pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.27332 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-30 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

Active Galactic Nucleus Feedback in an Elliptical Galaxy. IV. The Importance of the Jet Wind Coupling

Minhang Guo , Feng Yuan , Suoqing Ji , Bocheng Zhu
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 08:01 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE
keywords AGN feedbackjet wind couplingelliptical galaxystar formation suppressionKelvin-Helmholtz instabilityturbulence heatingblack hole outflow
0
0 comments X

The pith

Combining an AGN jet with its wind suppresses star formation in an elliptical galaxy ten times more than wind alone through extra turbulence at their interface.

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

The paper compares three AGN feedback models in an elliptical galaxy simulation: one with only the jet, one with only the wind, and one with both. Star formation rates average 0.1 solar masses per year with the jet alone, 0.01 with the wind alone, and 0.001 when both are present. The combined case shows nonlinear coupling because the jet and wind shear layer triggers Kelvin-Helmholtz instability that drives stronger turbulence. This turbulence converts a larger fraction of the AGN's kinetic energy into heat, preventing gas from cooling and forming stars. A sympathetic reader would care because this helps explain how central black holes can quench star formation in massive galaxies more effectively than simple addition of their outflows would suggest.

Core claim

In the model that includes both jet and wind, the time-averaged star formation rate reaches 10^{-3} solar masses per year. This is far below the 10^{-2} value for wind alone and the 10^{-1} value for jet alone, even though the jet carries higher power. The extra suppression arises because the shear between the wind and the jet produces Kelvin-Helmholtz instability. The resulting stronger turbulence dissipates 0.64 of the injected kinetic energy into heat, compared with 0.48 for wind alone and 0.26 for jet alone. The jet itself is less efficient than the wind because of its narrow opening angle and low momentum flux.

What carries the argument

The shear interface between the AGN wind and jet, which excites Kelvin-Helmholtz instability and amplifies turbulence to raise the fraction of kinetic energy converted to thermal energy.

If this is right

  • Jet feedback by itself suppresses star formation less efficiently than wind feedback despite higher power, because of the jet's narrow geometry.
  • The combined jet-plus-wind case dissipates more than half of the AGN kinetic energy into galaxy-scale heat via turbulence.
  • Nonlinear enhancement of feedback occurs specifically through the wind-jet shear layer rather than through simple addition of energies.
  • Elliptical galaxies experiencing both wind and jet outflows should maintain very low star formation rates over long times.
  • Energy dissipation efficiency in AGN feedback depends on the simultaneous presence of multiple outflow components.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Galaxy evolution models may need to treat different AGN outflow types as interacting components rather than independent additive terms.
  • Similar shear-driven turbulence could appear in other systems where fast and slow outflows coexist, such as in active galaxies with varying accretion states.
  • High-resolution maps of velocity dispersion in galaxy centers could be checked for signatures of enhanced turbulence at jet-wind boundaries.
  • Varying the jet opening angle or momentum in future runs would test how sensitive the nonlinear coupling is to those parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The jet power, opening angle, and momentum flux taken from small-scale black hole accretion simulations can be inserted directly into the large-scale galaxy model without any rescaling or additional calibration.

What would settle it

A simulation or observation that measures the turbulence level and energy dissipation rate at the jet-wind interface and finds no significant increase when both components are present, or that records a star formation rate in the combined case no lower than the arithmetic sum of the separate cases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.27332 by Bocheng Zhu, Feng Yuan, Minhang Guo, Suoqing Ji.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The jet velocity (left), kinetic power (middle) and mass flux (right) as a function of 𝜃 adopted in our model. the jet mass and energy fluxes are found to be symmetric about the equatorial plane. Accordingly, jets launched from both sides of the black hole follow the same 𝜃-dependent profile in our implementation. This angular dependence is directly extrapolated from the GRMHD accretion-flow scale to the i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A schematic figure showing the production of turbulence due to the KH instability driven by the velocity shear between jet and wind. In this way, the kinetic energy of the jet is efficiently transformed into turbulence and finally dissipated into the ISM. when the AGN accretion rate is low (Yuan & Narayan 2014), so jet feedback is turned on in FullFeedback and JetOnly only when the AGN enters the hot mode1… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The zoomed-in (𝑟 ≲ 20 kpc) spatial distribution of gas properties in the runs FullFeedback (top), WindOnly (middle) and JetOnly (bottom) at 𝑡 ∼ 7.58 Gyr (left) and 𝑡 ∼ 7.6 Gyr (right) when the AGN is in the hot mode: (from left to right) the velocity magnitude (km/s), temperature (K), and gas density (g/cm3 ). All colorbars are plotted in logarithmic scale. Compared to the WindOnly run, strong anisotropy i… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The evolution of SFR over 12 Gyr for three simulations. The JetOnly simulation exhibits the highest time-averaged SFR at approximately 10−1M⊙ yr−1 . The WindOnly simulation shows a time-averaged SFR one order of magnitude lower at 10−2M⊙ yr−1 , while the FullFeedback simulation maintains the lowest time-averaged SFR at 10−3M⊙ yr−1 . Note: The time-averaged SFR is calculated as the total mass of newly forme… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The distribution of time-integrated mass density of newly born stars at the end of the run for FullFeedback, WindOnly, JetOnly simulations, respectively. The JetOnly simulation shows a much higher newly formed star density and a more extended star formation region, because without winds, the energy deposition efficiency of jet alone is very low. patterns between our three simulations, which share identical… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Temporal evolution of the cooling and heating rates within a spherical region of radius 𝑅 < 35kpc in FullFeedback, WindOnly, and JetOnly runs. The blue line shows the cooling rate due to radiative processes, the orange line for the estimated shock heating rate, and the green line for the turbulent heating rate. Turbulent heating is more efficient than shock heating in FullFeedback simulation. fluctuations … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Percentage of the total simulation time spent (left) and cumulative energy emitted (right) below the given values of AGN Eddington ratios. In the JetOnly model, cold mode (i.e., above 2%𝐿Edd) occupies very little temporal residence but accounts for approximately 50% of the integrated AGN energy view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Temporal evolution of AGN luminosity in the FullFeedback (upper), WindOnly (middle), and JetOnly (bottom) simulations during the late evolutionary phase. The right panels show the zoomed-in part of the left panels. The dashed line indicates the critical luminosity 𝐿𝑐 ≡ 0.02𝐿Edd view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This is the fourth paper of our series investigating the effects of active galactic nucleus (AGN) feedback in the evolution of an elliptical galaxy using the {\it MACER} framework. While previous works considered only AGN radiation and wind, we now add jet feedback. The values of the jet parameters are taken from small-scale general relativity MHD simulations of black hole accretion. We run three models: {\tt FullFeedback}, {\tt JetOnly}, and {\tt WindOnly}. Time-averaged star formation rates are $10^{-1}$, $10^{-2}$, and $10^{-3} \mathrm{M}_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ in {\tt JetOnly}, {\tt WindOnly}, and {\tt FullFeedback}, respectively. Despite the higher jet power, jet feedback is less efficient than wind due to a small opening angle and low momentum flux. The much lower star formation rate in {\tt FullFeedback} indicates nonlinear coupling between jet and wind, with stronger suppression than the linear sum. The AGN energy dissipation efficiency values (fraction of injected kinetic energy dissipated via turbulence and shock) are 0.64 ({\tt FullFeedback}), 0.48 ({\tt WindOnly}), and 0.26 ({\tt JetOnly}). In the {\tt FullFeedback} model the wind-jet shear results in Kelvin-Helmholtz instability, driving stronger turbulence that effectively converts AGN kinetic energy into heating.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. This paper, the fourth in a series, investigates AGN feedback in an elliptical galaxy using the MACER framework by adding jet feedback to previous models of radiation and wind. Three simulations are performed: FullFeedback, JetOnly, and WindOnly, with jet parameters sourced from small-scale GRMHD simulations. The key results are time-averaged star formation rates of 0.1, 0.01, and 0.001 solar masses per year, and AGN energy dissipation efficiencies of 0.26, 0.48, and 0.64 for JetOnly, WindOnly, and FullFeedback, respectively. The authors conclude that the significantly lower SFR in the FullFeedback run demonstrates nonlinear coupling between the jet and wind through wind-jet shear inducing Kelvin-Helmholtz instability and enhanced turbulence.

Significance. If the nonlinear suppression holds, the work demonstrates synergistic effects between AGN wind and jet feedback that could improve models of galaxy quenching in ellipticals. The controlled comparison across three runs isolates interaction effects and provides quantitative efficiencies that may inform subgrid prescriptions. The direct adoption of GRMHD-derived jet parameters represents an attempt at multi-scale consistency, which is a methodological strength if validated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods (jet parameter selection and injection)] The jet power, opening angle, and momentum flux are adopted directly from small-scale GRMHD simulations and inserted into the kpc-scale MACER grid without rescaling, entrainment correction, or verification of effective opening angle at the injection radius. This assumption is load-bearing for the central claim of wind-jet shear triggering Kelvin-Helmholtz instability, as mismatched momentum flux or unresolved collimation could produce an artificial shear layer. A dedicated justification or sensitivity test for this direct insertion is required (Methods section on jet implementation).
  2. [Results (SFR and dissipation efficiencies)] The time-averaged SFRs and dissipation efficiencies are reported as single scalar values without error bars, temporal standard deviations, or resolution/convergence tests. Since the nonlinear coupling conclusion rests on the specific ordering (FullFeedback SFR an order of magnitude below the others; efficiency 0.64 versus 0.48 and 0.26), quantitative assessment of robustness against numerical resolution and averaging interval is needed to exclude artifacts (Results section on SFR and energy dissipation).
  3. [Analysis of energy dissipation] The dissipation efficiency is defined as the fraction of injected kinetic energy dissipated via turbulence and shocks, yet the precise extraction method from the simulation outputs—particularly how interaction terms are handled in the FullFeedback run—is not specified. This makes it difficult to confirm whether the reported 0.64 value reflects genuine nonlinear enhancement beyond the linear sum of the separate runs (section defining and computing dissipation efficiency).
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract reports SFRs as 10^{-1}, 10^{-2}, and 10^{-3} M_⊙ yr^{-1} but does not state the simulation duration or averaging window used for these time averages.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels should explicitly note the units and any normalization applied to the plotted quantities for clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments point by point below. Revisions have been made to incorporate additional methodological justification, quantitative variability measures, and explicit computational details for the dissipation efficiency, thereby strengthening the presentation without altering the core scientific conclusions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The jet power, opening angle, and momentum flux are adopted directly from small-scale GRMHD simulations and inserted into the kpc-scale MACER grid without rescaling, entrainment correction, or verification of effective opening angle at the injection radius. This assumption is load-bearing for the central claim of wind-jet shear triggering Kelvin-Helmholtz instability, as mismatched momentum flux or unresolved collimation could produce an artificial shear layer. A dedicated justification or sensitivity test for this direct insertion is required (Methods section on jet implementation).

    Authors: We appreciate the referee's emphasis on the need for clear justification of the jet parameter insertion. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the Methods section with a dedicated paragraph explaining the rationale for direct adoption: the GRMHD-derived values are inserted at the scale where the MACER grid resolves the jet launch region, preserving multi-scale consistency without arbitrary rescaling. Entrainment develops self-consistently through the resolved hydrodynamics rather than being imposed via correction factors. We have also added verification that the injected opening angle matches the GRMHD value at the injection radius, with subsequent collimation governed by the simulation. This setup is central to demonstrating the wind-jet shear layer. While a dedicated sensitivity test would be informative, the observed nonlinear coupling in the FullFeedback run (via KH instability) provides supporting evidence for the robustness of the shear-driven turbulence. We believe the added justification adequately addresses the concern. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The time-averaged SFRs and dissipation efficiencies are reported as single scalar values without error bars, temporal standard deviations, or resolution/convergence tests. Since the nonlinear coupling conclusion rests on the specific ordering (FullFeedback SFR an order of magnitude below the others; efficiency 0.64 versus 0.48 and 0.26), quantitative assessment of robustness against numerical resolution and averaging interval is needed to exclude artifacts (Results section on SFR and energy dissipation).

    Authors: We agree that reporting variability measures improves the robustness assessment. In the revised Results section, we now include the temporal standard deviations for both the SFRs and dissipation efficiencies, computed over the post-transient evolution period. These deviations are substantially smaller than the differences between the three runs, confirming that the reported ordering (FullFeedback SFR at 10^{-3} M_⊙ yr^{-1} and efficiency 0.64) is stable. We have also added a discussion referencing convergence tests from prior papers in the MACER series at the same resolution, noting that the key ordering persists across different averaging intervals. These additions provide the requested quantitative support for the nonlinear coupling conclusion. revision: yes

  3. Referee: The dissipation efficiency is defined as the fraction of injected kinetic energy dissipated via turbulence and shocks, yet the precise extraction method from the simulation outputs—particularly how interaction terms are handled in the FullFeedback run—is not specified. This makes it difficult to confirm whether the reported 0.64 value reflects genuine nonlinear enhancement beyond the linear sum of the separate runs (section defining and computing dissipation efficiency).

    Authors: We thank the referee for noting the lack of explicit computational details. In the revised manuscript, we have added a precise description and equations in the Analysis section. Dissipation efficiency is computed as the volume-integrated energy dissipated through shocks (via negative velocity divergence) and subgrid turbulent viscosity, normalized by the total injected kinetic energy from AGN components. For the FullFeedback run, the total includes all jet-wind interaction terms; we explicitly subtract the linear sum of the JetOnly and WindOnly dissipated energies to isolate the nonlinear excess (yielding the reported 0.64). A new supplementary figure shows the time evolution of these components, confirming the enhancement arises from KH-driven turbulence at the shear interface. This clarifies that the value exceeds the linear sum due to genuine nonlinear coupling. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; central results are direct outputs of independent simulations

full rationale

The paper reports time-averaged star formation rates and AGN energy dissipation efficiencies as direct numerical outputs from three separate MACER runs (FullFeedback, JetOnly, WindOnly). These quantities do not reduce via any equation in the paper to parameters fitted from the same data or to quantities defined in terms of the target result. The inference of nonlinear jet-wind coupling (via shear-driven Kelvin-Helmholtz instability) follows from comparing the three independent simulation outcomes, without self-definitional steps, fitted-input predictions, or load-bearing self-citations that force the conclusion. Prior papers in the series establish the MACER framework but do not supply a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that the present results presuppose; jet parameters are imported from external small-scale GRMHD work. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the applicability of jet parameters extracted from small-scale GRMHD runs and on the MACER code correctly capturing multi-phase gas dynamics and feedback at galaxy scales. No new physical entities are introduced; the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability is a standard fluid effect.

free parameters (1)
  • jet power, opening angle, and momentum flux
    Values imported from small-scale GRMHD simulations of black hole accretion; their direct use at galaxy scales is an assumption rather than a derivation.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The MACER hydrodynamical framework accurately models the interaction of AGN radiation, wind, and jet with the interstellar medium of an elliptical galaxy.
    All reported results are outputs of this specific simulation code.
  • domain assumption Time-averaged quantities over the simulation duration are representative of the long-term feedback effect.
    The star formation rates and dissipation efficiencies are presented as time averages.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5566 in / 1504 out tokens · 55343 ms · 2026-05-07T08:01:34.284885+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

78 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , year = 1952, month = jan, volume =

    Bondi, H. 1952, MNRAS, 112, 195, doi: 10.1093/mnras/112.2.195

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/112.2.195 1952

  2. [2]

    A., & Sijacki, D

    Bourne, M. A., & Sijacki, D. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 4707, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2269

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2269 2017

  3. [3]

    2016, ApJ, 818, 83, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/83

    Bu, D.-F., Yuan, F., Gan, Z.-M., & Yang, X.-H. 2016, ApJ, 818, 83, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/83

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/1/83 2016

  4. [4]

    Cattaneo, A., & Teyssier, R. 2007, MNRAS, 376, 1547, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11512.x 2 Note that the parameters of winds inMACERare also taken from the accretion flow-scale GRMHD numerical simulation work

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11512.x 2007

  5. [5]

    Chatterjee, K., Liska, M., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Markoff, S. B. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 2200, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2626

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2626 2019

  6. [6]

    2021, ApJ, 906, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc42d

    Chen, L., & Zhang, B. 2021, ApJ, 906, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc42d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc42d 2021

  7. [7]

    2016, Nature, 533, 504, doi: 10.1038/nature18006

    Cheung, E., Bundy, K., Cappellari, M., et al. 2016, Nature, 533, 504, doi: 10.1038/nature18006

    work page doi:10.1038/nature18006 2016

  8. [8]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, 4148, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1184

    Choi, E. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 4148, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1184

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1184 2017

  9. [9]

    Ciotti, L., & Ostriker, J. P. 2001, ApJ, 551, 131, doi: 10.1086/320053 13

    work page doi:10.1086/320053 2001

  10. [10]

    Ciotti, L., & Ostriker, J. P. 2012, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 378, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, ed. D.-W. Kim & S. Pellegrini, 83, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-0580-1 4

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-0580-1 2012

  11. [11]

    P., & Proga, D

    Ciotti, L., Ostriker, J. P., & Proga, D. 2009, ApJ, 699, 89, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/89

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/1/89 2009

  12. [12]

    Ciotti, L., Pellegrini, S., Negri, A., & Ostriker, J. P. 2017, ApJ, 835, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/15

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/15 2017

  13. [13]

    2020, ApJ, 890, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6e6e

    Cui, C., Yuan, F., & Li, B. 2020, ApJ, 890, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6e6e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6e6e 2020

  14. [14]

    W., & Tchekhovskoy, A

    Davis, S. W., & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 407, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051905 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K., Algaba, J. C., et al. 2021, ApJL, 910, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe4de

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051905 2020

  15. [15]

    Fabian, A. C. 1994, ARA&A, 32, 277, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.32.090194.001425 —. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.32.090194.001425 1994

  16. [16]

    P., Ciotti, L., & Novak, G

    Gan, Z., Yuan, F., Ostriker, J. P., Ciotti, L., & Novak, G. S. 2014, ApJ, 789, 150, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/150

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/789/2/150 2014

  17. [17]

    V., Melchior, A.-L., & Zolotukhin, I

    Gaspari, M., Melioli, C., Brighenti, F., & D’Ercole, A. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 349, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17688.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17688.x 2011

  18. [18]

    CAUSE AND EFFECT OF FEEDBACK: MULTIPHASE GAS IN CLUSTER CORES HEATED BY AGN JETS

    Gaspari, M., Ruszkowski, M., & Sharma, P. 2012, ApJ, 746, 94, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/94

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/1/94 2012

  19. [19]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 2605, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1474

    Globus, N., & Levinson, A. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 2605, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1474

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1474 2016

  20. [20]

    2026, ApJ, 997, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2321

    Guo, M., Ji, S., Yuan, F., & Zhu, B. 2026, ApJ, 997, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2321

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2321 2026

  21. [21]

    C., Norman, M

    Hayes, J. C., Norman, M. L., Fiedler, R. A., et al. 2006, ApJS, 165, 188, doi: 10.1086/504594

    work page doi:10.1086/504594 2006

  22. [22]

    Gentle Heating by Mixing in Cooling Flow Clusters

    Hillel, S., & Soker, N. 2017, ApJ, 845, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa81c5 —. 2018, RAA, 18, 081, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/18/7/81

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa81c5 2017

  23. [23]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in science & engineering, 9, 90 Huˇsko, F., & Lacey, C. G. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 4375, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad793

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad793 2007

  24. [24]

    1983, MNRAS, 202, 995, doi: 10.1093/mnras/202.4.995

    Jaffe, W. 1983, MNRAS, 202, 995, doi: 10.1093/mnras/202.4.995

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/202.4.995 1983

  25. [25]

    P., Ruszkowski, M., & Markevitch, M

    Ji, S., Oh, S. P., Ruszkowski, M., & Markevitch, M. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 3989, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2320

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2320 2016

  26. [26]

    Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T. M. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 135, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14960.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14960.x 2009

  27. [27]

    1998, ApJ, 498, 541, doi: 10.1086/305588

    Kennicutt, Robert C., J. 1998, ApJ, 498, 541, doi: 10.1086/305588

    work page doi:10.1086/305588 1998

  28. [28]

    R., McKee, C

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

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104430 2019

  29. [29]

    Slow Star Formation in Dense Gas: Evidence and Implications

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

    work page doi:10.1086/509101 2007

  30. [30]

    D., & Lifshitz, E

    Landau, L. D., & Lifshitz, E. M. 1987, Fluid Mechanics

    1987

  31. [31]

    Li, Y., & Bryan, G. L. 2014a, ApJ, 789, 153, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/153 —. 2014b, ApJ, 789, 54, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/54

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/789/2/153

  32. [32]

    L., Ruszkowski, M., et al

    Li, Y., Bryan, G. L., Ruszkowski, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 811, 73, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/73

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/811/2/73 2015

  33. [33]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 983, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa099

    Liska, M., Hesp, C., Tchekhovskoy, A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 983, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa099

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa099 2021

  34. [34]

    , keywords =

    Lyubarsky, Y. 2009, ApJ, 698, 1570, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1570

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/698/2/1570 2009

  35. [35]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 2465, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3273

    Martizzi, D., Quataert, E., Faucher-Gigu`ere, C.-A., & Fielding, D. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 2465, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3273

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3273 2019

  36. [36]

    Mathews, W. G. 1989, AJ, 97, 42, doi: 10.1086/114955

    work page doi:10.1086/114955 1989

  37. [37]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Mertens, F., Lobanov, A. P., Walker, R. C., & Hardee, P. E. 2016, A&A, 595, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628829 Mo´scibrodzka, M., Falcke, H., & Shiokawa, H. 2016, A&A, 586, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526630

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628829 2016

  38. [38]

    V., & Abramowicz, M

    Narayan, R., Igumenshchev, I. V., & Abramowicz, M. A. 2003, PASJ, 55, L69, doi: 10.1093/pasj/55.6.L69

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/55.6.l69 2003

  39. [39]

    2012, MNRAS, 423, 600, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20901.x

    Narayan, R., S¨A dowski, A., Penna, R. F., & Kulkarni, A. K. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 3241, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22002.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22002.x 2012

  40. [40]

    and Ostriker, Jeremiah P

    Novak, G. S., Ostriker, J. P., & Ciotti, L. 2011, ApJ, 737, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/1/26 —. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 2734, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21844.x

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/1/26 2011

  41. [41]

    Oliphant, T. E. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 10

    2007

  42. [42]

    , keywords =

    Omma, H., Binney, J., Bryan, G., & Slyz, A. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 1105, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07382.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07382.x 2004

  43. [43]

    P., Choi, E., Ciotti, L., Novak, G

    Ostriker, J. P., Choi, E., Ciotti, L., Novak, G. S., & Proga, D. 2010, ApJ, 722, 642, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/642

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/722/1/642 2010

  44. [44]

    arXiv , author =:1812.08386 , journal =

    Park, J., Hada, K., Kino, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 257, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf9a9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf9a9 2019

  45. [45]

    , eprint =

    Peterson, J. R., & Fabian, A. C. 2006, PhR, 427, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2005.12.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2005.12.007 2006

  46. [46]

    Pope, S. B. 2000, Turbulent Flows

    2000

  47. [47]

    , keywords =

    Prasad, D., Sharma, P., & Babul, A. 2015, ApJ, 811, 108, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/108

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/811/2/108 2015

  48. [48]

    Proctor, D. D. 2011, ApJS, 194, 31, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/31

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/31 2011

  49. [49]

    Proga, D., & Begelman, M. C. 2003, ApJ, 592, 767, doi: 10.1086/375773

    work page doi:10.1086/375773 2003

  50. [50]

    M., Quataert, E., & Stone, J

    Ressler, S. M., Quataert, E., & Stone, J. M. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 3544, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1146

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1146 2018

  51. [51]

    Reynolds, C. S. 2014, SSRv, 183, 277, doi: 10.1007/s11214-013-0006-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-013-0006-6 2014

  52. [52]

    S., Balbus, S

    Reynolds, C. S., Balbus, S. A., & Schekochihin, A. A. 2015, ApJ, 815, 41, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/41

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/815/1/41 2015

  53. [53]

    D., Drew, J

    Sazonov, S. Y., Ostriker, J. P., Ciotti, L., & Sunyaev, R. A. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 168, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08763.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08763.x 2005

  54. [54]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337

    1973

  55. [55]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 928, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01394-0

    Shi, F., Li, Z., Yuan, F., & Zhu, B. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 928, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01394-0 14

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01394-0 2021

  56. [56]

    2022, ApJ, 926, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4789

    Shi, F., Zhu, B., Li, Z., & Yuan, F. 2022, ApJ, 926, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4789

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4789 2022

  57. [57]

    C., Madejski, G

    Sikora, M., Begelman, M. C., Madejski, G. M., & Lasota, J.-P. 2005, ApJ, 625, 72, doi: 10.1086/429314

    work page doi:10.1086/429314 2005

  58. [58]

    Tang, S., & Wang, Q. D. 2005, ApJ, 628, 205, doi: 10.1086/430875

    work page doi:10.1086/430875 2005

  59. [59]

    Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C. 2010, ApJ, 711, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/711/1/50

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/711/1/50 2010

  60. [60]

    J., ZuHone, J

    Turk, M., Goldbaum, N. J., ZuHone, J. A., et al. 2024, Introducing yt 4.0: Analysis and Visualization of Volumetric Data, Tech. rep., Manubot

    2024

  61. [61]

    J., Smith, B

    Turk, M. J., Smith, B. D., Oishi, J. S., et al. 2010, ApJS, 192, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9 Van Der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science & Engineering, 13, 22

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9 2010

  62. [62]

    C., & Reynolds, C

    Vernaleo, J. C., & Reynolds, C. S. 2006, ApJ, 645, 83, doi: 10.1086/504029

    work page doi:10.1086/504029 2006

  63. [63]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 3576, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2906

    Wang, C., Li, Y., & Ruszkowski, M. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3576, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2906

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2906 2019

  64. [64]

    D., Nowak, M

    Wang, Q. D., Nowak, M. A., Markoff, S. B., et al. 2013, Science, 341, 981, doi: 10.1126/science.1240755

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1240755 2013

  65. [65]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V., Hernquist, L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    work page Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2944 2017

  66. [66]

    Xie, F.-G., Yuan, F., & Ho, L. C. 2017, ApJ, 844, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7950

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7950 2017

  67. [67]

    Yang, H., Yuan, F., Yuan, Y.-F., & White, C. J. 2021, ApJ, 914, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfe63

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfe63 2021

  68. [68]

    2024, Science Advances, 10, eadn3544, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adn3544

    Yang, H., Yuan, F., Li, H., et al. 2024, Science Advances, 10, eadn3544, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adn3544

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.adn3544 2024

  69. [69]

    Yang, H. Y. K., & Reynolds, C. S. 2016a, ApJ, 829, 90, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/90 —. 2016b, ApJ, 818, 181, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/181

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/829/2/90

  70. [70]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 444, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3474

    Yao, Z., & Gan, Z. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 444, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3474

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3474 2020

  71. [71]

    2018, ApJ, 864, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad37e

    Yoon, D., Yuan, F., Gan, Z.-M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad37e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad37e 2018

  72. [72]

    2012a, ApJ, 761, 130, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/130

    Yuan, F., Bu, D., & Wu, M. 2012, ApJ, 761, 130, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/130

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/761/2/130 2012

  73. [73]

    NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF HOT ACCRETION FLOWS. III. REVISITING WIND PROPERTIES USING THE TRAJECTORY APPROACH

    Yuan, F., Gan, Z., Narayan, R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 804, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/101

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/804/2/101 2015

  74. [74]

    Hot Accretion Flows Around Black Holes

    Yuan, F., & Narayan, R. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003

    work page Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003 2014

  75. [75]

    P., Yoon, D., et al

    Yuan, F., Ostriker, J. P., Yoon, D., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1807.05488, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1807.05488

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1807.05488 2018

  76. [76]

    2022, ApJ, 924, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4714

    Yuan, F., Wang, H., & Yang, H. 2022, ApJ, 924, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4714

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4714 2022

  77. [77]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 857, 121

    Yuan, F., Yoon, D., Li, Y.-P., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 857, 121

    2018

  78. [78]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 5787, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2055

    Zhu, B., Yuan, F., Ji, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 5787, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2055

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2055 2023