Swing amplification in star-gas disks

Abhishek Hegade K. R.; Chris Hamilton

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 29 references

Swing amplification in star-gas disks

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Swing amplification in star-gas disks is solved for the first time, showing transient 10–100× amplification in stable disks.

desk verdict A careful, complete derivation that fills a real gap in swing-amplification theory; the main claims hold up, with the standard gas-closure caveats clearly flagged. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19540 v1 pith:BV4KWIG5 submitted 2026-07-21 astro-ph.GA

Abhishek Hegade K. R. , Chris Hamilton This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GA

keywords swingamplificationshearingsheetstar-gasdiskscollisionlessstellardynamicsphasemixingToomreQaxisymmetricstabilityhigh-redshiftdiskgalaxies

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

The paper writes down and solves the linear equations for non-axisymmetric 'swinging' waves in a two-component galactic disk, with stars treated as a collisionless population and gas as a fluid. Its central finding is that such waves are transiently amplified by factors of ten to a hundred even in disks that are stable to axisymmetric collapse, and that the maximum amplification is set almost entirely by how close the disk sits to the axisymmetric stability boundary in the (1/Qs, 1/Qg) plane. It also finds that the standard two-fluid treatment, which models stars as a gas with an effective sound speed, is qualitatively wrong: collisionless phase mixing makes stars a permanent sink of wave energy, so there are no neutral non-axisymmetric modes. The result matters because high-redshift disks observed by JWST and ALMA are gas rich, and this is the first quantitative baseline for interpreting their spiral and bar features.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two coupled linear equations. Eq. (14) is a forced harmonic-oscillator equation for the gas potential, with a time-dependent spring constant S^2(t) that encodes rotation, epicyclic motion, gas pressure, and self-gravity. Eq. (15) is a Volterra integral equation for the stellar potential whose kernel is the collisionless stellar response ('JT kernel'): it sums the delayed gravitational influence of all past potential fluctuations on the stellar density. The pair is solved forward in time for impulsive sinusoidal perturbations, and the amplification factor is measured relative to a passive non-self-gravitating response. The same structure carries over to finite-thick

What would settle it

Run a local shearing-box simulation with collisionless stars and realistic (turbulent, magnetized, multiphase) gas in a disk that is axisymmetrically stable, with parameters near the stability boundary; if maximum non-axisymmetric amplification does not track the distance to that boundary, or if gas perturbations persist as neutral oscillations instead of decaying after the first amplification peak, the paper's central mechanism is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the coupled star-gas swing-amplification problem admits an explicit linear solution — a gas harmonic-oscillator equation with a time-dependent spring constant coupled through gravity to a stellar response described by the collisionless kernel — and that this solution changes the expected phenomenology. Waves amplify strongly only near the axisymmetric stability boundary; amplification factors can reach 10–100 or more. Finite-thickness disks behave qualitatively the same, with a shifted stability boundary and suppressed small-scale response. The qualitatively new feature with respect to earlier work is that the stellar phase-mixing sink damps th

Load-bearing premise

The gas is modeled as a single inviscid, isentropic fluid with a constant sound speed in a smooth, homogeneous shearing sheet, so if real turbulent magnetic multiphase gas does not obey that closure, the predicted 10–100× amplification and the permanent damping of gas waves need not transfer to real disks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The axisymmetric stability criterion doubles as a map of expected non-axisymmetric swing amplification: proximity to the boundary in the (1/Qs, 1/Qg) plane predicts where 10–100× amplification occurs.
Spiral and bar features generated by swing amplification in stable star-gas disks are inherently transient; after the first peak, stellar phase mixing damps both components, so persistent features require continuous driving.
Two-fluid idealizations of star-gas dynamics are energetically misleading: they permit neutral oscillations that the true collisionless-star system cannot support, so they should not be used for quantitative predictions.
Finite-thickness disks behave the same qualitatively, so the baseline extends to realistic disks provided the effective thickness parameters are known.
A public code now gives the maximum amplification factor and most-amplified wavelength for given disk parameters, giving observers a direct way to compare high-redshift spiral/bar detections with theory.

Reading between the lines

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

If the phase-mixing sink is the correct picture, swing amplification is a one-shot energy transfer: each episode heats the stellar distribution and therefore reduces the disk's own capacity for the next episode, which may help explain why isolated disk simulations produce repeated but episodic spiral activity.
Because the amplification contours are nearly parallel to the stability boundary, an effective single-Q parameter for two-component disks could be built by inverting the maximum-amplification map; this would extend the paper's two-component result to multi-component modeling without solving the full equations.
A testable extension is to run local shearing-box simulations with collisionless stars plus a multiphase/turbulent gas: if gas perturbations damp and amplification tracks distance to the axisymmetric boundary, the paper's baseline survives; if turbulence re-excites neutral modes, the sink picture needs modification.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague — this paper does what it says: it writes down the coupled linear swing-amplification equations for a collisionless stellar sheet and a gas sheet, solves them, and ships the code. That pairing has been missing since Julian & Toomre. The derivation in Appendix A is careful; the equations reduce to Goldreich–Lynden-Bell and Julian–Toomre in single-component limits, and the axisymmetric limit reproduces Rafikov and Kim–Ostriker. The validation against Binney’s cloud wake is the kind of check that earns trust.

The main physical claims are supported: amplification factors of 10–100 occur near the axisymmetric stability boundary, and the contours of maximum amplification track that boundary. The contrast with two-fluid models is the point worth thinking about: the stars phase-mix, so the coupled system does not oscillate forever. That is a real qualitative difference, and a fair warning against treating stars as a fluid.

Soft spots, in proportion. The gas closure is the standard one — constant sound speed, no turbulence, no magnetic fields — and the authors are explicit that real z~4 disks are messier. That is an idealization, not a flaw. The separate maximization over t_i in Eq. (25) technically upper-bounds the matched-t_i amplification factor, so the absolute numbers in Figs. 4–5 should be read as optimistic, but the qualitative pattern and the 10–100 range are already visible in Fig. 3. The footnote on the Goldreich–Tremaine erratum is stated without derivation; I would ask the authors to show the correction. And there is no convergence documentation for the numerical scheme — minor, but easy to add.

Overall, this is a solid, useful paper. It deserves a serious referee. It will be cited as the reference for star-gas swing amplification, and the code will get used. Anyone working on disk instabilities or interpreting high-redshift bars and spirals will want it. I would take it with the gas-closure caveat in mind, but not with suspicion.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper develops the linear theory of swing amplification (SA) in a two-component shearing sheet consisting of a collisionless stellar component and a gaseous fluid. The authors derive coupled master equations for the gas potential (Eq. 14) and the stellar potential through a Volterra kernel (Eq. 15), provide a finite-thickness extension in §2.2 and Appendix A.3, and solve these equations numerically for impulsively excited swinging waves. Their main claims are: (i) transient non-axisymmetric amplification factors of 10–100+ occur in disks that are stable to axisymmetric perturbations, with the maximum amplification set primarily by the distance to the axisymmetric stability boundary in the (1/Q_s, 1/Q_g) plane (Fig. 5); and (ii) the commonly used 'two-fluid' treatment of stars (Jog 1992) is qualitatively incorrect because stellar phase mixing acts as a sink of perturbation energy, so no neutral non-axisymmetric modes exist in the true collisionless star-gas system. The paper also provides a public Python code for computing SA factors and maximally amplified wavelengths.

Significance. If correct, this paper fills a long-standing gap in the local linear theory of disk instabilities. Previous analytic treatments either considered a single component (Goldreich & Lynden-Bell 1965; Julian & Toomre 1966) or approximated the stars as a fluid (Jog 1992), and the coupled collisionless star-gas equations have not been solved explicitly before. The appendices present a careful derivation of the gas oscillator and the Julian-Toomre-style kernel, and the authors demonstrate recovery of the known single-component limits. The public code and the explicit discussion of caveats (gas closure, no turbulence, no magnetic fields, local approximation) are strengths. The paper also provides a practical result: the axisymmetric criterion (22) is a useful guide for when strong non-axisymmetric structure should appear in high-redshift, gas-rich disks. The main concern is the definition of the 'maximum amplification factor' in Eq. (25), which is used to produce the quantitative headline numbers in the abstract and Fig. 5.

major comments (2)

[§3.2, Eq. (25)] The maximum amplification factor is defined as the ratio of two maxima taken separately over the initial time t_i: [max_{t_i} max_{t>t_i} |δΣ_s(t;t_i)|] / [max_{t_i} max_{t>t_i} |δΣ_s^0(t;t_i)|]. This does not correspond to the amplification factor of any single impulsively excited wave, because the two maxima can occur at different values of t_i. The resulting number is not necessarily an upper or lower bound on the natural matched definition max_{t_i} [max_{t>t_i} |δΣ_s| / max_{t>t_i} |δΣ_s^0|]. Since Fig. 5 and the abstract's 'factors of 10–100+' are based on this metric, the authors should either adopt a matched-t_i definition or demonstrate numerically (e.g., by reporting the argmax t_i for both numerator and denominator) that the separate maximization does not bias the contours or the quoted factors. This is a load-bearing point for the paper's central quantitative claim.
[§3.1, Fig. 3] The comparison between the true star-gas calculation and the 'two-fluid' calculation (dashed lines) is used to support the claim that two-fluid prescriptions are qualitatively wrong. However, the two-fluid run treats the stellar component as a fluid with sound speed σ while assigning it the same Q_s defined in Eq. (18). A fluid with sound speed σ has Toomre parameter Q_fluid = κσ/(πGΣ_s0), which is (3.36/π)Q_s ≈ 1.07Q_s. Thus the two fluid disks are not matched to the collisionless disks in their distance from the relevant stability boundary. The authors should either run a controlled two-fluid comparison (e.g., adjusting the stellar sound speed or surface density to match Q_fluid to the collisionless Q_s) or explicitly state that the figure is illustrative rather than a quantitative controlled experiment. Without this, the strength of the 'two-fluid is qualitatively wrong' conclusion is

minor comments (3)

[§3.1, Fig. 3] The text states that in the first row 'the maximum amplification factor in the stars is ~50 in all three panels' and in the second row the gas is amplified 'by up to a factor ~100'. However, panels (c) and (f) have much smaller y-axis ranges (±25 and ±10, respectively). Please qualify these statements or correct them if the quoted values apply only to the leftmost columns.
[Eq. (25)] The maximum amplification metric (25) uses the stellar surface density response only, while the abstract summarizes the result as 'waves are amplified'. Since gas and star amplification factors can differ by factors of a few (Fig. 3), please specify in the text and abstract that the quoted maximum factors refer to the stellar component, and clarify how the gas response is quantified.
[§2.2 / Appendix A.3] The effective thick-disk master equations (A42)–(A46) are stated without derivation. The presence of the first-derivative term S1(t) in Eq. (A42) is nontrivial. Since finite-thickness behavior is advertised in the abstract, a fuller derivation or at least a more explicit explanation of the approximations entering Eqs. (A42)–(A46) would improve the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central derivation is self-contained, no fitted parameters are relabeled as predictions, and the code is anchored to external benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing content is the explicit solution of the coupled linearized gas-fluid equations (Eqs. 14–15) with a collisionless stellar component, derived from the stated fluid equations and collisionless Boltzmann equation in Appendix A. No parameter is fitted to the output: the gas closure δP_g = c^2 δΣ_g (Eq. 8) and the Gaussian stellar background (Eq. 7) are modeling assumptions, not data constraints. The axisymmetric stability criterion (Eq. 22) is imported as an external standard from Rafikov (2001) and Kim & Ostriker (2007), and the paper does not adjust it to match its own non-axisymmetric results. The amplification measure (Eq. 25) is normalized by a passive, non-self-gravitating response, so the large factors in Figs. 3–5 are not manufactured by construction. Code tests against the known Julian & Toomre cloud response and single-component limits provide external checks. Self-citations (to the public code and to Chiba et al. 2025 for phase-mixing reversibility) are not load-bearing: the phase-mixing damping is directly visible in the numerical solutions, and the code citation is for reproducibility. The finite-thickness prescription and the neglect of turbulence/magnetic fields are clearly flagged approximations, not circular inputs. Overall, the qualitative conclusions—transient amplification near the axisymmetric stability boundary and the absence of neutral two-fluid-like modes—are genuine numerical findings from independent master equations.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's contribution is a derivation on standard kinetic disk-theory foundations: no parameters are fitted to data (Qs, Qg are the surveyed plane axes; r, hs, hg are hand-chosen inputs; the excitation geometry is a representative choice over which headline results are then maximized), and no new physical entities are introduced. The two nonstandard ingredients are the imported KO07 finite-thickness reduction (Eq. 17) and the coarse-grained irreversibility interpretation of phase mixing (footnote 7); both are explicitly disclosed. The main unstated background is the Rafikov (2001)/KO07 axisymmetric criterion (Eq. 22), quoted without rederivation.

free parameters (3)

r = c/σ (gas sound speed / stellar radial velocity dispersion) = 0.4, 0.7, 1.0 (hand-chosen survey values)
Chosen by hand to map the stability plane (Fig. 1) and the amplification curves (Fig. 4); it moves the stability boundary and the gas/stellar mass balance. Not fitted to data.
Dimensionless thicknesses (hs, hg) = (κHs/σ, κHg/c) = (0.4, 0.87) for the thick-disk run
Adopted for the finite-thickness demonstration following the KO07 effective prescription; representative values, not fitted.
Excitation geometry (ky/kσ and impulse time κti/π) = 0.5 and -1.5 for Fig. 3
Representative single-mode impulsive excitation. The headline (Fig. 5) results are maximized over ky (λ) and ti, so these values shape the illustration rather than the peak claims.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Gas is a single isentropic fluid: δPg = c^2 δΣg, no viscosity, turbulence, or magnetic fields (Eq. 8; §1 caveats)
Load-bearing for the gas oscillator equation (14) and for the two-fluid comparison; the motivating z~4 ISM is turbulent and multiphase, which the authors acknowledge.
domain assumption Stellar DF is a single Gaussian with σy = σκ/(2Ω); stars obey the collisionless Boltzmann equation (Eq. 7)
Needed to derive the JT kernel (A36-A41) via epicyclic characteristics; standard but restrictive (no asymmetric drift, no multiple populations).
domain assumption Local shearing-sheet approximation with a smooth axisymmetric background (Eq. 3, §2.1)
Excludes global effects (resonances, bar formation, mode reflection); the authors acknowledge in §4 that this limits astrophysical application.
domain assumption Stellar phase-mixing damping is effectively irreversible (coarse-graining / tiny dissipation at small phase-space scales; footnote 7)
Supports the 'stars are an energy sink' claim and the contrast with neutral two-fluid oscillations; strictly, collisionless phase mixing is reversible (Chiba et al. 2025), so the sink interpretation adds an implicit coarse-graining.
standard math Axisymmetric stability boundary is the standard Rafikov (2001)/KO07 criterion (Eq. 22)
Imported as the benchmark for 'stable disks' and the Fig. 5 comparison; the paper states it recovers this criterion in the axisymmetric limit (§2.3) but does not rederive it.
domain assumption Finite-thickness generalization via the midplane reduction factor (1+Hi k)^-1, with perturbations retaining the background vertical shape (Eqs. 16-17)
KO07 effective prescription, not a self-consistent 3D solution; governs all thick-disk claims (§2.2, bottom rows of Figs. 3-5).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Swing amplification in star-gas disks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BV4KWIG5

@misc{pith2026260719540,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Swing amplification in star-gas disks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BV4KWIG5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19540}
}

abstract

Recent JWST and ALMA observations have revealed stellar bars and spirals in gas-rich galactic disks at redshifts as high as $z \simeq 4$. The simplest theoretical paradigm we have for understanding such non-axisymmetric features is the linear theory of swing amplification (SA) in the 2D shearing sheet. However, while the SA mechanism in a gaseous shearing sheet was first studied in 1965, and that in a collisionless stellar sheet in 1966, the coupled star-gas linear SA equations have never been solved explicitly. Here we write down these equations and use them to study the evolution of non-axisymmetric swinging waves in stable disks. We find that waves are often amplified temporarily by factors of $10-100$ or more, and that the maximum \textit{non-axisymmetric} amplification factor is tightly correlated with the system's distance from the \textit{axisymmetric} stability boundary in the $(1/Q_\mathrm{s}, 1/Q_\mathrm{g})$ plane. The true star-gas behavior differs significantly from the `two-fluid' idealizations used in the past, because phase mixing of the collisionless stellar component acts as a sink of perturbation energy. Closely analogous results hold for finite-thickness disks except for the shifting of the stability boundary. We provide a \texttt{python} code that calculates the SA factors and maximally-amplified wavelength given the background disk parameters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19540 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Stability of star-gas disks to local axisymmetric perturbations. Given a value of r = c/σ (denoted by colors), regions below the curves are stable and those above are unstable according to the criterion (22). Solid lines are for razor-thin disks and dashed lines are for thicker disks with hs = 0.4 and hg = 0.87. The various red and blue symbols denote specific locations in the (1/Qs, 1/Qg) plane that we will study … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Amplification of swinging waves induced by an impulsive surface density perturbation δΣˆimp with kyc /kσ = 0.5 at κti/π = −1.5. Stellar (gaseous) responses are shown with solid red (blue) lines. Each row is for a fixed pair of Qs, Qg values (corresponding to the symbols in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Maximum amplification factor (defined in Eq. (25)) of the stellar surface density as a function of dimensionless wavelength λ/λσ, for the same values of Qs, Qg, r, hs, hg used in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Maximum amplification achievable in the stable regions of the (1/Qs, 1/Qg) plane for fixed values of r, hs, hg, calculated by maximizing the ratio (25) over λ/λσ, or equivalently extracting the peak value from curves like those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p00…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

[1]

, keywords =

Convective Instability in Differentially Rotating Disks. , keywords =
[2]

The shearing sheet and swing amplification revisited , volume=

Binney, James , year=. The shearing sheet and swing amplification revisited , volume=. MNRAS , publisher=
[3]

Structure and evolution of normal Galaxies , pages=

What amplifies the spirals , author=. Structure and evolution of normal Galaxies , pages=
[4]

arXiv e-prints , keywords =

Galactokinetics II: Spiral structure. arXiv e-prints , keywords =
[5]

2026 , howpublished =

Hegade, Abhishek and Hamilton, Chris , title =. 2026 , howpublished =

2026
[6]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.25848 , year=

Spiral Structure Diversity in Milky Way Analogs from TNG50: The Role of Gas and Disk Dynamics , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.25848 , year=

arXiv
[7]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05304 , year=

Redefining Q for multi-component discs of stars and gas , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05304 , year=

arXiv
[8]

MNRAS , volume=

H-functions and mixing in violent relaxation , author=. MNRAS , volume=

Show all 29 references

[9]

MNRAS , volume=

Phase-space mixing and the merging of cusps , author=. MNRAS , volume=. 2005 , publisher=

2005
[10]

ApJ , volume=

The rapid onset of stellar bars in the baryon-dominated centers of disk galaxies , author=. ApJ , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

2023
[11]

MNRAS , volume=

Galactic echoes , author=. MNRAS , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

2025
[12]

Introducing TIGRESS-NCR. I. Coregulation of the Multiphase Interstellar Medium and Star Formation Rates , author=. ApJ , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

2023
[13]

ApJ , volume=

Molecular clouds as gravitational instabilities in rotating disks: a modified stability criterion , author=. ApJ , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

2022
[14]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.15273 , year=

A stellar bar hidden in an extreme gas-rich disk galaxy at z= 4.055 , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.15273 , year=

arXiv
[15]

ApJ , volume=

Characterizing Density and Gravitational Potential Fluctuations of the Interstellar Medium , author=. ApJ , volume=. 2026 , publisher=

2026
[16]

, keywords =

Gravitational Runaway and Turbulence Driving in Star-Gas Galactic Disks. , keywords =
[17]

ApJ, 390, 2, p

Swing amplification of nonaxisymmetric perturbations in stars and gas in a sheared galactic disk , author=. ApJ, 390, 2, p. 378-386. , volume=
[18]

Kim, Woong‐Tae and Ostriker, Eve C. , year=. Formation of Spiral‐Arm Spurs and Bound Clouds in Vertically Stratified Galactic Gas Disks , volume=. ApJ , publisher=
[19]

MNRAS , volume=

Galaxy Zoo JWST: up to 75 per cent of discs are featureless at 3< z< 7 , author=. MNRAS , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

2025
[20]

, keywords =

The Evolution of the Star-Forming Interstellar Medium Across Cosmic Time. , keywords =
[21]

A&A , volume=

Effect of finite disk-thickness on swing amplification of non-axisymmetric perturbations in a sheared galactic disk , author=. A&A , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

2018
[22]

ApJL , volume=

First Look at z> 1 Bars in the Rest-frame Near-infrared with JWST Early CEERS Imaging , author=. ApJL , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

2023
[23]

ApJL , volume=

JWST reveals a surprisingly high fraction of galaxies being spiral-like at 0.5≤ z≤ 4 , author=. ApJL , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

2024
[24]

, keywords =

Turbulent Gas-rich Disks at High Redshift: Bars and Bulges in a Radial Shear Flow. , keywords =
[25]

Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition
[26]

MNRAS , volume=

The local axisymmetric instability criterion in a thin, rotating, multicomponent disc , author=. MNRAS , volume=. 2001 , publisher=

2001
[27]

, keywords =

The excitation and evolution of density waves. , keywords =
[28]

, year = 1966, month = dec, volume =

Non-Axisymmetric Responses of Differentially Rotating Disks of Stars. , year = 1966, month = dec, volume =

1966
[29]

Spiral arms as sheared gravitational instabilities

II. Spiral arms as sheared gravitational instabilities. , year = 1965, month = jan, volume =

1965

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

, keywords =

Convective Instability in Differentially Rotating Disks. , keywords =

[2] [2]

The shearing sheet and swing amplification revisited , volume=

Binney, James , year=. The shearing sheet and swing amplification revisited , volume=. MNRAS , publisher=

[3] [3]

Structure and evolution of normal Galaxies , pages=

What amplifies the spirals , author=. Structure and evolution of normal Galaxies , pages=

[4] [4]

arXiv e-prints , keywords =

Galactokinetics II: Spiral structure. arXiv e-prints , keywords =

[5] [5]

2026 , howpublished =

Hegade, Abhishek and Hamilton, Chris , title =. 2026 , howpublished =

2026

[6] [6]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.25848 , year=

Spiral Structure Diversity in Milky Way Analogs from TNG50: The Role of Gas and Disk Dynamics , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.25848 , year=

arXiv

[7] [7]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05304 , year=

Redefining Q for multi-component discs of stars and gas , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05304 , year=

arXiv

[8] [8]

MNRAS , volume=

H-functions and mixing in violent relaxation , author=. MNRAS , volume=