Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 126 references

The Co-Evolution of Stellar Wind-blown Bubbles and Photoionized Gas II: 3D RMHD Simulations and Tests of Semi-Analytic Models

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Photoionized gas makes wind bubbles hit harder

desk verdict Careful simulation study of joint wind+LyC feedback; the qualitative result that ionized gas boosts WBB momentum is plausible and well-motivated, but the alpha_p contrast is partly numerical and the CEM agreement is partly calibrated rather than predicted. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22733 v1 pith:4OCULDFA submitted 2025-05-28 astro-ph.GA

Lachlan Lancaster , Chang-Goo Kim , Jeong-Gyu Kim , Eve C. Ostriker , Greg L. Bryan This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords stellarfeedbackwind-blownbubblesphotoionizedregionsradiationmagnetohydrodynamicsgiantmolecularcloudsmomentum-drivenLymancontinuuminterstellarmedium
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks how two feedback channels from massive stars—stellar winds and ionizing radiation—work when they act together, rather than one dominating. Using three-dimensional radiation magnetohydrodynamical simulations of a massive star-forming cloud, it finds that photoionized gas does not merely add pressure: it reshapes the wind-blown bubble by smoothing the background medium and cutting the bubble's surface area, which reduces cooling at the interface and lets the bubble retain more energy and momentum. It also tests the semi-analytic Co-Evolution Model of the companion paper and finds it tracks key bubble properties to within about 25 percent. The result matters because most previous simulations studied single stars, a regime where winds look unimportant; clustered feedback of the sort simulated here gives winds a real dynamical role.

What carries the argument

The momentum enhancement factor, $\alpha_p = \frac{3}{4} \frac{V_w/4}{\langle v_{\rm out}\rangle} \frac{4\pi R_w^2}{A_w}$, is the central diagnostic: it converts a measurement of the wind bubble's interface area $A_w$ and its average outflow velocity $\langle v_{\rm out}\rangle$ into the momentum the bubble actually deposits in its surroundings. Because $\alpha_p$ depends on how much interface is available and how fast energy is moved across it, comparing runs with and without LyC radiation isolates whether radiation changes dynamics through geometry (area) or through dissipation (velocity). The same measurement framework, with the same surface definitions, was used to show that magnetic fields shrink the bubble's surface; this paper applies it to show that photoionized gas acts through the same geometric suppression of cooling.

What would settle it

Run a matched pair of wind-only and wind-plus-LyC simulations at high enough resolution, or with a sub-grid interface-mixing model, to resolve the thin mixing layer at the $10^6$ K surface and re-measure $A_w$ and $\langle v_{\rm out}\rangle$; if the surface-area reduction disappears or $\langle v_{\rm out}\rangle$ does not drop, the inferred enhancement of $\alpha_p$ is a numerical artifact rather than a physical effect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Lyman-continuum radiation increases the dynamical impact of wind-blown bubbles rather than simply competing with them. Measured momentum enhancement factors are larger when radiation is included: $\alpha_p = 4.66$ versus $2.55$ in the hydrodynamic runs, and $6.20$ versus $4.09$ in the magnetohydrodynamic runs. The enhancement comes from two coupled effects: the photoionized medium has a higher sound speed and a smoother density structure, which suppresses thin-shell instabilities and lowers the bubble's interface area $A_w$; meanwhile, the wind no longer abuts neutral gas, removing collisional Ly$\alpha$ excitation as a cooling channel at that interface. With less surface and weaker cooling, less energy is dissipated and the bubble carries more momentum. The paper further shows that the semi-analytic Co-Evolution Model reproduces simulated wind radius, ionized radius, and total momentum to within about 25 percent, and that the residual deviations trace to the model's assumption of a constant $\alpha_p$ and its neglect of background inhomogeneity.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulated interface area and outflow velocity faithfully capture how cooling works at the wind bubble's edge; the paper states outright that the exact values, and therefore $\alpha_p$, would differ in reality because diffusion and cooling at the interface are not resolved.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Simulations that include both winds and ionizing radiation will see wind-blown bubbles carry more momentum than wind-only runs predict, so feedback models that treat winds as purely momentum-driven will understate their effect.
  • Semi-analytic feedback models must allow $\alpha_p$ to vary in time and must account for clumpy backgrounds; a constant-$\alpha_p$ co-evolution model is accurate to roughly 25 percent but systematically misses late-time expansion.
  • The relative importance of winds versus radiation depends on whether the feedback source is a single star or a cluster inside a giant molecular cloud; single-star simulations have mostly probed the regime where winds are expected to be subdominant.
  • Higher-resolution runs with clumpier backgrounds produce larger ionized volumes and larger total momentum, so turbulent inhomogeneity is a first-order ingredient rather than a small correction.
  • Because photoionized gas smooths background density contrasts, the same mechanism by which magnetic fields suppress wind-bubble cooling also operates through radiation, pointing to a common geometric control on feedback efficiency.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If this mechanism operates in real HII regions, the shells of wind bubbles embedded in photoionized gas should look smoother and carry more momentum at a given radius than bubbles expanding into neutral gas; such a difference is testable with resolved observations of young clusters.
  • The numerical values of $\alpha_p$ likely depend on how interface mixing is treated, and until sub-grid models calibrated to resolved interface simulations are developed, the quoted factors should be read as resolution-dependent estimates rather than exact physical constants.
  • The Co-Evolution Model's success despite a uniform background suggests a natural extension: replacing the uniform density with a clumping-factor-weighted effective density could capture both the larger ionized volume and the rocket effect in a semi-analytic model.
  • Varying the ratio $\zeta = R_{\rm eq}/R_{\rm St}$ from cluster-like to single-star-like values should flip the conclusion; in regimes where the wind bubble overruns the ionization front, the protective photoionized shell is absent and the enhancement should shrink or vanish.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents 3D radiation-magnetohydrodynamical simulations of cluster-scale feedback bubbles driven by both stellar winds and ionizing radiation, using a turbulent, inhomogeneous background representative of Milky Way GMCs. The authors run HD and MHD cases at three resolutions, with wind-only, radiation-only, wind+radiation, and no-feedback reference runs, and use them to test the semi-analytic Co-Evolution Model (CEM) developed in Paper I. They report that the CEM reproduces the simulated wind-bubble radius and total momentum to within about 25% and the ionized-gas radius to within about 30%, with residual discrepancies attributed to time-variable momentum enhancement factors and background inhomogeneity. They further argue that photoionized gas enhances the dynamical impact of the wind-blown bubble by reducing its surface area and suppressing cooling at its interface, supported by larger measured values of the momentum enhancement factor alpha_p in runs with Lyman-continuum radiation.

Significance. If the central result holds, this is a valuable step forward: it is, to the authors' knowledge, the first simulation of cluster-driven feedback in the regime where winds and photoionization are both dynamically important, and it provides a systematic resolution study with careful HD/MHD and feedback-on/off controls. The decomposition of the WBB's dynamical impact into geometric (Aw) and dissipative (<v_out>) factors, following Lancaster et al. (2024), is a useful framework, and the paper's placement of previous simulations in the Req/RSt parameter space is a helpful synthesis. The main quantitative claim, that LyC radiation enhances WBB momentum feedback, is physically plausible and internally grounded in a with/without-LyC comparison, but as discussed below it is weakened by an asymmetry in unresolved interface cooling between the two sets of runs.

major comments (3)
  1. [4.2 and 3.2] The central quantitative evidence for the abstract claim is the larger time- and resolution-averaged alpha_p in HWR (4.66) and MWR (6.20) versus HW (2.55) and MW (4.09), shown in Figure 3 and derived from Equation (14) using grid-scale measurements of Aw and <v_out>. However, Section 3.2 states explicitly that in the wind-only runs, numerical diffusion of neutral hydrogen into hot gas produces an excess of Ly-alpha cooling at the WBB interface, and that this cooling is not properly resolved and is absent in the runs with LyC radiation. Because the claimed enhancement is specifically attributed to a decrease in cooling at the WBB interface, part of the measured alpha_p contrast may simply be the removal of this numerical artifact. I ask the authors to quantify this effect, for example by rerunning or post-processing the wind-only runs with the xH-based cooling cuts used in Kim et al. (2023b), or by performing a controlled resolution study of the interface cooling. Without such a test, the statement that LyC radiation 'results in an enhanced WBB dynamical impact' is not cleanly separated from a resolution-dependent numerical effect.
  2. [4.3 and Table 3] The reported agreement of the CEM with the simulations 'to within 25%' (abstract and Section 4.3.4) is obtained using alpha_p values that are measured from the same simulations being compared: the second column of Table 3 lists mean alpha_p per resolution, and the text says 'we compare the models at a given resolution to the CEM with an alpha_p value chosen to match the average value realized in that simulation.' This is a posterior calibration rather than an independent test of the model's predictive power. The paper should either explicitly label this as a consistency test of the CEM's functional form, or provide a sensitivity analysis showing how the CEM predictions change when alpha_p is fixed a priori (e.g., at the bracketing values alpha_p = 3 and 8 already used in Figures 4-6). As written, the 'agreement within 25%' claim overstates the degree of validation.
  3. [5.3 and Appendix B] The paper acknowledges in Section 5.3 that the scales relevant to the diffusive and cooling processes at the WBB interface are far below the resolution of global simulations, and Appendix B.2 shows (Figure 11) that the shell thickness in the HW runs approaches the grid scale. This means that the measured Aw and <v_out>, and therefore the inferred alpha_p, are resolution-dependent diagnostics of unresolved physics. The qualitative trends in Figure 3 may be robust, but the quantitative claim that the LyC runs have alpha_p enhanced by factors of ~1.5-1.8 relative to the no-LyC runs needs a more careful statement of the systematic uncertainty. I recommend adding a quantitative estimate of how much of the Aw and <v_out> differences could be numerical, or at minimum repositioning the abstract claim as a trend in the simulations rather than a calibrated physical result.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues: 'T able' appears in place of 'Table' at the start of sections (e.g., 'T able 1', 'T able 3', 'T able 4'), and Equation (B2) is labeled (B2) when no (B1) appears in Appendix B; the clumping-factor definition should be renumbered.
  2. [References] The citation 'Lancaster 2025, ApJ, XXX, XXX' is incomplete and should be updated to the published or arXiv reference for Paper I.
  3. [Figure 2] The dashed colored lines in panels (c), (d), (g), and (h) are described as identical in the caption, but it would improve readability to state explicitly that the wind-only momentum input is the same in the top and bottom rows by construction; as printed, the reader must infer this from the text.
  4. [Table 3] The table header uses '⌈∆⌉' without defining it in the caption; the definition is given only in the text of Section 4.3.4. Please add the definition to the table caption.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

CEM validation is partly circular: alpha_p is measured from each simulation (Eq. 14) and then fed back into the CEM, so the claimed within-25% agreement is a consistency check; the LyC-enhancement result is a separate non-circular comparison.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.3.4 (Summary Model Comparison), Table 3; abstract 'within 25%' claim]
    "In order to provide the fairest comparison for the models, we use the average αp values calculated at each resolution in each simulation; these are given in the second column of Table 3."

    The CEM 'prediction' is not independent of the simulations it is tested against: αp is measured from the same run via Eq. 14, which uses that run's Rw, Aw, and <vout>. Feeding the measured average αp into the CEM and then reporting ΔCEM for Rw, Ri, and pr in Table 3/Figure 7 makes the headline 'CEM agrees with the simulations to within 25%' a consistency check of the diagnostic and model equations, not an out-of-sample prediction. The time-variability and inhomogeneity conclusions retain content, and the with/without-LyC αp comparison is separate, but the stated agreement is partly forced by the fitted input.

full rationale

The paper's primary new physical claim—photoionized gas raises WBB dynamical impact, seen in larger time/resolution-averaged αp in HWR (4.66) and MWR (6.20) than HW (2.55) and MW (4.09)—is a controlled with/without-LyC comparison using identical feedback, resolution, and turbulent backgrounds, with αp inferred by the same Eq. 14 in both cases; this is not circular. The circularity is confined to the CEM validation: αp is not predicted by the model but is measured from each simulation and then inserted as the CEM input, so the reported agreement (within ~25% in Table 3/Figure 7) is partly by construction. I treat the numerical Lyα-cooling excess in wind-only runs admitted in Section 3.2, and the unresolved interface diffusion noted in Sections 4.2 and 5.3, as robustness limitations rather than circularity: they make the with/without comparison asymmetric and the absolute αp values uncertain, but they do not make any claim equivalent to its input. The self-citations to Lancaster et al. (2021b, 2024) for the αp diagnostic are load-bearing but not circular, since that prior framework did not already contain the LyC result claimed here. Overall score 6: one central model-comparison prediction reduces partly by construction, while the main LyC-enhancement comparison remains independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a small set of modeling choices: a statistically homogeneous turbulent background, constant feedback luminosities, a constant-alpha_p semi-analytic model, and neglect of dust absorption, radiation pressure, and thermal conduction. The only fitted parameter in the model comparison is alpha_p, measured from the simulations themselves. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • alpha_p (momentum enhancement factor) = 2.55 (HW), 4.09 (MW), 4.66 (HWR), 6.20 (MWR), with resolution-specific values in Table 3
    Measured from each simulation's WBB interface via Equation 14 and used as an input to the CEM model comparisons in Section 4.3 and Table 3. This is the key calibrated input; it is not predicted a priori.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The background medium is statistically homogeneous and isotropic, with no stratification or self-gravity, and cluster-driven feedback percolates quickly from individual stars.
    Section 3.1 states the initial conditions are representative of large-scale GMC properties, statistically homogeneous and isotropic, and do not represent FBs from individual stars. Section 5.3 cautions against individual-star comparisons. If real GMC density profiles or self-gravity alter bubble evolution, the CEM comparison and alpha_p trends could change quantitatively.
  • domain assumption Wind and LyC luminosities are constant in time, fixed to SB99 IMF-averaged values for a 5e3 Msun cluster over the first 2 Myr.
    Section 3.3 sets Lw, Mdot_w, Q0 to constants. Real stellar populations and individual massive stars have time-variable winds, as in Geen et al. 2021. This limits applicability to later times and to individual-star environments, as the authors note.
  • ad hoc to paper The momentum-driven co-evolution model assumes a fixed alpha_p and enforces pressure equilibrium across the WBB/PIR interface after teq.
    Section 2.2 and Paper I: the CEM switches at teq to a pressure-equilibrium co-evolution phase with constant alpha_p. The paper itself shows alpha_p varies with time (Figure 3), so this is a tested approximation rather than an external law.
  • domain assumption Absorption of LyC radiation by dust, radiation pressure, and thermal conduction are neglected.
    Section 3.3 sets sigma_d,LyC = 0 and omits radiation pressure; Section 5.3 notes thermal conduction is omitted because it is unresolved. These omissions affect PIR volume, WBB interface cooling energetics, and momentum transfer.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Co-Evolution of Stellar Wind-blown Bubbles and Photoionized Gas II: 3D RMHD Simulations and Tests of Semi-Analytic Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4OCULDFA

@misc{pith2026250522733,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Co-Evolution of Stellar Wind-blown Bubbles and Photoionized Gas II: 3D RMHD Simulations and Tests of Semi-Analytic Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4OCULDFA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22733}
}
read the original abstract

In a companion paper (Paper I) we presented a Co-Evolution Model (CEM) in which to consider the evolution of feedback bubbles driven by massive stars through both stellar winds and ionizing radiation, outlining when either of these effects is dominant and providing a model for how they evolve together. Here we present results from three-dimensional radiation magneto-hydrodynamical (RMHD) simulations of this scenario for parameters typical of massive star-forming clouds in the Milky Way: precisely the regime where we expect both feedback mechanisms to matter. While we find that the CEM agrees with the simulations to within 25% for key parameters and modestly outperforms previous idealized models, disagreements remain. We show that these deviations originate mainly from the CEM's lack of (i) background inhomogeneity caused by turbulence and (ii) time-variable momentum enhancements in the wind-blown bubble (WBB). Additionally, we find that photoionized gas acts similarly to magnetic fields ([as in Lancaster et al. 2024a) by decreasing the WBB's surface area. This causes a decrease in the amount of cooling at the WBB's interface, resulting in an enhanced WBB dynamical impact.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22733 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Slices through the z = 0 plane of our high resolution simulations, with Lbox/∆x = 512, at the time when Rw ≈ Lbox/6 = 6.7 pc; this is approximately Req for αp = 3. The columns give snapshots from each of four simulations; from left to right these are: HW, MW, HWR, and MWR. The rows show slices of different physical quantities, from top to bottom these are: (i) total pressure, including thermal and magnetic terms as … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Radial momentum measured in each of our simulations compared to various analytic and semi-analytic predictions. Each panel shows the momentum for the classical energy-driven (Equation 2, black solid) and momentum-driven (Equation 4, with αp = 3, black dashed) along with the classical PIR (Equation 9, black dotted) evolution. Columns from left to right represent results from the HW, MW, HWR, and MWR simulations respe… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A comparison of the factors affecting the dynamical impact of WBBs (similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of the effective wind bubble radius, Rw, in time for the HWR simulations (left, red) and MWR simulations (right, orange). Both panels show comparisons to the CEM theory of Section 2.2 in light blue with αp = 3 and 8 in solid and dotted lines respectively as w…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A comparison of the average percent difference between dynamical quantities as measured in the simulations and those predicted by the CEM (light blue) and simplified, uncoupled models (black). Quantities shown are total momentum (pr, top panels) and wind radius (Rw, bo…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: we provide a comparison of where these simu￾lations lie in the parameter space of wind and photoion￾ization feedback described by Paper I. In particular we show the radius at which the momentum-driven WBB is in pressure equilibrium with the photoionized gas, Req, compa…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Evolution of the total radial momentum carried by the photoionized gas and shocked neutral gas (top) and its volume equivalent radius (bottom) for the HR (left) and MR (right) simulations at each resolution. For the momentum, we compare the evolution with the predicted…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A comparison of the evolution in time of the clumping factor in photoionized gas, Ci, across different simulations. Left panel: Comparison of HR and HWR simulations. Right panel: Comparison of MR and MWR simulations. The light green line in the right panel indicates t…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Estimates for the evolution of the thickness of the shell around the WBB, ∆R. Clockwise from the top-left panels indicate estimates for the HW, HWR, MWR, and MW simulations. Each panel uses different methods for calculating ∆R, as detailed in Section B.2, with two dif…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

126 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abel, T., & Wandelt, B. D. 2002, MNRAS, 330, L53, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05206.x

    arXiv 2002

  2. [2]

    Wiebe, D. S. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 630, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx797

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx797 2017

  3. [3]

    A., Bending, T

    Ali, A. A., Bending, T. J. R., & Dobbs, C. L. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 5592, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac025

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac025 2022

  4. [4]

    P., Mac Low, M.-M., Agertz, O., Renaud, F., & Li, H

    Andersson, E. P., Mac Low, M.-M., Agertz, O., Renaud, F., & Li, H. 2024, A&A, 681, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347792

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347792 2024

  5. [5]

    S., & Wenger, T

    Balser, D. S., & Wenger, T. V. 2024, ApJ, 964, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2458

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2458 2024

  6. [6]

    1989, ApJ, 346, 735, doi: 10.1086/168055

    Bertoldi, F. 1989, ApJ, 346, 735, doi: 10.1086/168055

    doi:10.1086/168055 1989

  7. [7]

    Bertoldi, F., & McKee, C. F. 1990, ApJ, 354, 529, doi: 10.1086/168713

    doi:10.1086/168713 1990

  8. [8]

    2022, ApJ, 935, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8052

    Bonne, L., Schneider, N., Garc ´ ıa, P., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8052

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8052 2022

Show all 126 references
  1. [9]

    S., Hummels, C

    Butsky, I. S., Hummels, C. B., Hopkins, P. F., Quinn, T. R., & Werk, J. K. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.03419. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.03419

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    G., Romano, D., & D’Ercole, A

    Calura, F., Few, C. G., Romano, D., & D’Ercole, A. 2015, ApJL, 814, L14, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/814/1/L14

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 5914, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2387

    Calura, F., Lupi, A., Rosdahl, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 5914, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2387

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.02502, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.02502

    Calura, F., Pascale, R., Agertz, O., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.02502, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.02502

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    I., Abbott, D

    Castor, J. I., Abbott, D. C., & Klein, R. I. 1975, ApJ, 195, 157, doi: 10.1086/153315

    1975 doi

  6. [14]

    R., McLeod, A

    Chevance, M., Krumholz, M. R., McLeod, A. F., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    2023

  7. [15]

    534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed

    Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 1, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09570

    doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    E., et al

    Cournoyer-Cloutier, C., Sills, A., Harris, W. E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 1338, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad568

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    McKee, C. F. 2011, ApJ, 740, 107, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/107

    2011 doi

  10. [18]

    Klein, R. I. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 771, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty154

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    E., Ngoumou, J., Ercolano, B., & Bonnell, I

    Dale, J. E., Ngoumou, J., Ercolano, B., & Bonnell, I. A. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 3430, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1822 —. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 694, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu816

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 478, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3202

    Deng, Y., Li, H., Kannan, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 478, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3202

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Draine, B. T. 1978, ApJS, 36, 595, doi: 10.1086/190513 —. 2011a, ApJ, 732, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/100 —. 2011b, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium

    1978 doi

  14. [22]

    A., Kreckel, K., et al

    Drory, N., Blanc, G. A., Kreckel, K., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 198, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad6de9 Co-Evolution of Winds and Photoionized Gas II 31

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    C., Chu, Y.-H., Chen, C

    Dunne, B. C., Chu, Y.-H., Chen, C. H. R., et al. 2003, ApJ, 590, 306, doi: 10.1086/375010

    2003 doi

  16. [24]

    Dwarkadas, V. V. 2022, Galaxies, 10, 37, doi: 10.3390/galaxies10010037

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    V., Kreckel, K., Sandstrom, K

    Egorov, O. V., Kreckel, K., Sandstrom, K. M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 944, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acac92 Ekstr¨ om, S., Georgy, C., Eggenberger, P., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, A146, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117751

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    Weisz, D. R. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 1961, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2773

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    M., Krumholz, M

    Fall, S. M., Krumholz, M. R., & Matzner, C. D. 2010, ApJL, 710, L142, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/710/2/L142

    2010 doi

  20. [28]

    1990, ApJ, 349, 126, doi: 10.1086/168300

    Franco, J., Tenorio-Tagle, G., & Bodenheimer, P. 1990, ApJ, 349, 126, doi: 10.1086/168300

    1990 doi

  21. [29]

    Freyer, T., Hensler, G., & Yorke, H. W. 2003, ApJ, 594, 888, doi: 10.1086/376937 —. 2006, ApJ, 638, 262, doi: 10.1086/498734

    2003 doi

  22. [30]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 3830, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2062

    Fukushima, H., Yajima, H., Sugimura, K., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 3830, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2062

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    1996, ApJ, 469, 171, doi: 10.1086/177769

    Garcia-Segura, G., & Franco, J. 1996, ApJ, 469, 171, doi: 10.1086/177769

    1996 doi

  24. [32]

    1995a, ApJ, 455, 145, doi: 10.1086/176563 —

    Garcia-Segura, G., & Mac Low, M.-M. 1995a, ApJ, 455, 145, doi: 10.1086/176563 —. 1995b, ApJ, 455, 160, doi: 10.1086/176564

    doi

  25. [33]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 1903, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3209

    Gatto, A., Walch, S., Naab, T., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 1903, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3209

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 1832, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2667

    Geen, S., Bieri, R., de Koter, A., Kimm, T., & Rosdahl, J. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 1832, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2667

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 1352, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3705

    Geen, S., Bieri, R., Rosdahl, J., & de Koter, A. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 1352, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3705

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    2022, MNRAS, 509, 4498, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3245

    Geen, S., & de Koter, A. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 4498, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3245

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 3129, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2235

    Geen, S., Hennebelle, P., Tremblin, P., & Rosdahl, J. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 3129, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2235

    2016 doi

  30. [38]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 915, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3491

    Geen, S., Pellegrini, E., Bieri, R., & Klessen, R. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 915, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3491

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 3248, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv251

    Geen, S., Rosdahl, J., Blaizot, J., Devriendt, J., & Slyz, A. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 3248, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv251

    2015 doi

  32. [40]

    D., & Hennebelle, P

    Geen, S., Soler, J. D., & Hennebelle, P. 2017, 471, 4844, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1765

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    Gnat, O., & Ferland, G. J. 2012, ApJS, 199, 20, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/199/1/20

    2012 doi

  34. [42]

    C., & Wolfire, M

    Gong, M., Ostriker, E. C., & Wolfire, M. G. 2017, ApJ, 843, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7561 Grudi´ c, M. Y., Guszejnov, D., Hopkins, P. F., Offner, S. S. R., & Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2199, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1347

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    Y., Offner, S

    Guszejnov, D., Grudi´ c, M. Y., Offner, S. S. R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 4929, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2060

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 4799, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1315

    Haid, S., Walch, S., Seifried, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 4799, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1315

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    2009, ApJ, 693, 1696, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1696

    Harper-Clark, E., & Murray, N. 2009, ApJ, 693, 1696, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1696

    2009 doi

  38. [46]

    R., Jarrod Millman, K., van der Walt, S

    Harris, C. R., Jarrod Millman, K., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2006.10256. https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.10256

    2020 arXiv

  39. [47]

    2011, ApJL, 743, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/743/2/L29

    Hennebelle, P., & Chabrier, G. 2011, ApJL, 743, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/743/2/L29

    2011 doi

  40. [48]

    S., & Draine, B

    Hensley, B. S., & Draine, B. T. 2023, ApJ, 948, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc4c2

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    2006, ApJ, 646, 240, doi: 10.1086/504789

    Hosokawa, T., & Inutsuka, S.-i. 2006, ApJ, 646, 240, doi: 10.1086/504789

    2006 doi

  42. [50]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  43. [51]

    2015, A&A, 576, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424556

    Iffrig, O., & Hennebelle, P. 2015, A&A, 576, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424556

    2015 doi

  44. [52]

    Jeffreson, S. M. R., Semenov, V. A., & Krumholz, M. R. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 7093, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3550

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

    Kim, C.-G., Kim, J.-G., Gong, M., & Ostriker, E. C. 2023a, ApJ, 946, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbd3a

    doi

  46. [54]

    Kim, C.-G., & Ostriker, E. C. 2015, ApJ, 802, 99, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/802/2/99 —. 2017, ApJ, 846, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8599

    2015 doi

  47. [55]

    C., & Raileanu, R

    Kim, C.-G., Ostriker, E. C., & Raileanu, R. 2017a, ApJ, 834, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/25

    doi

  48. [56]

    C., Kim, J.-G., et al

    Kim, C.-G., Ostriker, E. C., Kim, J.-G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad59ab

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    Kim, J.-G., Gong, M., Kim, C.-G., & Ostriker, E. C. 2023b, ApJS, 264, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9b1d

    doi

  50. [58]

    Kim, J.-G., Kim, W.-T., & Ostriker, E. C. 2016, ApJ, 819, 137, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/137 —. 2018, ApJ, 859, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabe27 —. 2019, ApJ, 883, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3d3d

    2016 doi

  51. [59]

    C., & Skinner, M

    Kim, J.-G., Kim, W.-T., Ostriker, E. C., & Skinner, M. A. 2017b, ApJ, 851, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9b80

    doi

  52. [60]

    C., & Filippova, N

    Kim, J.-G., Ostriker, E. C., & Filippova, N. 2021, ApJ, 911, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe934

    2021 doi

  53. [61]

    V., Egorova, E., et al

    Kreckel, K., Egorov, O. V., Egorova, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A352, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449943

    2024 doi

  54. [62]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    2001

  55. [63]

    Krumholz, M. R. 2014, PhR, 539, 49, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.02.001 32 Lancaster et al

    2014 doi

  56. [64]

    R., & Matzner, C

    Krumholz, M. R., & Matzner, C. D. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1352, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1352

    2009 doi

  57. [65]

    R., McKee, C

    Krumholz, M. R., McKee, C. F., & Bland -Hawthorn, J. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 227, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104430 Lah´ en, N., Naab, T., Kauffmann, G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 3092, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1147

    2019 doi

  58. [66]

    2025, ApJ, XXX, XXX

    Lancaster, L. 2025, ApJ, XXX, XXX

    2025

  59. [67]

    Bryan, G. L. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.02396, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.02396

    2024 doi arXiv

  60. [68]

    C., Kim, J.-G., & Kim, C.-G

    Lancaster, L., Ostriker, E. C., Kim, J.-G., & Kim, C.-G. 2021a, ApJ, 914, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf8ab —. 2021b, ApJ, 914, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf8ac —. 2021c, ApJL, 922, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3333

    doi

  61. [69]

    2014, ApJS, 212, 14, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/212/1/14

    Leitherer, C., Ekstr¨ om, S., Meynet, G., et al. 2014, ApJS, 212, 14, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/212/1/14

    2014 doi

  62. [70]

    D., et al

    Leitherer, C., Schaerer, D., Goldader, J. D., et al. 1999, ApJS, 123, 3, doi: 10.1086/313233

    1999 doi

  63. [71]

    C., McMillan, S

    Lewis, S. C., McMillan, S. L. W., Mac Low, M.-M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 211, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb0c5

    2023 doi

  64. [72]

    B., Kim, J.-G., Kim, C.-G., & Ostriker, E

    Linzer, N. B., Kim, J.-G., Kim, C.-G., & Ostriker, E. C. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.05958, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.05958

    2024 doi arXiv

  65. [73]

    2004, Journal of Computational Physics, 195, 17, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2003.09.016

    Londrillo, P., & Del Zanna, L. 2004, Journal of Computational Physics, 195, 17, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2003.09.016

    2004 doi

  66. [74]

    A., Krumholz, M

    Lopez, L. A., Krumholz, M. R., Bolatto, A. D., Prochaska, J. X., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2011, ApJ, 731, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/2/91

    2011 doi

  67. [75]

    A., Krumholz, M

    Lopez, L. A., Krumholz, M. R., Bolatto, A. D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/121 Mac Low, M.-M., & McCray, R. 1988, ApJ, 324, 776, doi: 10.1086/165936

    2014 doi

  68. [76]

    Matzner, C. D. 2002, ApJ, 566, 302, doi: 10.1086/338030

    2002 doi

  69. [77]

    D., & McKee, C

    Matzner, C. D., & McKee, C. F. 2000, ApJ, 545, 364, doi: 10.1086/317785

    2000 doi

  70. [78]

    F., & Ostriker, E

    McKee, C. F., & Ostriker, E. C. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 565, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110602 M´ endez-Delgado, J. E., Skillman, E. D., Aver, E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.17381, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.17381

    2007 arXiv

  71. [79]

    H., Federrath, C., & Krumholz, M

    Menon, S. H., Federrath, C., & Krumholz, M. R. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 1313, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2702

    2022 doi

  72. [80]

    2021, Journal of Computational Physics, 424, 109748, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2020.109748

    Mignone, A., & Del Zanna, L. 2021, Journal of Computational Physics, 424, 109748, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2020.109748

    2021

  73. [81]

    Murray, N., Quataert, E., & Thompson, T. A. 2010, ApJ, 709, 191, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/709/1/191

    2010 doi

  74. [82]

    Naab, T., & Ostriker, J. P. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 59, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040019

    2017 doi

  75. [83]

    2007, ApJ, 662, 395, doi: 10.1086/517515

    Nakamura, F., & Li, Z.-Y. 2007, ApJ, 662, 395, doi: 10.1086/517515

    2007 doi

  76. [84]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.19288, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.19288

    Nebrin, O., Smith, A., Lorinc, K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.19288, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.19288

    2024 doi arXiv

  77. [85]

    E., Sattler, N., et al

    Nemer, A., Mendez-Delgado, J. E., Sattler, N., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.20819, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.20819

    2024 doi arXiv

  78. [86]

    E., & Burkert, A

    Ngoumou, J., Hubber, D., Dale, J. E., & Burkert, A. 2015, ApJ, 798, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/32

    2015 doi

  79. [87]

    Offner, S. S. R., & Liu, Y. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 896, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0566-1

    2018 doi

  80. [88]

    2011, ApJ, 730, 40, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/40

    Padoan, P., & Nordlund, ˚A. 2011, ApJ, 730, 40, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/40

    2011 doi

  81. [89]

    W., Rahner, D., Reissl, S., et al

    Pellegrini, E. W., Rahner, D., Reissl, S., et al. 2020a, MNRAS, 496, 339, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1473

    doi

  82. [90]

    W., Reissl, S., Rahner, D., et al

    Pellegrini, E. W., Reissl, S., Rahner, D., et al. 2020b, MNRAS, 498, 3193, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2555

    doi

  83. [91]

    W., Baldwin, J

    Pellegrini, E. W., Baldwin, J. A., Brogan, C. L., et al. 2007, ApJ, 658, 1119, doi: 10.1086/511258

    2007 doi

  84. [92]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 3293, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3216

    Peters, T., Naab, T., Walch, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 3293, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3216

    2017 doi

  85. [93]

    M., Kupilas, M

    Pittard, J. M., Kupilas, M. M., & Wareing, C. J. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 2797, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3707

    2022 doi

  86. [94]

    M., Wareing, C

    Pittard, J. M., Wareing, C. J., & Kupilas, M. M. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 1768, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2712

    2021 doi

  87. [95]

    S., et al

    Polak, B., Mac Low, M.-M., Klessen, R. S., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348840

    2024 doi

  88. [96]

    C., Cant´ o, J., & Rodr ´ ıguez, L

    Raga, A. C., Cant´ o, J., & Rodr ´ ıguez, L. F. 2012, RMxAA, 48, 199

    2012

  89. [97]

    C., & Skinner, M

    Raskutti, S., Ostriker, E. C., & Skinner, M. A. 2016, ApJ, 829, 130, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/130 —. 2017, ApJ, 850, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa965e

    2016 doi

  90. [98]

    2021, MNRAS, 504, 1039, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab900

    Rathjen, T.-E., Naab, T., Girichidis, P., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 1039, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab900

    2021 doi

  91. [99]

    S., Goodman, A

    Rice, T. S., Goodman, A. A., Bergin, E. A., Beaumont, C., & Dame, T. M. 2016, ApJ, 822, 52, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/52

    2016 doi

  92. [100]

    Roe, P. L. 1981, Journal of Computational Physics, 43, 357, doi: 10.1016/0021-9991(81)90128-5

    1981 doi

  93. [101]

    Rogers, H., & Pittard, J. M. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 1337, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt255

    2013 doi

  94. [102]

    2014, MNRAS, 442, 2701, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1037

    Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 2701, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1037

    2014 doi

  95. [103]

    P., Robert, C., et al

    Rousseau-Nepton, L., Martin, R. P., Robert, C., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 5530, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2455 Co-Evolution of Winds and Photoionized Gas II 33

    2019 doi

  96. [104]

    2020, PASP, 132, 104301, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aba840

    Schneider, N., Simon, R., Guevara, C., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 104301, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aba840

    2020 doi

  97. [105]

    A., Kravtsov, A

    Semenov, V. A., Kravtsov, A. V., & Gnedin, N. Y. 2017, ApJ, 845, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8096

    2017 doi

  98. [106]

    A., & Ostriker, E

    Skinner, M. A., & Ostriker, E. C. 2015, ApJ, 809, 187, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/2/187

    2015 doi

  99. [107]

    C., Fielding, D

    Smith, M. C., Fielding, D. B., Bryan, G. L., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.15321, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.15321 —. 2024b, MNRAS, 527, 1216, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3168

    doi arXiv

  100. [108]

    2006, MNRAS, 367, 763, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10007.x

    Smith, N. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 763, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10007.x

    2006

  101. [109]

    S., & Dav´ e, R

    Somerville, R. S., & Dav´ e, R. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 51, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951

    2015 doi

  102. [110]

    1978, Physical processes in the interstellar medium, doi: 10.1002/9783527617722

    Spitzer, L. 1978, Physical processes in the interstellar medium, doi: 10.1002/9783527617722

    1978 doi

  103. [111]

    A., & Williams, R

    Steigman, G., Strittmatter, P. A., & Williams, R. E. 1975, ApJ, 198, 575, doi: 10.1086/153636

    1975 doi

  104. [112]

    M., & Gardiner, T

    Stone, J. M., & Gardiner, T. 2009, NewA, 14, 139, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2008.06.003

    2009 doi

  105. [113]

    Simon, J. B. 2008, ApJS, 178, 137, doi: 10.1086/588755

    2008 doi

  106. [114]

    1979, A&A, 71, 59 Toal´ a, J

    Tenorio-Tagle, G. 1979, A&A, 71, 59 Toal´ a, J. A., & Arthur, S. J. 2011, ApJ, 737, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/100

    1979 doi

  107. [115]

    2017, PASJ, 69, 18, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psw122

    Tosaki, T., Kohno, K., Harada, N., et al. 2017, PASJ, 69, 18, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psw122

    2017 doi

  108. [116]

    K., Broos, P

    Townsley, L. K., Broos, P. S., Chu, Y.-H., et al. 2011, ApJS, 194, 16, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/194/1/16

    2011 doi

  109. [117]

    K., Broos, P

    Townsley, L. K., Broos, P. S., Feigelson, E. D., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2140, doi: 10.1086/500532

    2006 doi

  110. [118]

    K., Feigelson, E

    Townsley, L. K., Feigelson, E. D., Montmerle, T., et al. 2003, ApJ, 593, 874, doi: 10.1086/376692 van Marle, A. J., Langer, N., & Garc ´ ıa-Segura, G. 2005, A&A, 444, 837, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053520

    2003 doi

  111. [119]

    2018, Astronomy and Computing, 23, 40, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2018.02.005

    Vandenbroucke, B., & Wood, K. 2018, Astronomy and Computing, 23, 40, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2018.02.005

    2018 doi

  112. [120]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  113. [121]

    Vishniac, E. T. 1983, ApJ, 274, 152, doi: 10.1086/161433

    1983 doi

  114. [122]

    1977, ApJ, 218, 377, doi: 10.1086/155692

    Weaver, R., McCray, R., Castor, J., Shapiro, P., & Moore, R. 1977, ApJ, 218, 377, doi: 10.1086/155692

    1977 doi

  115. [123]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 3011, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3708

    Weinberger, R., & Hernquist, L. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 3011, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3708

    2023 doi

  116. [124]

    C., & Draine, B

    Weingartner, J. C., & Draine, B. T. 2001, ApJ, 548, 296, doi: 10.1086/318651

    2001 doi

  117. [125]

    1979, MNRAS, 186, 59, doi: 10.1093/mnras/186.1.59

    Whitworth, A. 1979, MNRAS, 186, 59, doi: 10.1093/mnras/186.1.59

    1979 doi

  118. [126]

    P., & McKee, C

    Williams, J. P., & McKee, C. F. 1997, ApJ, 476, 166, doi: 10.1086/303588

    1997 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.