection in massive halos involves assumptions, given differences in injection geometry, magnetic structure, CR spectrum, and CGM conditions. The manuscript explores a range of injection efficiencies varied by ∼1.5 dex and locally-variable transport models to demonstrate robustness within this framework. In the revised version, we will expand the methods section with additional discussion of these uncertainties, explicit caveats on the applicability of the calibration, and clarification that the reported self-regulation and CGM variations hold across the explored parameter space rather than being claimed as fully general for all possible transport regimes. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results] The central claim that all models 'self-regulate within agreement with observed galaxy scaling relations' requires explicit quantitative support. The manuscript should report specific metrics (e.g., mean offsets, scatter, or statistical measures with uncertainties) for the comparison of simulated stellar mass, star-formation rate, and other scaling relations against observations, including how the agreement was assessed across the different CR parameterizations.

    Authors: We agree that providing explicit quantitative metrics will strengthen the central claim. In the revised manuscript, we will add a table summarizing mean offsets, scatters, and any statistical measures (with uncertainties where feasible) for stellar mass, star-formation rate, and key scaling relations (e.g., stellar mass-halo mass) relative to observational compilations. We will also describe the assessment approach, such as consistency within observed scatter or specific tolerance criteria, and confirm that this holds across all CR parameterizations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: results compared to external observations

full rationale

The paper varies CR injection efficiencies and transport assumptions (calibrated externally to Milky Way ISM constraints) within FIRE-3 simulations of massive galaxies, then directly compares the resulting galaxy properties and scaling relations to independent observational data. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter or self-citation chain; the agreement with observed relations is presented as an empirical outcome rather than a tautological prediction. The central claim—that varied parameterizations still yield quenched galaxies with reasonable bulk properties—rests on simulation outputs tested against external benchmarks, with no evidence of self-definitional loops or renamed known results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the FIRE-3 multi-channel AGN feedback framework and calibration of CR parameters to Milky Way ISM data; no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • CR injection efficiency = varied by ~1.5 dex
    Varied by ~1.5 dex across models and calibrated to Milky Way local ISM constraints.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption CR transport and feedback assumptions calibrated to Milky Way ISM apply to massive galaxies
    Used to define the different parameterizations explored in the simulations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5572 in / 1214 out tokens · 88843 ms · 2026-05-16T22:38:18.790169+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  2. [2]

    H., Hearin, A

    Behroozi, P., Wechsler, R. H., Hearin, A. P., & Conroy, C. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488, 3143, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1182

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1182 2019

  3. [3]

    Benson, A. J. 2010, Galaxy formation theory, Elsevier BV, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2010.06.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2010.06.001 2010

  4. [4]

    Bustard, C., & Zweibel, E. G. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 913, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf64c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf64c 2021

  5. [5]

    S., Nakum, S., Ponnada, S

    Butsky, I. S., Nakum, S., Ponnada, S. B., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 521, 2477, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad671

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad671 2023

  6. [6]

    S., & Quinn, T

    Butsky, I. S., & Quinn, T. R. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 868, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaeac2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaeac2 2018

  7. [7]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 973, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad67ca

    Byrne, L., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Wellons, S., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 973, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad67ca

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad67ca 2024

  8. [8]

    D., et al

    Chadayammuri, U., Bogdan, A., Oppenheimer, B. D., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 936, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8936

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac8936 2022

  9. [9]

    J., & Zeippen, C

    Cole, S., Lacey, C. G., Baugh, C. M., & Frenk, C. S. 2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 319, 168, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03879.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03879.x 2002

  10. [10]

    F., Cole, S., et al

    Croton, D. J., & Farrar, G. R. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 2285, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13204.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13204.x 2008

  11. [11]

    R., Lyne , A

    Croton, D. J., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 11, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09675.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09675.x 2006

  12. [12]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 991, 205, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfdd6 Dav´ e, R., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Narayanan, D., et al

    Das, S., Truong, N., Chiang, Y.-K., & Mathur, S. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 991, 205, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfdd6 Dav´ e, R., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Narayanan, D., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 2827–2849, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz937 Di Matteo, T., Springel, V., & Hernquist, L. 2005, Nature, 433, 604, doi: 10.1...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfdd6 2025

  13. [13]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 50, 455, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 2012

  14. [14]

    E., Strader, J., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., Strader, J., & Ho, L. C. 2020, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 58, 257, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021835

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021835 2020

  15. [15]

    M., & Almeida, C

    Harrison, C. M., & Almeida, C. R. 2024, Observational Tests of Active Galactic Nuclei Feedback: An Overview of Approaches and Interpretation, arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.08050

    work page arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    M., Costa, T., Tadhunter, C

    Harrison, C. M., Costa, T., Tadhunter, C. N., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 198, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0403-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0403-6 2018

  17. [17]

    M., & Best, P

    Heckman, T. M., & Best, P. N. 2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 589, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722 2014

  18. [18]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 53, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv195 —. 2025, Cosmic Rays on Galaxy Scales: Progress and Pitfalls for CR-MHD Dynamical Models, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.07104

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/stv195 2015

  19. [19]

    F., Butsky, I

    Hopkins, P. F., Butsky, I. S., Panopoulou, G. V., et al. 2022a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516, 3470, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1791

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1791

  20. [20]

    F., Chan, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Chan, T. K., Ji, S., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501, 3640, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3690

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3690 2021

  21. [21]

    F., Chan, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Chan, T. K., Squire, J., et al. 2020a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501, 3663, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3692

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3692

  22. [22]

    F., Quataert, E., Ponnada, S

    Hopkins, P. F., Quataert, E., Ponnada, S. B., & Silich, E. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 78, doi: 10.33232/001c.141293

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.141293 2025

  23. [23]

    F., & Raives, M

    Hopkins, P. F., & Raives, M. J. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 455, 51, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2180 11

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2180 2015

  24. [24]

    F., Squire, J., Butsky, I

    Hopkins, P. F., Squire, J., Butsky, I. S., & Ji, S. 2022b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2909

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2909

  25. [25]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 458, 816, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw289

    Quataert, E., & Murray, N. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 458, 816, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw289

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw289 2016

  26. [26]

    F., Strauss, M

    Hopkins, P. F., Strauss, M. A., Hall, P. B., et al. 2004, AJ, 128, 1112, doi: 10.1086/423291

    work page doi:10.1086/423291 2004

  27. [27]

    F., Wetzel, A., Kereš, D., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Kereˇ s, D., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 800, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1690

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1690 2018

  28. [28]

    F., Chan, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Chan, T. K., Garrison-Kimmel, S., et al. 2020b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 3465, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3321

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3321

  29. [29]

    F., Wetzel, A., Wheeler, C., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Wheeler, C., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 519, 3154, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3489

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3489 2023

  30. [30]

    Jokipii, J. R. 1966, The Astrophysical Journal, 146, 480, doi: 10.1086/148912 Kereˇ s, D., Katz, N., Dav´ e, R., Fardal, M., & Weinberg, D. H. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 396, 2332–2344, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14924.x

    work page doi:10.1086/148912 1966

  31. [31]

    K., & Owen, E

    Lin, Y.-H., Yang, H.-Y. K., & Owen, E. R. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 963, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad185

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad185 2023

  32. [32]

    Longair, M. S. 2008, Galaxy Formation, Astronomy and Astrophysics Library (Heidelberg, Germany: Springer), doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-73478-9

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-73478-9 2008

  33. [33]

    S., Kereˇ s, D., Hopkins, P

    Lu, Y. S., Kereˇ s, D., Hopkins, P. F., et al. 2025, Constraining cosmic ray transport models using circumgalactic medium properties and observables, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.13597

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.13597 2025

  34. [34]

    J., Braun, R., Helou, G., et al

    Murphy, E. J., Braun, R., Helou, G., et al. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 638, 157–175, doi: 10.1086/498636

    work page doi:10.1086/498636 2006

  35. [35]

    P., Crawford, E., & Macgregor, P

    Norris, R. P., Crawford, E., & Macgregor, P. 2021, Galaxies, 9, 83, doi: 10.3390/galaxies9040083

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies9040083 2021

  36. [36]

    Ponnada, S. B. 2025, Time-Dependent Cosmic Ray Halos from Bursty Star Formation and Active Galactic Nuclei: Semi-Analytic Formalism and Galaxy Formation Implications, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.02697

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.02697 2025

  37. [37]

    B., Hopkins, P

    Ponnada, S. B., Hopkins, P. F., Lu, Y. S., et al. 2025a, Strong Evidence for Cosmic Ray-Supported $\sim$L$ˆ{\ast}$Galaxy Halos via X-ray\& tSZ Constraints, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.13959

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.13959

  38. [38]

    B., Panopoulou, G

    Ponnada, S. B., Panopoulou, G. V., Butsky, I. S., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 11707–11718, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3978

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3978 2023

  39. [39]

    B., Butsky, I

    Ponnada, S. B., Butsky, I. S., Skalidis, R., et al. 2024, Synchrotron Signatures of Cosmic Ray Transport Physics in Galaxies. https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.16752

    work page arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    B., Cochrane, R

    Ponnada, S. B., Cochrane, R. K., Hopkins, P. F., et al. 2025b, The Astrophysical Journal, 980, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada280

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada280

  41. [41]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 977, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8658

    Qutob, N., Emami, R., Su, K.-Y., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 977, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8658

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8658 2024

  42. [42]

    2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 31, 4, doi: 10.1007/s00159-023-00149-2

    Ruszkowski, M., & Pfrommer, C. 2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 31, 4, doi: 10.1007/s00159-023-00149-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-023-00149-2 2023

  43. [43]

    K., & Reynolds, C

    Ruszkowski, M., Yang, H.-Y. K., & Reynolds, C. S. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 844, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa79f8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa79f8 2017

  44. [44]

    M., Charlot, S., et al

    Salim, S., Rich, R. M., Charlot, S., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 173, 267, doi: 10.1086/519218

    work page doi:10.1086/519218 2007

  45. [45]

    A., Bower, R

    Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Bower, R. G., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 446, 521–554, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2058

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2058 2014

  46. [46]

    J., Almaini, O., et al

    Sijacki, D., Springel, V., Di Matteo, T., & Hernquist, L. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 380, 877, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12153.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12153.x 2007

  47. [47]

    Sijacki, D., Springel, V., & Haehnelt, M. G. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 400, 100, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15452.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15452.x 2009

  48. [48]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 452, 575–596, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1340

    Sijacki, D., Vogelsberger, M., Genel, S., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 452, 575–596, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1340

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1340 2015

  49. [49]

    Silk, J., & Rees, M. J. 1998, A&A, 331, L1, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9801013

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9801013 1998

  50. [50]

    S., & Davé, R

    Somerville, R. S., & Dav´ e, R. 2015, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 53, 51, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951 2015

  51. [51]

    2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    Springel, V., & Hernquist, L. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 339, 312, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06207.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06207.x 2003

  52. [52]

    L., Hopkins, P

    Su, K.-Y., Bryan, G. L., Hopkins, P. F., et al. 2025, Modeling Cosmic Rays at AGN Jet-Driven Shock Fronts, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.00927

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.00927 2025

  53. [53]

    F., Hayward, C

    Su, K.-Y., Hopkins, P. F., Hayward, C. C., et al. 2019a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 4393, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1494 —. 2019b, Cosmic rays or turbulence can suppress cooling flows (where thermal heating or momentum injection fail), Oxford University Press (OUP), doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3011 12

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1494

  54. [54]

    F., Bryan, G

    Su, K.-Y., Hopkins, P. F., Bryan, G. L., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 175, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2021

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2021 2021

  55. [55]

    L., Hayward, C

    Su, K.-Y., Bryan, G. L., Hayward, C. C., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 2724, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1629

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1629 2024

  56. [56]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 4056, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1733

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V., Pakmor, R., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 4056, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1733

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1733 2018

  57. [57]

    F., et al

    Wellons, S., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Hopkins, P. F., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 5394, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad511

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad511 2023

  58. [58]

    A., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Stern, J., Byrne, L., & Sultan, I

    Wijers, N. A., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Stern, J., Byrne, L., & Sultan, I. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 973, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad63a0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad63a0 2024

  59. [59]

    2024a, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 690, A267, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449412 —

    Zhang, Y., Comparat, J., Ponti, G., et al. 2024a, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 690, A267, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449412 —. 2024b, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 690, A268, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449413 —. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 693, A197, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452273

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449412 2025