pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.11089 · v1 · pith:2WVFOGAEnew · submitted 2026-06-09 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

MusE GAs FLOw and Wind (MEGAFLOW) XIV: Background-Galaxy Absorption Reveals Kiloparsec-Scale Structure in the Cool Circumgalactic Medium

Yucheng Guo , Nicolas F. Bouch\'e , Martin Wendt , Timothy Heckman , Joop Schaye , Sanchayeeta Borthakur , Johannes Zabl , Maxime Cherrey
show 4 more authors
Sowgat Muzahid Ismael Pessa Ramona Augustin Daria Kozlova
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 12:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords MgII absorptioncircumgalactic mediumCGM structurecoherence lengthstacked absorptionbackground galaxiesquasarspartial covering
0
0 comments X

The pith

MgII clouds in the cool CGM show a coherence length of 2-7 kpc from differences in stacked absorption against galaxies versus quasars.

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

The paper measures the typical size of cool gas structures in galaxy halos by comparing stacked MgII absorption seen against extended background galaxies to that seen against point-like quasars. When the background source is smaller than the foreground clouds, partial covering makes the median equivalent width lower than the mean; the two agree when the source is larger. The data show agreement for galaxy backgrounds but clear divergence for quasars, and a tentative size dependence among the galaxies themselves. This geometric test indicates that the cool CGM is made of discrete clouds with coherence lengths of a few kiloparsecs.

Core claim

Stacked MgII absorption against background galaxies yields consistent mean and median equivalent-width profiles, while the same stacks against background quasars show median profiles that fall below the mean, with the offset growing at larger impact parameters. A similar pattern appears when splitting the galaxy sample by size. These differences arise because the quasars and smaller galaxies are smaller than the coherence scale of the absorbing clouds, so they sample only partial covering fractions on average; the larger galaxies average over multiple clouds and recover the full mean absorption.

What carries the argument

The mean-minus-median difference in stacked MgII equivalent-width profiles, produced by partial covering when background-source size is smaller than the foreground cloud coherence scale.

If this is right

  • The cool CGM is composed of discrete clouds rather than a volume-filling smooth medium at the probed impact parameters.
  • Absorption-line stacking analyses must include the angular size of the background source when converting equivalent widths to covering fractions.
  • The coherence scale sets a minimum size for structures that can survive in the CGM, directly affecting how outflow and accretion models populate the halo with cool gas.
  • The method supplies a purely geometric constraint that can be repeated with other ions or at higher redshift without assuming specific cloud velocities or ionization conditions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the 2-7 kpc scale matches the expected size of galactic fountain clouds or recycled wind material, it would link the observed coherence directly to outflow recycling cycles.
  • Simulations that resolve CGM structure below 1 kpc could be tested by checking whether they reproduce the same mean-median divergence when mock observations are performed with realistic source sizes.
  • Extending the analysis to background galaxies at different redshifts or with different stellar masses would reveal whether cloud size scales with halo properties.

Load-bearing premise

The differences between mean and median EW profiles are caused only by the finite coherence scale of the clouds combined with source size, rather than velocity structure, ionization gradients, or stacking selection effects.

What would settle it

High-resolution integral-field spectroscopy of a single background galaxy that shows uniform MgII absorption across its entire disk on scales of several kpc would falsify the claimed coherence length.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.11089 by Daria Kozlova, Ismael Pessa, Johannes Zabl, Joop Schaye, Martin Wendt, Maxime Cherrey, Nicolas F. Bouch\'e, Ramona Augustin, Sanchayeeta Borthakur, Sowgat Muzahid, Timothy Heckman, Yucheng Guo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Distributions of key quantities for the final FG–BG pair catalogue used in this work. The grey histograms show the full [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Stacked Mg ii absorption profiles in the foreground rest frame for the final FG–BG pair catalogue. The three rows show bins of normalised separation b/Rvir,fg ∈ [0, 0.25), [0.25, 1), and [1, 4). The left and right columns compare stacks constructed from background galaxies and background quasars, respectively. In each panel, the mean and median stacks are shown with different colours, and the shaded region… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Radial dependence of the stacked Mg ii λ2796 rest-frame equivalent width. Points show measurements from the mean and median stacks constructed separately for background galax￾ies and background quasars in bins of normalised separation r/Rvir,fg. The literature relation from Cherrey et al. (2025) for isolated galaxies in the spectra of background quasars is over￾plotted for comparison. frame equivalent widt… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic illustration of the physical picture explored in this paper. The cool Mg [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as Figure 3, but with the background galaxy sample [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distributions of physical properties for a representative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Representative projected realisation of the cloud population within the halo. Left: cloud positions, with marker size propor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A representative realisation of the synthetic absorption calculation in the toy model. Left: Absorption strength as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Monte-Carlo-averaged toy-model predictions. Left: absorption strength as a function of impact parameter for extended [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Predicted observational signatures of varying key parameters in the toy model. In each row, the left panel shows the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The properties of the cool ($T\sim10^4$~K) gas in the circumgalactic medium (CGM) are closely linked to the physical mechanisms that create and maintain this multiphase medium. The cool CGM is thought to consist of discrete clouds, whose characteristic size is unknown. Here we present a geometric and direct approach to constrain the coherence scale of these cool structures using stacked MgII absorption lines measured against extended background galaxies and effectively point-like background quasars, whose sizes are a few kpc and $\lesssim$ 0.01 pc, respectively. When the background-source size is smaller than the coherence scale of the foreground clouds, incomplete covering lowers the detection fraction and causes the median stacked absorption to differ from the mean. For stacked MgII absorption against background galaxies, the mean and median equivalent width (EW) profiles are broadly consistent. For stacked MgII absorption against background quasars, by contrast, the median and mean EW profiles differ significantly, and more so as the impact parameter increases beyond 100 kpc. Furthermore, we find a tentative trend that the median and mean EW profiles are broadly consistent for large background galaxies (median half-light radius $\approx 6.6$ kpc), but differ for small background galaxies ($\approx 1.5$ kpc). This indicates that MgII clouds have a coherence length of $\sim$2-7~kpc. Using a toy model in which the CGM is populated with discrete cool clouds, we show that the observed differences arise naturally from the combination of partial covering and beam averaging. Our results provide a new geometry-based measure of the small-scale structure of cool CGM gas.

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that differences in mean versus median stacked MgII equivalent width profiles—consistent for large background galaxies but discrepant for quasars and small galaxies—indicate that cool CGM clouds have a coherence length of ∼2-7 kpc. This geometric inference is supported by a toy model in which discrete clouds produce partial covering when the background source size is smaller than the cloud scale, with the discrepancy increasing at impact parameters >100 kpc.

Significance. If the central claim holds after addressing sample-matching concerns, the work supplies a novel, direct geometric constraint on the small-scale structure of the cool CGM that is independent of fitted parameters and complements kinematic or ionization studies. The comparison to independently measured source sizes and the explicit toy model are strengths that make the result potentially falsifiable with future data.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract, final paragraph: The claim that the observed mean-median EW discrepancy arises exclusively from partial covering due to finite coherence length (yielding the 2-7 kpc range) requires that the small-galaxy (median half-light radius ≈1.5 kpc) and large-galaxy (≈6.6 kpc) subsamples are matched in redshift distribution, mean impact parameter, and intrinsic CGM properties. Without explicit tests for these matches, velocity structure, ionization gradients, or selection effects in the stacking could produce the same offset, undermining the coherence-length interpretation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the 2-7 kpc range but provides no error bars, derivation details, or sensitivity tests to the exact source-size values used.
  2. Additional details on the stacking procedure (weighting, error estimation, and handling of non-detections) would improve reproducibility of the mean-median comparison.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful and constructive report. The major comment raises an important point about sample matching that we address directly below. We have revised the manuscript to incorporate explicit tests and expanded discussion as described.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract, final paragraph: The claim that the observed mean-median EW discrepancy arises exclusively from partial covering due to finite coherence length (yielding the 2-7 kpc range) requires that the small-galaxy (median half-light radius ≈1.5 kpc) and large-galaxy (≈6.6 kpc) subsamples are matched in redshift distribution, mean impact parameter, and intrinsic CGM properties. Without explicit tests for these matches, velocity structure, ionization gradients, or selection effects in the stacking could produce the same offset, undermining the coherence-length interpretation.

    Authors: We agree that demonstrating the small- and large-galaxy subsamples are well-matched is essential for the robustness of the coherence-length inference. In the revised manuscript we have added a new figure and accompanying text in Section 4.2 that explicitly compares the redshift and impact-parameter distributions of the two subsamples; Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests yield p > 0.2, indicating consistency. Both subsamples are drawn from the identical parent MEGAFLOW galaxy catalog with the sole distinction being the half-light radius cut, and the stacking procedure is identical. While velocity structure and ionization gradients could in principle contribute, the toy model in Section 5 shows that the mean-median offset arises naturally from partial covering once source size is varied, and the same model reproduces the quasar-galaxy contrast without invoking differences in CGM properties. We have also added a brief discussion of possible selection biases and why they are unlikely to mimic the observed size-dependent trend. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: coherence length inferred from independent source-size comparisons

full rationale

The paper's central inference—that MgII clouds have a coherence length of ∼2-7 kpc—follows directly from comparing observed mean vs. median EW profiles across background sources whose physical sizes (quasars ≲0.01 pc; galaxies with measured half-light radii 1.5 kpc and 6.6 kpc) are determined independently of the absorption data. The toy model is used only to illustrate that partial covering plus beam averaging reproduces the pattern; it does not fit parameters to the target coherence length or redefine inputs. No self-definitional equations, fitted-input predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the derivation chain. The result is therefore self-contained against external size measurements.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review limits visibility of any fitted parameters in the toy model or data cuts; the coherence length itself is the derived quantity rather than an input.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Background galaxies have half-light radii of ~1.5 kpc and ~6.6 kpc; quasars are effectively point sources (<0.01 pc).
    Invoked to interpret covering fraction differences (abstract, paragraph on galaxy sizes).

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5907 in / 1169 out tokens · 17499 ms · 2026-06-27T12:39:30.399351+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

89 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    2023, A&A, 680, A112

    Afruni, A., Lopez, S., Anshul, P., et al. 2023, A&A, 680, A112

    2023

  2. [2]

    1993, ARA&A, 31, 473

    Antonucci, R. 1993, ARA&A, 31, 473

    1993

  3. [3]

    K., Prochaska, J

    Armillotta, L., Fraternali, F., Werk, J. K., Prochaska, J. X., & Marinacci, F. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 114

    2017

  4. [4]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 6195

    Augustin, R., Péroux, C., Hamanowicz, A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 6195

    2021

  5. [5]

    S., et al

    Augustin, R., Tumlinson, J., Peeples, M. S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 993, 52

    2025

  6. [6]

    2010, in Society of Photo-Optical In- strumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Bacon, R., Accardo, M., Adjali, L., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical In- strumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ram- say, & H. Takami, 773508

    2010

  7. [7]

    2021, A&A, 647, A107

    Bacon, R., Mary, D., Garel, T., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A107

    2021

  8. [8]

    Bahcall, J. N. & Spitzer, Jr., L. 1969, ApJ, 156, L63

    1969

  9. [9]

    H., Hearin, A

    Behroozi, P., Wechsler, R. H., Hearin, A. P., & Conroy, C. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3143

    2019

  10. [10]

    S., Sharma, P., Dutta, A., & Nath, B

    Bisht, M. S., Sharma, P., Dutta, A., & Nath, B. B. 2025, MNRAS, 542, 1573

    2025

  11. [11]

    J., Knobel, C., et al

    Bordoloi, R., Lilly, S. J., Knobel, C., et al. 2011, ApJ, 743, 10

    2011

  12. [12]

    2015, ApJ, 813, 46 Bouché, N., Hohensee, W., Vargas, R., et al

    Borthakur, S., Heckman, T., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 46 Bouché, N., Hohensee, W., Vargas, R., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 801 Bouché, N. F., Wendt, M., Zabl, J., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A67

    2015

  13. [13]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763

    2003

  14. [14]

    2023, ApJ, 955, L25

    Chen, H.-W., Qu, Z., Rauch, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, L25

    2023

  15. [15]

    L., et al

    Chen, H.-W., Wild, V ., Tinker, J. L., et al. 2010, ApJ, 724, L176

    2010

  16. [16]

    F., Zabl, J., et al

    Cherrey, M., Bouché, N. F., Zabl, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 481

    2024

  17. [17]

    F., Zabl, J., et al

    Cherrey, M., Bouché, N. F., Zabl, J., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A117

    2025

  18. [18]

    W., Mellon, R

    Churchill, C. W., Mellon, R. R., Charlton, J. C., & V ogt, S. S. 2003, ApJ, 593, 203

    2003

  19. [19]

    L., Songaila, A., Kim, T.-S., & Hu, E

    Cowie, L. L., Songaila, A., Kim, T.-S., & Hu, E. M. 1995, AJ, 109, 1522

    1995

  20. [20]

    D., Keeney, B

    Davis, J. D., Keeney, B. A., Danforth, C. W., & Stocke, J. T. 2015, ApJ, 810, 92

    2015

  21. [21]

    2000, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Se- ries, V ol

    Dekker, H., D’Odorico, S., Kaufer, A., Delabre, B., & Kotzlowski, H. 2000, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Se- ries, V ol. 4008, Optical and IR Telescope Instrumentation and Detectors, ed. M. Iye & A. F. Moorwood, 534–545

    2000

  22. [22]

    & Bally, J

    Devine, D. & Bally, J. 1999, ApJ, 510, 197

    1999

  23. [23]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 1895

    Dutta, R., Acebron, A., Fumagalli, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 1895

    2024

  24. [24]

    L., Ibata, R., Pettini, M., et al

    Ellison, S. L., Ibata, R., Pettini, M., et al. 2004, A&A, 414, 79

    2004

  25. [25]

    & Werk, J

    Faerman, Y . & Werk, J. K. 2023, ApJ, 956, 92 Faucher-Giguère, C.-A. & Oh, S. P. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 131

    2023

  26. [26]

    B., Ostriker, E

    Fielding, D. B., Ostriker, E. C., Bryan, G. L., & Jermyn, A. S. 2020, ApJ, 894, L24

    2020

  27. [27]

    B., Bolatto, A

    Fisher, D. B., Bolatto, A. D., Chisholm, J., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 3068

    2025

  28. [28]

    F., Contini, T., et al

    Freundlich, J., Bouché, N. F., Contini, T., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 1900

    2021

  29. [29]

    G., Baldry, I

    Gilbank, D. G., Baldry, I. K., Balogh, M. L., Glazebrook, K., & Bower, R. G. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 2594

    2010

  30. [30]

    G., Baldry, I

    Gilbank, D. G., Baldry, I. K., Balogh, M. L., Glazebrook, K., & Bower, R. G. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 2111

    2011

  31. [31]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.14908

    Greene, J., Bezanson, R., Ouchi, M., Silverman, J., & the PFS Galaxy Evolution Working Group. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.14908

    arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    Gronke, M. & Oh, S. P. 2018, MNRAS, 480, L111

    2018

  33. [33]

    Gronke, M. & Oh, S. P. 2020, MNRAS, 494, L27

    2020

  34. [34]

    F., et al

    Guo, Y ., Bacon, R., Bouché, N. F., et al. 2023, Nature, 624, 53

    2023

  35. [35]

    2017, ApJ, 836, 243

    Gupta, A., Mathur, S., & Krongold, Y . 2017, ApJ, 836, 243

    2017

  36. [36]

    M., Dahlem, M., Lehnert, M

    Heckman, T. M., Dahlem, M., Lehnert, M. D., et al. 1995, ApJ, 448, 98

    1995

  37. [37]

    H., Martin, C

    Ho, S. H., Martin, C. L., & Schaye, J. 2020, ApJ, 904, 76

    2020

  38. [38]

    B., Rubin, K

    Hummels, C. B., Rubin, K. H. R., Schneider, E. E., & Fielding, D. B. 2024, ApJ, 972, 148

    2024

  39. [39]

    P., & Masterson, P

    Ji, S., Oh, S. P., & Masterson, P. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 737

    2019

  40. [40]

    L., Wu, X., & Pen, U.-L

    Jow, D. L., Wu, X., & Pen, U.-L. 2024, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 121, e2406783121

    2024

  41. [41]

    & Shelton, R

    Kwak, K. & Shelton, R. L. 2010, ApJ, 719, 523

    2010

  42. [42]

    & Fukugita, M

    Lan, T.-W. & Fukugita, M. 2017, ApJ, 850, 156

    2017

  43. [43]

    Lan, T.-W. & Mo, H. 2018, ApJ, 866, 36

    2018

  44. [44]

    Lan, T.-W. & Mo, H. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 608

    2019

  45. [45]

    F., et al

    Langan, I., Zabl, J., Bouché, N. F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 546

    2023

  46. [46]

    D., Heckman, T

    Lehnert, M. D., Heckman, T. M., & Weaver, K. A. 1999, ApJ, 523, 575

    1999

  47. [47]

    2024, A&A, 691, A356

    Lopez, S., Afruni, A., Zamora, D., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A356

    2024

  48. [48]

    A., Thompson, T

    Lopez, S., Lopez, L. A., Thompson, T. A., Leroy, A. K., & Bolatto, A. D. 2025, ApJ, 989, 100

    2025

  49. [49]

    I., Brinchmann, J., et al

    Mainieri, V ., Anderson, R. I., Brinchmann, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.05398

    arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    2020, The Messenger, 180, 24

    Maiolino, R., Cirasuolo, M., Afonso, J., et al. 2020, The Messenger, 180, 24

    2020

  51. [51]

    Maller, A. H. & Bullock, J. S. 2004, MNRAS, 355, 694

    2004

  52. [52]

    W., Kacprzak, G

    Marra, R., Churchill, C. W., Kacprzak, G. G., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 10522

    2024

  53. [53]

    P., O’Leary, R., & Madigan, A.-M

    McCourt, M., Oh, S. P., O’Leary, R., & Madigan, A.-M. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 5407

    2018

  54. [54]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 3858

    Mishra, S., Muzahid, S., Dutta, S., Srianand, R., & Charlton, J. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 3858

    2024

  55. [55]

    Mo, H. J. & Miralda-Escude, J. 1996, ApJ, 469, 589

    1996

  56. [56]

    W., Kochanek, C

    Morgan, C. W., Kochanek, C. S., Morgan, N. D., & Falco, E. E. 2010, ApJ, 712, 1129

    2010

  57. [57]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 2391

    Nelson, D., Sharma, P., Pillepich, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 2391

    2020

  58. [58]

    M., Churchill, C

    Nielsen, N. M., Churchill, C. W., & Kacprzak, G. G. 2013, ApJ, 776, 115

    2013

  59. [59]

    D., Schaye, J., Crain, R

    Oppenheimer, B. D., Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Werk, J. K., & Richings, A. J. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 835

    2018

  60. [60]

    S., Corlies, L., Tumlinson, J., et al

    Peeples, M. S., Corlies, L., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 129 Péroux, C., Rahmani, H., Arrigoni Battaia, F., & Augustin, R. 2018, MNRAS, 479, L50

    2019

  61. [61]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.11280

    Pessa, I., Wisotzki, L., Urrutia, T., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.11280

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  62. [62]

    2024, A&A, 691, A5

    Pessa, I., Wisotzki, L., Urrutia, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A5

    2024

  63. [63]

    2000, A&A, 359, 457 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Petitjean, P., Aracil, B., Srianand, R., & Ibata, R. 2000, A&A, 359, 457 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13

    2000

  64. [64]

    & Nelson, D

    Ramesh, R. & Nelson, D. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3320

    2024

  65. [65]

    Rauch, M., Sargent, W. L. W., & Barlow, T. A. 1999, ApJ, 515, 500

    1999

  66. [66]

    Rauch, M., Sargent, W. L. W., Barlow, T. A., & Simcoe, R. A. 2002, ApJ, 576, 45

    2002

  67. [67]

    2026, A&A, 707, A359

    Santo, E., Fumagalli, M., Chang, S.-J., et al. 2026, A&A, 707, A359

    2026

  68. [68]

    2003, ApJ, 596, 768

    Schaye, J., Aguirre, A., Kim, T.-S., et al. 2003, ApJ, 596, 768

    2003

  69. [69]

    F., & Kim, T.-S

    Schaye, J., Carswell, R. F., & Kim, T.-S. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 1169

    2007

  70. [70]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 39

    Schroetter, I., Bouché, N., Wendt, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 39

    2016

  71. [71]

    F., Zabl, J., et al

    Schroetter, I., Bouché, N. F., Zabl, J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4368

    2019

  72. [72]

    F., Zabl, J., et al

    Schroetter, I., Bouché, N. F., Zabl, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 1355

    2021

  73. [73]

    F., Zabl, J., et al

    Schroetter, I., Bouché, N. F., Zabl, J., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A39

    2024

  74. [74]

    M., et al

    Shaban, A., Bordoloi, R., O’Meara, J. M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 190

    2025

  75. [75]

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

    1973

  76. [76]

    J., & Quataert, E

    Sharma, P., McCourt, M., Parrish, I. J., & Quataert, E. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 1219

    2012

  77. [77]

    T., Lilly, S

    Soto, K. T., Lilly, S. J., Bacon, R., Richard, J., & Conseil, S. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3210

    2016

  78. [78]

    & Fielding, D

    Tan, B. & Fielding, D. B. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 9683

    2024

  79. [79]

    S., & Werk, J

    Tumlinson, J., Peeples, M. S., & Werk, J. K. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 389 van de V oort, F., Springel, V ., Mandelker, N., van den Bosch, F. C., & Pakmor, R. 2019, MNRAS, 482, L85 V oit, G. M., Bryan, G. L., O’Shea, B. W., & Donahue, M. 2015, ApJ, 808, L30

    2017

  80. [80]

    M., Palsa, R., Streicher, O., et al

    Weilbacher, P. M., Palsa, R., Streicher, O., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A28

    2020

Showing first 80 references.