Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 32 references

Galactic magnetic fields can spread ~7 Mpc into cosmic voids once turbulent diffusivity is measured from simulations, about twenty times farther than earlier estimates.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 02:40 UTC pith:H77RZDOB

load-bearing objection TNG-derived η_turb yields a ~7 Mpc screening length (~20× prior constant-η estimates), but the result is load-bearing on a spectral-mean λ_turb that is not shown to be the actual magnetic-mixing scale. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.09484 v1 pith:H77RZDOB submitted 2026-07-10 astro-ph.CO

Turbulent Transport of Galactic Magnetic Fields into Cosmic Voids: Insights from IllustrisTNG

Yuri Yamashita , Hiroyuki Tashiro , Kiyotomo Ichiki This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords cosmic voidsturbulent magnetic diffusivitygalactic magnetic fieldsintergalactic mediummagnetic screening lengthIllustrisTNGstructure formation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The origin of the weak magnetic fields inferred in cosmic voids is still open. This paper asks whether fields generated inside galaxies can be carried far enough into voids by turbulent diffusion to matter. The authors measure the turbulent velocity and driving scale of the intergalactic gas in a high-resolution cosmological simulation, convert those into a redshift-dependent turbulent magnetic diffusivity, and solve the induction equation analytically. They find a present-day magnetic screening length of roughly 6–7 Mpc—about twenty times larger than earlier estimates that assumed a much smaller constant diffusivity. That scale is a sizable fraction of a typical void radius, so galactic fields could magnetize a meaningful volume of voids. The result is framed as a conservative lower bound, because real voids are surrounded by many galaxies whose dynamos keep replenishing field.

Core claim

When the turbulent magnetic diffusivity is taken from the solenoidal velocity field of the TNG50-1 simulation, the present-day magnetic screening length reaches ls ≃ 6–7 Mpc. That is roughly twenty times larger than previous estimates based on a constant, smaller diffusivity, and it is large enough that galactic magnetic fields can occupy a significant fraction of the volume of cosmic voids.

What carries the argument

The magnetic screening length ls = 2π/ks, where the screening wavenumber ks is set by the time integral of the turbulent diffusivity η_turb(z) ≃ (1/3) uturb λturb extracted from the solenoidal velocity spectrum. This single scale controls how far an initially galactic field can diffuse before being exponentially suppressed.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on defining the characteristic turbulent scale as the power-spectrum-weighted mean of 2π/k over the solenoidal velocity field, which yields a multi-megaparsec scale at late times; if the scale that actually mixes magnetic fields is much smaller, the factor-of-twenty increase disappears.

What would settle it

Recompute λturb (and therefore ηturb and ls) with an independent definition of the mixing scale—for example the correlation length of the magnetic field itself, or a dissipation-scale cut-off—and check whether the present-day screening length remains of order several megaparsecs.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Galactic magnetic fields can reach a non-negligible fraction of a typical void radius and therefore can contribute to the volume-filling field inferred from gamma-ray cascades.
  • Earlier conclusions that galactic contamination is negligible once plasma screening is included need to be revisited with a larger, redshift-dependent diffusivity.
  • Because the final screening length depends only weakly on the redshift at which the galactic field is first planted, the result is relatively robust to the uncertain epoch of magnetogenesis inside galaxies.
  • Multiple galaxies surrounding a void, together with continuous dynamo replenishment, would raise the magnetization level above the single-source lower bound reported here.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the multi-megaparsec screening length survives more refined mixing-scale definitions, the lower limit on void fields from blazars may partly reflect galactic pollution rather than a primordial seed.
  • The same TNG-derived ηturb(z) can be inserted into existing semi-analytic models of void magnetization to re-map the expected filling factor versus redshift.
  • A direct observational test would be to stack Faraday-rotation measures toward sources behind voids of known size and look for a radial decline that matches the analytic profile controlled by ls.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper derives an analytic solution of the induction equation with turbulent diffusivity in an expanding universe and estimates the redshift-dependent turbulent magnetic diffusivity η_turb(z) from the TNG50-1 simulation. Solenoidal (rotational) velocity fields are isolated via Helmholtz decomposition on a 32^{3} CIC grid; the characteristic turbulent velocity is the mean |u_rot| and the turbulent scale λ_turb is the power-spectrum-weighted mean of 2π/k (Eq. 19). The resulting η_turb is fit to a power law (Eq. 22) and inserted into the screening wavenumber integral (Eq. 7), yielding a present-day magnetic screening length l_s ≃ 6–7 Mpc—roughly twenty times larger than earlier constant-diffusivity estimates—suggesting that galactic magnetic fields can magnetize a non-negligible fraction of cosmic voids.

Significance. If the large screening length is robust, the work revises upward the possible contribution of galactic fields to the magnetization of voids and therefore affects the interpretation of gamma-ray lower limits on the intergalactic magnetic field. The analytic diffusion solution (Eqs. 1–12) is standard and correctly applied, the use of public IllustrisTNG data is transparent, and the comparison with prior Spitzer-only and constant-η_turb estimates is explicit. The result is falsifiable by alternative definitions of the mixing scale or by higher-resolution simulations.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III.B, Eq. (19), Table I] Sec. III.B, Eq. (19) and Table I: the central claim (l_s ≃ 7 Mpc, factor-of-twenty enhancement) rests almost entirely on defining λ_turb as the power-spectrum-weighted mean of 2π/k over the entire solenoidal spectrum. At z ≃ 0 this yields λ_turb ≃ 13 Mpc, which dominates η_turb via Eq. (16). Fig. 1 shows that P_v,rot(k) is still rising toward the largest resolved scales, so the mean is weighted by the box-scale modes rather than by an energy-containing or dissipation scale that would control magnetic mixing. Earlier work assumed λ_turb ∼ 0.1–1 Mpc; if the effective mixing scale is closer to those values (or to the scale where solenoidal power first exceeds compressive power), η_turb drops by an order of magnitude and the factor-of-twenty claim disappears. The paper does not demonstrate that the spectral-mean scale is the relevant mixing length, nor does it test alternative definitions (e
  2. [Table I, Eq. (21), Sec. IV] Table I and Eq. (21): the reported dispersions are often comparable to or larger than the central values (η_turb = 903 ± 1237 at z = 0.01; σ_λ ≃ 8 Mpc). These uncertainties are propagated only into the power-law fit (Eq. 22) and are never folded into the screening-length integral (Eq. 7) or the final l_s ≃ 7 Mpc. Given that the large λ_turb is the sole driver of the claimed enhancement, the absence of a quantified uncertainty band on l_s leaves the central numerical result unsubstantiated.
  3. [Sec. III.A, Fig. 1] Sec. III.A: the 32^{3} CIC grid on the TNG50 volume implies cell sizes of order 1–2 Mpc and a Nyquist scale that already truncates the spectrum (vertical line in Fig. 1). The paper notes that unresolved small-scale turbulence would only increase η_turb, but the same coarse grid also artificially boosts power on the largest scales that dominate the spectral-mean λ_turb. A resolution study (or at least a comparison with a finer grid or with TNG100) is needed to show that the reported λ_turb is not an artifact of the assignment scheme.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, IV headings] Section headings contain spurious spaces (“ESTIMA TION”, “T urbulent”, “PROP AGA TION”) that appear to be PDF-extraction artifacts; they should be cleaned for the published version.
  2. [Fig. 4, Eq. (22)] Fig. 4 error bars are large enough that a pure power-law fit is only marginally preferred; a brief statement of the χ^{2} or of an alternative (e.g., constant late-time) fit would help the reader judge robustness.
  3. [Sec. II, Eq. (8)] The initial-condition idealization (purely azimuthal, constant-magnitude sphere, Eq. 8) is acknowledged as simplified; a short remark on how a more realistic multipole or outflow geometry would affect the far-field profile would be useful.
  4. [Table I, abstract] Units in Table I (λ_turb in 10^{3} kpc, η_turb in 10^{2} kpc km s^{-1}) are clear but unconventional; converting the final l_s to Mpc consistently in the abstract and Sec. V would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: η_turb is measured from independent public TNG50-1 data and inserted into a standard diffusion integral; the screening length is not forced by construction or self-cited fit.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The analytic solution of the induction equation (Eqs. 1–12) is standard and independent of the numerical result. Turbulent velocity and scale are extracted from the public IllustrisTNG TNG50-1 snapshots via Helmholtz decomposition and power-spectrum weighting (Eqs. 16–21, Table I); these are external simulation measurements, not fitted to the target screening length or void magnetization. The power-law fit (Eq. 22) is only an intermediate convenience for evaluating the integral that defines ks (Eq. 7). The final ls ≃ 6–7 Mpc is therefore a genuine output of that integral, not a re-expression of the inputs. Self-citations (e.g., earlier Tashiro works on magnetic fields) appear only for context or comparison and do not underwrite the central claim. The operational definition of λ_turb is a modeling choice that can be debated on physical grounds, but it is not circular: it does not define the result in terms of itself. Score 0 is therefore appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a standard turbulent-diffusivity formula, a particular operational definition of the turbulent scale taken from the simulation, a power-law fit to four noisy points, and several idealizations of the initial magnetic configuration and source geometry. No new physical entities are postulated; the free parameters and domain assumptions listed below are the main inputs that are not forced by prior theory alone.

free parameters (4)
  • η_turb(z) power-law amplitude and index = 1.1e5 (1+z)^{-2.3}
    Least-squares fit η_turb = 1.1×10^5 (1+z)^{-2.3} kpc km s^{-1} to four simulation points that themselves carry large dispersions; used for all subsequent screening-length evolution.
  • galaxy radius normalization r0 = 10 kpc
    Empirical size evolution r_com(z) = r0 (1+z)^{-0.1} with r0 set by hand to 10 kpc; controls the initial magnetized volume.
  • initial field strength B0 = 1 μG
    Fixed by hand at 1 μG; overall amplitude of the diffused profile scales linearly with B0.
  • CIC grid resolution = 32^3
    Velocity fields assigned to a uniform 32^{3} grid; coarser than the native TNG resolution and acknowledged to suppress power near the Nyquist scale.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Turbulent magnetic diffusivity is given by η_turb ≃ (1/3) u_turb λ_turb for approximately isotropic turbulence.
    Invoked in Sec. III.B (Eq. 16) citing Moffatt; standard but not derived from the simulation itself.
  • domain assumption The solenoidal (rotational) component of the Helmholtz-decomposed velocity field is the appropriate tracer of the turbulence that mixes magnetic fields.
    Stated in Sec. III.A; compressive modes are discarded even though they dominate on large scales.
  • domain assumption Spitzer (Ohmic) diffusivity is negligible compared with turbulent diffusivity at all relevant redshifts.
    Asserted after Eq. 4 and confirmed a posteriori with TNG temperatures; used to drop η from the induction equation.
  • ad hoc to paper The initial galactic field is a purely azimuthal, constant-magnitude field inside a spherical region of radius rg.
    Chosen for analytic convenience in Sec. II (Eqs. 8–9) so that ∇·B=0 and the Gaussian integral can be performed in closed form.
  • ad hoc to paper Diffusion from a single, non-replenished galactic source adequately estimates the contribution of galactic fields to void magnetization.
    Explicit modeling choice in Sec. II and discussed as a lower-limit assumption in Sec. V; multi-galaxy and continuous-dynamo effects are omitted.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 17613 in / 3465 out tokens · 45711 ms · 2026-07-13T02:40:52.000569+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Astrophysical processes associated with galaxies may contribute to the magnetization of cosmic voids. We investigate the diffusion of galactic magnetic fields in an expanding universe in the presence of turbulent magnetic diffusivity. To estimate the turbulent magnetic diffusivity, we analyze the TNG50-1 data set of the IllustrisTNG simulation and derive its redshift dependence from the characteristic turbulent velocity and turbulent scale of the intergalactic medium. Using the resulting diffusivity, we find a present-day magnetic screening length of $\sim 7\,{\rm Mpc}$, roughly twenty times larger than previous estimates based on a constant turbulent diffusivity due to the larger turbulent scale obtained in our analysis. This scale corresponds to a significant fraction of the characteristic size of cosmic voids and suggests that galactic magnetic fields can play a more important role in void magnetization than previously estimated.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09484 by Hiroyuki Tashiro, Kiyotomo Ichiki, Yuri Yamashita.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Velocity power spectra at different redshifts, obtained from the TNG50-1 data. The solid curves show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Spatial distribution of the turbulent velocity field, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Histogram of the magnitude of the rotational velocity field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Best-fit relation for the turbulent magnetic diffusivity, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Magnetic screening length [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Radial dependence of the physical magnetic-field strength at different redshifts. The left panel shows the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗

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

32 extracted references · 13 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Neronov and I

    A. Neronov and I. Vovk, Evidence for strong extragalactic magnetic fields from fermi observations of tev blazars, Science 328, 73 (2010)

    2010

  2. [2]

    Dolag, M

    K. Dolag, M. Kachelriess, S. Ostapchenko, and R. Tomas, Lower limit on the strength and filling factor of extragalactic magnetic fields, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 727, L4 (2010)

    2010

  3. [3]

    C. D. Dermer, M. Cavadini, S. Razzaque, J. D. Finke, J. Chiang, and B. Lott, Time delay of cascade radiation for tev blazars and the measurement of the intergalactic magnetic field, The Astrophysical journal letters 733, L21 (2011)

    2011

  4. [4]

    Takahashi, M

    K. Takahashi, M. Mori, K. Ichiki, and S. Inoue, Lower bounds on intergalactic magnetic fields from simultaneously observed gev–tev light curves of the blazar mrk 501, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 744, L7 (2012)

    2012

  5. [5]

    I. Vovk, A. M. Taylor, D. Semikoz, and A. Neronov, Fermi/lat observations of 1es 0229+ 200: implications for extragalactic magnetic fields and background light, The Astrophysical journal letters 747, L14 (2012)

    2012

  6. [6]

    Tashiro and T

    H. Tashiro and T. Vachaspati, Cosmological magnetic field correlators from blazar induced cascade, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 87, 123527 (2013)

    2013

  7. [7]

    V. A. Acciari, I. Agudo, T. Aniello, S. Ansoldi, L. Antonelli, A. A. Engels, M. Artero, K. Asano, D. Baack, A. Babić, et al., A lower bound on intergalactic magnetic fields from time variability of 1es 0229+ 200 from magic and fermi/lat observations, Astronomy & astrophysics 670, A145 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    Minoda, K

    T. Minoda, K. Ichiki, and H. Tashiro, Small-scale cmb anisotropies induced by the primordial magnetic fields, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2021 (03), 093

    2021

  9. [9]

    Planck Collaboration, P. A. R. Ade, N. Aghanim, M. Arnaud, F. Arroja, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Bal- lardini, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, E. Battaner, K. Benabed, A. Benoît, A. Benoit-Lévy, J.-P. Bernard, M. Bersanelli, P. Bielewicz, J. J. Bock, A. Bonaldi, L. Bonavera, J. R. Bond, J. Borrill, F. R. Bouchet, M. Bucher, C. Bur...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  10. [10]

    Pavičević, V

    M. Pavičević, V. Iršič, M. Viel, J. S. Bolton, M. G. Haehnelt, S. Martin-Alvarez, E. Puchwein, and P. Ralegankar, Con- straints on Primordial Magnetic Fields from the Lyman- α Forest, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 071001 (2025), arXiv:2501.06299 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Neronov and I

    A. Neronov and I. Vovk, Evidence for Strong Extragalactic Magnetic Fields from Fermi Observations of TeV Blazars, Science 328, 73 (2010), arXiv:1006.3504 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  12. [12]

    Takahashi, M

    K. Takahashi, M. Mori, K. Ichiki, and S. Inoue, Lower Bounds on Intergalactic Magnetic Fields from Simultaneously Observed GeV-TeV Light Curves of the Blazar Mrk 501, ApJ 744, L7 (2012), arXiv:1103.3835 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  13. [13]

    Takahashi, M

    K. Takahashi, M. Mori, K. Ichiki, S. Inoue, and H. Takami, Lower Bounds on Magnetic Fields in Intergalactic Voids from Long-term GeV-TeV Light Curves of the Blazar Mrk 421, ApJ 771, L42 (2013), arXiv:1303.3069 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  14. [14]

    V. A. Acciari, I. Agudo, T. Aniello, S. Ansoldi, L. A. Antonelli, A. Arbet Engels, M. Artero, K. Asano, D. Baack, A. Babić, A. Baquero, U. Barres de Almeida, J. A. Barrio, I. Batković, J. Becerra González, W. Bednarek, E. Bernardini, M. Bernardos, A. Berti, J. Besenrieder, W. Bhattacharyya, C. Bigongiari, A. Biland, O. Blanch, H. Bökenkamp, G. Bonnoli, Ž....

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Burmeister, P

    L. Burmeister, P. Da Vela, F. Longo, G. Martí-Devesa, M. Meyer, F. G. Saturni, A. Stamerra, and P. Veres, Constraints on the intergalactic magnetic field from Fermi-LAT observations of GRB 221009A, Phys. Rev. D 113, 043041 (2026), arXiv:2512.11128 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    Dey and G

    S. Dey and G. Sigl, Impact of Plasma Instabilities and of the Intergalactic Magnetic Field on Blazar-Induced Electromag- netic Cascades, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2509.17104 (2025), arXiv:2509.17104 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    S. Dey, S. Rossoni, and G. Sigl, A parametric study of plasma instability cooling and its impact on intergalactic magnetic field constraints in GeV cascades, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2604.08375 (2026), arXiv:2604.08375 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    D. Garg, R. Durrer, and J. Schober, Are magnetic fields in cosmic voids primordial?, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.14774 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Seller and G

    K. Seller and G. Sigl, On the contribution of galaxies to the magnetic field in cosmic voids, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.08025 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Ghosh, A

    O. Ghosh, A. Brandenburg, C. Caprini, A. Neronov, and F. Vazza, Can galactic magnetic fields diffuse into the voids?, Phys. Rev. D 113, 023523 (2026), arXiv:2510.26918 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    Pillepich, D

    A. Pillepich, D. Nelson, V. Springel, R. Pakmor, P. Torrey, R. Weinberger, M. Vogelsberger, F. Marinacci, S. Genel, A. van der Wel, and L. Hernquist, First results from the TNG50 simulation: the evolution of stellar and gaseous discs across cosmic time, MNRAS 490, 3196 (2019), arXiv:1902.05553 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  22. [22]

    Nelson, A

    D. Nelson, A. Pillepich, V. Springel, R. Pakmor, R. Weinberger, S. Genel, P. Torrey, M. Vogelsberger, F. Marinacci, and L. Hernquist, First results from the TNG50 simulation: galactic outflows driven by supernovae and black hole feedback, MNRAS 490, 3234 (2019), arXiv:1902.05554 [astro-ph.GA]. 12

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  23. [23]

    Pillepich, D

    A. Pillepich, D. Nelson, L. Hernquist, V. Springel, R. Pakmor, P. Torrey, R. Weinberger, S. Genel, J. P. Naiman, F. Mari- nacci, et al., First results from the illustristng simulations: the stellar mass content of groups and clusters of galaxies, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 475, 648 (2018)

    2018

  24. [24]

    Pillepich, V

    A. Pillepich, V. Springel, D. Nelson, S. Genel, J. Naiman, R. Pakmor, L. Hernquist, P. Torrey, M. Vogelsberger, R. Wein- berger, et al., Simulating galaxy formation with the illustristng model, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 473, 4077 (2018)

    2018

  25. [25]

    Marinacci, M

    F. Marinacci, M. Vogelsberger, R. Pakmor, P. Torrey, V. Springel, L. Hernquist, D. Nelson, R. Weinberger, A. Pillepich, J. Naiman, et al., First results from the illustristng simulations: radio haloes and magnetic fields, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 480, 5113 (2018)

    2018

  26. [26]

    Nelson, A

    D. Nelson, A. Pillepich, V. Springel, R. Weinberger, L. Hernquist, R. Pakmor, S. Genel, P. Torrey, M. Vogelsberger, G. Kauffmann, et al., First results from the illustristng simulations: the galaxy colour bimodality, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 475, 624 (2018)

    2018

  27. [27]

    Jedamzik and G

    K. Jedamzik and G. Sigl, Evolution of the large-scale tail of primordial magnetic fields, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 83, 103005 (2011)

    2011

  28. [28]

    Lewis, A

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor, and A. Lasenby, Efficient computation of CMB anisotropies in closed FR W models, ApJ 538, 473 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9911177 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  29. [29]

    Malkus, Magnetic field generation in electrically conducting fluids

    W. Malkus, Magnetic field generation in electrically conducting fluids. by hk moffatt. cambridge university press, 1978. 343 pp.£ 15.50., Journal of Fluid Mechanics 92, 397 (1979)

    1978

  30. [30]

    Shibuya, M

    T. Shibuya, M. Ouchi, and Y. Harikane, Morphologies of 190,000 galaxies at z= 0–10 revealed with hst legacy data. i. size evolution, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 219, 15 (2015)

    2015

  31. [31]

    Arámburo-García, K

    A. Arámburo-García, K. Bondarenko, A. Boyarsky, A. Neronov, A. Scaife, and A. Sokolenko, The contribution of magne- tized galactic outflows to extragalactic Faraday rotation, MNRAS 519, 4030 (2023), arXiv:2204.06475 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Blunier and A

    J. Blunier and A. Neronov, Constraint on magnetized galactic outflows from LOF AR rotation measure data, A&A 691, A34 (2024), arXiv:2403.13418 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024