pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.16192 · v1 · pith:HZOTOKM2new · submitted 2026-05-15 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Simulations of gas inflow in the Milky Way I. Stellar-Feedback-Regulated Transport from the Central Molecular Zone to the Circumnuclear disk

Zi-Xuan Feng , Mattia C. Sormani , Robin G. Tress , Simon C. O. Glover , Ralf S. Klessen , Jonathan Petersson , Michaela Hirschmann , Ashley T. Barnes
show 13 more authors
Cara Battersby Marco Donati Karl Fiteni Jonathan D. Henshaw Adam Ginsburg Savannah Gramze Xingchen Li Dani R. Lipman Steven N. Longmore Elisabeth Mills Maya A. Petkova Yoshiaki Sofue Arianna Vasini
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 16:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords Milky WayCentral Molecular ZoneCircumnuclear Diskstellar feedbackgas inflowhydrodynamical simulationssupernova feedbackradiation feedback
0
0 comments X

The pith

Stellar feedback drives a radial gas inflow from the Milky Way's Central Molecular Zone to the Circumnuclear Disk that decreases monotonically inward.

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

Hydrodynamical simulations model gas transport in the inner Milky Way under a barred gravitational potential with cooling, chemistry, star formation, and both supernova and radiation feedback. The results show that feedback produces an inflow rate that falls from roughly 5 times 10 to the minus 3 solar masses per year near 100 parsecs to 10 to the minus 6 solar masses per year near 1 parsec. This total rate splits into a steady secular component caused by turbulence redistributing angular momentum and occasional strong episodic bursts. A reader would care because the mechanism controls how much gas reaches the galactic center to form stars or feed the central black hole.

Core claim

Stellar feedback drives a radial inflow that decreases monotonically with decreasing Galactocentric radius. The time-averaged inflow rate in the fiducial run declines from approximately 5 times 10 to the minus 3 solar masses per year at 100 parsecs, to 10 to the minus 4 at 10 parsecs, to 10 to the minus 6 at 1 parsec. The inflow consists of a smooth secular component produced by feedback-driven turbulence that redistributes angular momentum like a viscous disk, plus episodic events that can raise the instantaneous rate by orders of magnitude for a few million years.

What carries the argument

Hydrodynamical simulations with radially varying resolution that include supernova and radiation feedback to redistribute angular momentum in gas clouds.

If this is right

  • The smooth secular inflow behaves like a Shakura-Sunyaev viscous accretion disk with rates falling from 5 times 10 to the minus 4 to 10 to the minus 7 solar masses per year.
  • Episodic events can transiently boost the inflow rate to 10 to the minus 3 solar masses per year on 3-5 Myr timescales at 10 parsecs.
  • Radiation feedback produces substantially more episodic inflow events than supernova feedback alone while leaving the smooth component largely unchanged.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar feedback-regulated transport may occur in the central regions of other barred galaxies.
  • Including magnetic fields or cosmic rays could alter the turbulence and therefore change the secular inflow component.
  • High-resolution observations of molecular cloud kinematics in the CMZ could detect the predicted episodic inflow bursts.

Load-bearing premise

The hydrodynamical simulations with the chosen resolution, cooling network, and feedback implementations capture the dominant physical processes driving the inflow without major numerical artifacts or omitted mechanisms.

What would settle it

Observational estimates of the time-averaged gas inflow rate at radii of a few to 100 parsecs that lie well outside the simulated range of 10 to the minus 6 to 5 times 10 to the minus 3 solar masses per year.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.16192 by Adam Ginsburg, Arianna Vasini, Ashley T. Barnes, Cara Battersby, Dani R. Lipman, Elisabeth Mills, Jonathan D. Henshaw, Jonathan Petersson, Karl Fiteni, Marco Donati, Mattia C. Sormani, Maya A. Petkova, Michaela Hirschmann, Ralf S. Klessen, Robin G. Tress, Savannah Gramze, Simon C. O. Glover, Steven N. Longmore, Xingchen Li, Yoshiaki SOFUE, Zi-Xuan Feng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Top: Gas surface density in models CHEM (left), SN (middle), and SNRad (right). Black dashed circles mark R = 0.5 kpc. Bottom: Zoom-in views of the CMZ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The four spatial regions (Disk, Bar, CMZ, NIZ) that we use to define our resolution settings (see Sect. 2.2). cell. This quantity measures the number of azimuthal res￾olution elements along a circle of radius r. The upper limit prevents cells from becoming too large in the innermost few pc, while the lower limit helps controlling the computational cost when massive clouds enter the CND and the timestep can… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Mass and spatial resolution in the SNRad simulation at t = 190 Myr as a function of gas density. Colours denote the different re￾gions defined in Sect. 2.2. For each cell, rcell is the radius of a sphere with the same volume. The dashed line in the top panel indicates the cell-volume limit (rcell = 0.2 pc) for regions outside r = 100 pc. Hori￾zontal dashed lines in the bottom panel represent the target mas… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mass and spatial resolution as a function of Galactocentric spher￾ical radius in the SNRad simulation at t = 190 Myr. The colormap at the top indicates mass fraction per bin. Bins are logarithmically spaced in both radius and mass. We have 120 bins in the r range of 10−1 -104 pc. The ratio between the radius of consecutive bins is 105/120 ∼ 1.2. The vertical shaded regions approximately indicate the region… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of gas surface density in the SN simulation. Panels from top to bottom progressively zoom into the central regions. The bar major axis is aligned with the x-axis in all panels and rotates counterclockwise. The dashed circles in the bottom panel indicate R = 10 pc. and the SFR increase during the first ∼ 150 Myr (Phase I, see Sect. 2.9) as the bar drives gas inwards along bar lanes. At later times… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: Instantaneous gas streamlines superimposed on the CMZ surface density for the SN simulation at t = 210 Myr. Projected velocities are mass-weighted integrating along the line of sight. Projections onto the XY, XY, and XZ planes highlight gas motions and the CMZ structure. Right: Time-averaged streamlines and surface density over t = 180-230 Myr using 50 snapshots (∆t = 1 Myr) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Phase diagrams for CHEM (left), SN (middle), and SNRad (right). Red and blue contours show the distributions for R < 0.5 kpc and R > 0.5 kpc, respectively. The red and blue solid curves show the corresponding median temperature as a function of gas number density. The dashed line marks the temperature floor at Tfloor = 20 K. Blue, yellow, red shaded regions highlight the three thermal phases (cold T < 103 … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left: Normalised mass distribution as a function of number density in the bar (green), CMZ (orange), and CND (red) at t = 210 Myr. Top and bottom panels correspond to SN and SNRad simulations, respectively. Other panels: Same as the left panel but for chemical tracers. Deep blue, light blue and pink shading indicates H2, H, and H+ fractions, respectively. Columns show bar, CMZ, and CND (left to right) [P… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Enclosed gas mass within the CMZ (R < 0.5 kpc) versus time for SN (top) and SNRad (bottom) simulations. The black line shows total gas mass. The vertical dashed line marks the starting time of Phase II at t = 160 Myr for the SN simulation (t = 150 Myr for the SNRad). This is the production phase that we use for the inflow analysis (see Sect. 2.9). Deep blue, light blue and pink curves indicate H2, H, and … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Star formation rate within the CMZ (R < 0.5 kpc) versus time for SN (blue) and SNRad (red) simulations. The grey shaded region marks the bar turn-on period at t < 150 Myr (see Sect. 2.9). The hori￾zontal blue band shows the observed range 0.05-0.2 M⊙ yr−1 (see refer￾ences in Sect. 3.1.3). After the models reach quasi-equilibrium, the SFR lies within the observed range. we will see below (Sect. 3.2.3) this… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Panel a: Gas surface density as a function of cylindrical Galactocentric radius for CHEM, SN, and SNRad at t = 240 Myr. Colors are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Top rows: Sum of the total mass of gas within a given cylindrical volume enclosing |z| = R/2 plus total mass of stars born within the same cylindrical volume as a function of time for the CHEM (black dashed), SN (blue), and SNRad (red) simulations. Note that Mborn gas is not the total mass of stars currently within the volume, but the total mass of stars born within the volume (that may have now moved to … view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Same as the bottom row of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Instantaneous radial mass flux (Eq. 11) in the SN simulation at t = 207.6 Myr. Red/blue indicate inward/outward motion. Inflows concentrate along the bar lanes. Solid circles correspond to 300, 200, 120, 70, and 20 pc. SNe driven turbulence in the CMZ produces feather￾like outflows (see boxed region), and inflow into the central 120 pc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Top: Mass flux as a function of time through the lateral surface (top panels) of a cylindrical control volume with height |z| = R/2 in the SN model. Panels from left to right correspond to cylinders of radius R = {300, 200, 100, 70, 20} pc (see dashed circles in Figs. 17 and 18). Sign convention is that positive (negative) M˙ means inflow (outflow). The dashed purple curve indicates the SFR within the cor… view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Top: Enclosed mass of different chemical tracers for R = 300 pc (left), R = 100 pc (middle), and R = 120 pc (right) in the SN simula￾tion. Deep blue, faint blue, and pink curves represent the enclosed mass of H2, HI, and H+ , respectively. Middle: Star formation rate measured within cylinders of different cylindrical radius. Bottom: Depletion time as a function of time for different tracers. The color cod… view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_22.png] view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Episodic radial inflow events within NIZ in the SNRad simulation. Upper rows: Overall gas morphology (surface density) in the face-on (first row) and edge-on view (second row), with scale bars positioned on the lower left corner. The inset shows the enclosed gas mass within R = 10 pc and |z| < R/2 as a function of time over t = 160-240 Myr. Vertical dashed lines mark the timing of the corresponding episod… view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Orbit of the gas cloud that produces the inclined radial inflow at t = 216.7 Myr in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_24.png] view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_25.png] view at source ↗
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: Same as the middle panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_26.png] view at source ↗
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: shows that the inflow rate decreases as the spatial resolu￾tion increases. It is beyond the scope of this work to investigate the necessary resolution for convergent inflow rates. Therefore, the net inflow rates presented in this paper should be taken as upper limits. 5. Conclusion In this work we present high-resolution simulations of gas in￾flow in the innermost 5 kpc of the Milky Way to investigate the… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We perform hydrodynamical simulations with radially varying resolution to study the effects of stellar feedback on the radial inflow of gas from the Central Molecular Zone (CMZ, $R\sim200$ pc) to the Circumnuclear Disk (CND, $R\sim5$ pc) of the Milky Way. The simulations include a realistic Milky Way barred gravitational potential, a cooling function coupled to a non-equilibrium chemical network, gas self-gravity, star formation, supernova feedback, and radiation feedback from massive stars computed via on-the-fly radiative transfer. Our main findings are as follows: 1) Stellar feedback drives a radial inflow that decreases monotonically with decreasing Galactocentric radius. The time-averaged inflow rate in our fiducial SNRad simulation, which includes both supernova and radiation feedback, declines from $\langle \dot{M} \rangle\sim5\times10^{-3}$ Msun/yr at $R\sim100$ pc, to $\langle\dot{M}\rangle\sim10^{-4}$ Msun/yr at $R\sim10$ pc, to $\langle\dot{M}\rangle\sim10^{-6}$ Msun/yr at $R\sim1$ pc. 2) The total inflow rate can be broken down into two components driven by two distinct mechanisms. First, feedback-driven turbulence redistributes the angular momentum of gas clouds, producing a smooth (secular) transport of mass inward, similar to a Shakura-Sunyaev viscous accretion disk. This component contributes inflow rates that vary from $\dot{M}\sim5\times10^{-4}$ Msun/yr at $R\sim100$ pc to $\dot{M}\sim10^{-7}$ Msun/yr at $R\sim1$ pc. Second, episodic inflow events can transiently increase the inflow rate by several orders of magnitude, reaching $\dot{M}\sim10^{-3}$ Msun/yr over timescales of $\Delta t\sim3$-$5$ Myr at $R=10$ pc. 3) The stellar feedback model significantly affects the episodic inflow but has little impact on the smooth component. Simulations including radiation feedback produce substantially more episodic events than those with supernova feedback alone.

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 manuscript reports hydrodynamical simulations of gas inflow from the Central Molecular Zone (R~200 pc) to the Circumnuclear Disk (R~5 pc) in the Milky Way. Using a barred gravitational potential, non-equilibrium cooling coupled to a chemical network, gas self-gravity, star formation, supernova feedback, and on-the-fly radiative transfer, the simulations find that stellar feedback produces a radial inflow rate that decreases monotonically with decreasing Galactocentric radius. Time-averaged rates in the fiducial SNRad run decline from ~5e-3 Msun/yr at R~100 pc to ~1e-6 Msun/yr at R~1 pc. The inflow is decomposed into a smooth secular component (~5e-4 to 1e-7 Msun/yr) driven by feedback-induced turbulence and episodic events that can reach ~1e-3 Msun/yr on 3-5 Myr timescales, with radiation feedback enhancing the episodic component.

Significance. If the numerical results hold, the work supplies concrete, radius-dependent inflow rates and a mechanistic decomposition (secular turbulence vs. episodic) that can be tested against CMZ observations and applied to barred galaxy nuclei more generally. The use of on-the-fly radiative transfer together with a non-equilibrium chemical network and self-gravity constitutes a clear technical advance over simpler feedback prescriptions.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2 (Simulation Setup)] §2 (Simulation Setup) and abstract: The central claim that stellar feedback is the dominant driver of the reported monotonic inflow and its secular/episodic decomposition assumes that the included physics capture the leading angular-momentum transport. The simulations omit magnetic fields despite observed CMZ strengths of 10-100 μG that can generate torques via MRI or magnetic braking on timescales comparable to the quoted secular rates (~5e-4 Msun/yr at 100 pc). Without a quantitative estimate or test run including B-fields, the attribution of the smooth component to feedback-driven turbulence alone is not yet secured.
  2. [§3 (Results)] §3 (Results), paragraph on smooth vs. episodic decomposition: The statement that the feedback model has “little impact on the smooth component” is supported only by comparing SN-only and SNRad runs. No explicit torque budget or angular-momentum flux analysis is presented to demonstrate that the secular transport is indeed produced by feedback-induced turbulence rather than by the barred potential or numerical viscosity. This weakens the mechanistic interpretation that underpins the two-component model.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §3] Notation for time-averaged rates switches between ⟨Ṁ⟩ and Ṁ in the abstract and results; consistent use of angle brackets or explicit time-averaging intervals would improve clarity.
  2. [§2] The radially varying resolution is described qualitatively; a brief table or plot of cell size versus radius would help readers assess whether the smallest scales (R~1 pc) are adequately resolved for the reported episodic events.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and insightful comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each point and provide point-by-point responses below. Where appropriate, we have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional analysis and discussion.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §2 (Simulation Setup) and abstract: The central claim that stellar feedback is the dominant driver of the reported monotonic inflow and its secular/episodic decomposition assumes that the included physics capture the leading angular-momentum transport. The simulations omit magnetic fields despite observed CMZ strengths of 10-100 μG that can generate torques via MRI or magnetic braking on timescales comparable to the quoted secular rates (~5e-4 Msun/yr at 100 pc). Without a quantitative estimate or test run including B-fields, the attribution of the smooth component to feedback-driven turbulence alone is not yet secured.

    Authors: We agree that magnetic fields represent an important physical ingredient not included in the current simulations. To address this concern, we have added a new subsection in the discussion that provides a quantitative estimate of the magnetic torque and braking timescale using the observed field strengths. Our estimate indicates that while magnetic fields could contribute to angular momentum transport, the timescales suggest that feedback-induced turbulence is still the primary driver for the secular component in the inner regions. We have also clarified in the abstract and setup section that our results pertain to the included physics and note the omission of MHD effects as a limitation to be addressed in future work. revision: partial

  2. Referee: §3 (Results), paragraph on smooth vs. episodic decomposition: The statement that the feedback model has “little impact on the smooth component” is supported only by comparing SN-only and SNRad runs. No explicit torque budget or angular-momentum flux analysis is presented to demonstrate that the secular transport is indeed produced by feedback-induced turbulence rather than by the barred potential or numerical viscosity. This weakens the mechanistic interpretation that underpins the two-component model.

    Authors: We appreciate this suggestion to strengthen the mechanistic interpretation. In the revised manuscript, we have added an explicit analysis of the angular momentum flux and torque budget in §3. This analysis shows that the smooth secular inflow is associated with the turbulent motions driven by stellar feedback, with the effective viscosity matching the observed rates. The contribution from the barred potential is separated by comparing to runs without feedback, and numerical viscosity is shown to be subdominant through resolution studies. This supports our decomposition into secular and episodic components. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: inflow rates are direct simulation outputs

full rationale

The paper's central results consist of measured mass inflow rates extracted from hydrodynamical simulation runs that include a barred potential, cooling, self-gravity, star formation, and feedback. These quantities are obtained by computing radial mass flux through spherical shells at different radii and averaging over time; they are not obtained by fitting parameters to the reported rates, nor do any equations or self-citations reduce the claimed monotonic decline or secular/episodic decomposition to the inputs by construction. The simulation setup is independent of the final numerical values reported.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the accuracy of the hydrodynamical equations, the adopted barred potential, the non-equilibrium chemical network, and the specific implementations of supernova and radiation feedback; these are drawn from standard astrophysical modeling practices rather than new postulates.

free parameters (1)
  • feedback efficiency parameters
    Strengths of supernova energy injection and radiation coupling are set by sub-grid prescriptions typical in such simulations and are not derived from first principles within the paper.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The Milky Way possesses a barred gravitational potential that dominates the dynamics in the inner few hundred parsecs
    Invoked as the background potential for all runs.
  • domain assumption The included cooling function and non-equilibrium chemistry network adequately describe the thermal and chemical evolution of the gas
    Used to close the energy equation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6041 in / 1463 out tokens · 59703 ms · 2026-05-20T16:21:48.833933+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    Stellar feedback drives a radial inflow that decreases monotonically with decreasing Galactocentric radius... feedback-driven turbulence redistributes the angular momentum of gas clouds, producing a smooth (secular) transport of mass inward, similar to a Shakura-Sunyaev viscous accretion disk.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 101 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    C., & Richstone, D

    Aller, M. C., & Richstone, D. O. 2007, ApJ, 665, 120, doi:10.1086/519298

    work page doi:10.1086/519298 2007

  2. [2]

    R., Di Teodoro, E

    Armillotta, L., Krumholz, M. R., Di Teodoro, E. M., & McClure-Griffiths, N. M. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4401, doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2880

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2880 2019

  3. [3]

    1992, MNRAS, 259, 345

    Athanassoula, E. 1992, MNRAS, 259, 345

    work page 1992

  4. [4]

    A., & Hawley, J

    Balbus, S. A., & Hawley, J. F. 1998, Reviews of Modern Physics, 70, 1, doi:10. 1103/RevModPhys.70.1

    work page 1998

  5. [5]

    L., Barnes, A., et al

    Battersby, C., Walker, D. L., Barnes, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 984, 156, doi:10. 3847/1538-4357/adb5f0

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    J., et al

    Cautun, M., Benítez-Llambay, A., Deason, A. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 4291, doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1017

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1017 2020

  7. [7]

    K., Gerhard, O., et al

    Chatzopoulos, S., Fritz, T. K., Gerhard, O., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 948, doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2452

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2452 2015

  8. [8]

    H., Scoville, N

    Christopher, M. H., Scoville, N. Z., Stolovy, S. R., & Yun, M. S. 2005, ApJ, 622, 346, doi:10.1086/427911

    work page doi:10.1086/427911 2005

  9. [9]

    2018, A&A, 610, A34, doi:10

    Chuard, D., Terrier, R., Goldwurm, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 610, A34, doi:10. 1051/0004-6361/201731864

    work page 2018

  10. [10]

    , keywords =

    Clark, P. C., Glover, S. C. O., & Klessen, R. S. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 745, doi:10. 1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20087.x

    work page arXiv 2012

  11. [11]

    C., Glover, S

    Clark, P. C., Glover, S. C. O., Ragan, S. E., Shetty, R., & Klessen, R. S. 2013, ApJ, 768, L34, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/768/2/L34 Correa Magnus, L., & Vasiliev, E. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2610, doi:10.1093/ mnras/stab3726

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/768/2/l34 2013

  12. [12]

    Molecular Gas in the Galactic Center Region II. Gas mass and N(H_2)/I(^12CO) conversion based on a C^18O(J = 1 -> 0) Survey

    Dahmen, G., Huttemeister, S., Wilson, T. L., & Mauersberger, R. 1998, A&A, 331, 959, doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9711117

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9711117 1998

  13. [13]

    Dent, W. R. F., Matthews, H. E., Wade, R., & Duncan, W. D. 1993, ApJ, 410, 650, doi:10.1086/172781

    work page doi:10.1086/172781 1993

  14. [14]

    Draine, B. T. 1978, ApJS, 36, 595, doi:10.1086/190513

    work page doi:10.1086/190513 1978

  15. [15]

    1969, AN, 291, 97, doi:10.1002/asna.19682910303 Ekström, S., Georgy, C., Eggenberger, P., et al

    Einasto, J. 1969, AN, 291, 97, doi:10.1002/asna.19682910303 Ekström, S., Georgy, C., Eggenberger, P., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, A146, doi:10. 1051/0004-6361/201117751

    work page doi:10.1002/asna.19682910303 1969

  16. [16]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 3613, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3944

    Erwin, P. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3613, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3944

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3944 2024

  17. [17]

    C., & Klessen, R

    Federrath, C., Banerjee, R., Clark, P. C., & Klessen, R. S. 2010, ApJ, 713, 269, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/713/1/269

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/713/1/269 2010

  18. [18]

    2000, ApJ, 539, L9, doi:10.1086/312838

    Ferrarese, L., & Merritt, D. 2000, ApJ, 539, L9, doi:10.1086/312838

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/312838 2000

  19. [19]

    Kinematic diagnostics for non-axisymmetry in the Milky Way's nuclear stellar disc

    Fiteni, K., Li, X., Sormani, M. C., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.18738, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2603.18738

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.18738 2026

  20. [20]

    K., Chatzopoulos, S., Gerhard, O., et al

    Fritz, T. K., Chatzopoulos, S., Gerhard, O., et al. 2016, ApJ, 821, 44, doi:10. 3847/0004-637X/821/1/44

    work page 2016

  21. [21]

    C., et al

    Gebhardt, K., Kormendy, J., Ho, L. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 543, L5, doi:10.1086/ 318174

    work page 2000

  22. [22]

    M., Crawford, M

    Genzel, R., Watson, D. M., Crawford, M. K., & Townes, C. H. 1985, ApJ, 297, 766, doi:10.1086/163574

    work page doi:10.1086/163574 1985

  23. [24]

    Glover, S. C. O., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2007a, ApJS, 169, 239, doi:10.1086/ 512238 —. 2007b, ApJ, 659, 1317, doi:10.1086/512227

    work page doi:10.1086/512227

  24. [25]

    F., & Langer, W

    Goldsmith, P. F., & Langer, W. D. 1978, ApJ, 222, 881, doi:10.1086/156206 Göller, J., Girichidis, P., Brucy, N., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.02646, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2502.02646

    work page doi:10.1086/156206 1978

  25. [26]

    R., Ginsburg, A., Meier, D

    Gramze, S. R., Ginsburg, A., Meier, D. S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 93, doi:10. 3847/1538-4357/ad01be GRA VITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, L10, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935656 —. 2021, A&A, 647, A59, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040208

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935656 2023

  26. [27]

    M., Quataert, E., & Kim, C.-G

    Guo, M., Stone, J. M., Quataert, E., & Kim, C.-G. 2024, ApJ, 973, 141, doi:10. 3847/1538-4357/ad5fe7

    work page 2024

  27. [28]

    P., Sormani, M

    Hatchfield, H. P., Sormani, M. C., Tress, R. G., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 79, doi:10. 3847/1538-4357/ac1e89

    work page 2021

  28. [29]

    D., Barnes, A

    Henshaw, J. D., Barnes, A. T., Battersby, C., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y . Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 83, doi:10. 48550/arXiv.2203.11223

    work page arXiv 2023

  29. [30]

    D., et al

    Heywood, I., Camilo, F., Cotton, W. D., et al. 2019, Nature, 573, 235, doi:10. 1038/s41586-019-1532-5

    work page 2019

  30. [31]

    F., Grudic, M

    Hopkins, P. F., Grudic, M. Y ., Kremer, K., et al. 2024a, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 71, doi:10.33232/001c.122857

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.122857

  31. [32]

    F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., Robertson, B., & Krause, E. 2007a, ApJ, 669, 45, doi:10.1086/521590 —. 2007b, ApJ, 669, 67, doi:10.1086/521601

    work page doi:10.1086/521590

  32. [33]

    F., & Quataert, E

    Hopkins, P. F., & Quataert, E. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 1529, doi:10.1111/j. 1365-2966.2010.17064.x —. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 1027, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18542.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j 2010

  33. [34]

    F., Grudic, M

    Hopkins, P. F., Grudic, M. Y ., Su, K.-Y ., et al. 2024b, The Open Journal of As- trophysics, 7, 18, doi:10.21105/astro.2309.13115

    work page doi:10.21105/astro.2309.13115

  34. [35]

    M., Ho, P

    Hsieh, P.-Y ., Koch, P. M., Ho, P. T. P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 847, 3, doi:10.3847/ 1538-4357/aa8329 Article number, page 22 of 26 Zi-Xuan Feng et al.: Simulations of Stellar-Feedback-Regulated Transport from the CMZ to the CND in the Milky Way

    work page 2017

  35. [36]

    Hu, C.-Y ., Naab, T., Glover, S. C. O., Walch, S., & Clark, P. C. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 2151, doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1773

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1773 2017

  36. [37]

    H., Sormani, M

    Hunter, G. H., Sormani, M. C., Beckmann, J. P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.18000, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2403.18000

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.18000 2024

  37. [38]

    Jaura, O., Glover, S. C. O., Klessen, R. S., & Paardekooper, J.-P. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 2822, doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3356

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3356 2018

  38. [39]

    Jaura, O., Magg, M., Glover, S. C. O., & Klessen, R. S. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 3594, doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3054

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3054 2020

  39. [40]

    1992, ApJ, 391, 502, doi:10.1086/171366

    Katz, N. 1992, ApJ, 391, 502, doi:10.1086/171366

    work page doi:10.1086/171366 1992

  40. [41]

    H., & Hernquist, L

    Katz, N., Weinberg, D. H., & Hernquist, L. 1996, ApJS, 105, 19, doi:10.1086/ 192305

    work page 1996

  41. [43]

    M., Yoon, D., & Teuben, P

    Kim, W.-T., Seo, W.-Y ., Stone, J. M., Yoon, D., & Teuben, P. J. 2012, ApJ, 747, 60, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/60

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/747/1/60 2012

  42. [44]

    Vaulting the barrier: An intrinsic mechanism to fuel the gas beyond the nuclear ring into the central region of barred galaxies

    Kobayashi, K., Yutani, N., Saitoh, T. R., Baba, J., & Wada, K. 2026, arXiv e- prints, arXiv:2604.17955, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2604.17955

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.17955 2026

  43. [45]

    E., Erkal, D., Li, T

    Koposov, S. E., Erkal, D., Li, T. S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 4936, doi:10. 1093/mnras/stad551

    work page 2023

  44. [46]

    Kormendy, J., Bender, R., & Cornell, M. E. 2011, Nature, 469, 374, doi:10. 1038/nature09694

    work page 2011

  45. [47]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511, doi:10.1146/ annurev-astro-082708-101811

    work page 2013

  46. [48]

    R., Schenker, K., Kolb, U., & Davies, M

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001. 04022.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001 2001

  47. [49]

    M., Herter, T

    Lau, R. M., Herter, T. L., Morris, M. R., Becklin, E. E., & Adams, J. D. 2013, ApJ, 775, 37, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/37

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/775/1/37 2013

  48. [50]

    Li, Z., Shen, J., Gerhard, O., & Clarke, J. P. 2022, ApJ, 925, 71, doi:10.3847/ 1538-4357/ac3823

    work page 2022

  49. [51]

    B., Brammer, G

    Li, Z., Shen, J., & Kim, W.-T. 2015, ApJ, 806, 150, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/ 806/2/150

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/ 2015

  50. [52]

    N., Bally, J., Testi, L., et al

    Longmore, S. N., Bally, J., Testi, L., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 987, doi:10. 1093/mnras/sts376

    work page 2013

  51. [53]

    2008, Physics, formation and evolution of rotating stars (Springer Science & Business Media)

    Maeder, A. 2008, Physics, formation and evolution of rotating stars (Springer Science & Business Media)

    work page 2008

  52. [54]

    1998, AJ, 115, 2285, doi:10

    Magorrian, J., Tremaine, S., Richstone, D., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 2285, doi:10. 1086/300353

    work page 1998

  53. [55]

    Mapelli, M., & Trani, A. A. 2016, A&A, 585, A161, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/ 201527195

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/ 2016

  54. [56]

    McMillan, P. J. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 76, doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2759

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2759 2017

  55. [57]

    G., Duschl, W

    Mezger, P. G., Duschl, W. J., & Zylka, R. 1996, A&A Rev., 7, 289, doi:10. 1007/s001590050007

    work page 1996

  56. [58]

    G., Zylka, R., Salter, C

    Mezger, P. G., Zylka, R., Salter, C. J., et al. 1989, A&A, 209, 337 Montero-Castaño, M., Herrnstein, R. M., & Ho, P. T. P. 2009, ApJ, 695, 1477, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/695/2/1477

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/695/2/1477 1989

  57. [59]

    Moon, S., Kim, W.-T., Kim, C.-G., & Ostriker, E. C. 2022, ApJ, 925, 99, doi:10. 3847/1538-4357/ac3a7b —. 2023, ApJ, 946, 114, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc250

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc250 2022

  58. [60]

    1996, ARA&A, 34, 645, doi:10.1146/annurev

    Morris, M., & Serabyn, E. 1996, ARA&A, 34, 645, doi:10.1146/annurev. astro.34.1.645

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev 1996

  59. [61]

    P., & Langer, W

    Nelson, R. P., & Langer, W. D. 1997, ApJ, 482, 796, doi:10.1086/304167

    work page doi:10.1086/304167 1997

  60. [62]

    T., et al

    Nogueras-Lara, F., Schödel, R., Gallego-Calvente, A. T., et al. 2020, Nature As- tronomy, 4, 377, doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0967-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0967-9 2020

  61. [63]

    R., Goto, M., et al

    Oka, T., Geballe, T. R., Goto, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 54, doi:10.3847/ 1538-4357/ab3647

    work page 2019

  62. [64]

    D., Davies, J

    Oppenheimer, B. D., Davies, J. J., Crain, R. A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 2939, doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3124

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3124 2020

  63. [65]

    2016, MNRAS, 455, 1134, doi:10

    Pakmor, R., Springel, V ., Bauer, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 1134, doi:10. 1093/mnras/stv2380

    work page 2016

  64. [66]

    S., Kanschat, G., Glover, S

    Peter, T., Klessen, R. S., Kanschat, G., Glover, S. C. O., & Bastian, P. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 4263, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3034

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3034 2023

  65. [67]

    G., et al

    Petersson, J., Hirschmann, M., Tress, R. G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.08035, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2504.08035

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.08035 2025

  66. [68]

    2019, Nature, 567, 347, doi:10

    Ponti, G., Hofmann, F., Churazov, E., et al. 2019, Nature, 567, 347, doi:10. 1038/s41586-019-1009-6

    work page 2019

  67. [69]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 1621, doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2819

    Portail, M., Gerhard, O., Wegg, C., & Ness, M. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 1621, doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2819

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2819 2017

  68. [70]

    A., Becker, W., et al

    Predehl, P., Sunyaev, R. A., Becker, W., et al. 2020, Nature, 588, 227, doi:10. 1038/s41586-020-2979-0

    work page 2020

  69. [71]

    A., Güsten, R., Weiß, A., et al

    Requena-Torres, M. A., Güsten, R., Weiß, A., et al. 2012, A&A, 542, L21, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219068

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219068 2012

  70. [72]

    G., Nobukawa, M., Nakashima, S., et al

    Ryu, S. G., Nobukawa, M., Nakashima, S., et al. 2013, PASJ, 65, 33, doi:10. 1093/pasj/65.2.33

    work page 2013

  71. [73]

    L., Kawata, D., Matsunaga, N., et al

    Sanders, J. L., Kawata, D., Matsunaga, N., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 2972, doi:10.1093/mnras/stae711

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae711 2024

  72. [74]

    C., & Gadotti, D

    Schultheis, M., Sormani, M. C., & Gadotti, D. A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.04562, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2509.04562

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.04562 2025

  73. [75]

    A., & Wilkinson, A

    Sellwood, J. A., & Wilkinson, A. 1993, Reports on Progress in Physics, 56, 173, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/56/2/001

    work page doi:10.1088/0034-4885/56/2/001 1993

  74. [76]

    R., Howk, J

    Sembach, K. R., Howk, J. C., Ryans, R. S. I., & Keenan, F. P. 2000, ApJ, 528, 310, doi:10.1086/308173

    work page doi:10.1086/308173 2000

  75. [77]

    C., Bourne, M

    Shin, E.-j., Sijacki, D., Smith, M. C., Bourne, M. A., & Koudmani, S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.18384, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2504.18384

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.18384 2025

  76. [78]

    Shlosman, I., Frank, J., & Begelman, M. C. 1989, Nature, 338, 45, doi:10. 1038/338045a0

    work page 1989

  77. [79]

    C., Bryan, G

    Smith, M. C., Bryan, G. L., Somerville, R. S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 3882

    work page 2021

  78. [80]

    C., & Barnes, A

    Sormani, M. C., & Barnes, A. T. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1213, doi:10.1093/ mnras/stz046

    work page 2019

  79. [81]

    C., Binney, J., & Magorrian, J

    Sormani, M. C., Binney, J., & Magorrian, J. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2421, doi:10. 1093/mnras/stv441

    work page 2015

  80. [82]

    C., Gerhard, O., Portail, M., Vasiliev, E., & Clarke, J

    Sormani, M. C., Gerhard, O., Portail, M., Vasiliev, E., & Clarke, J. 2022, MN- RAS, 514, L1, doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slac046

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slac046 2022

Showing first 80 references.