Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 76 references

Dynamically Controlled Transport of GeV Cosmic Rays in Diverse Galactic Environments

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that GeV cosmic-ray transport out of galactic disks is controlled by gas advection and Alfvén-wave streaming rather than diffusion, and that the resulting pressure profiles obey simple formulas.

desk verdict Solid, honest paper with a useful phenomenological model, but the central dynamical-transport claim rests on a damping model that could be incomplete; deserves peer review with scrutiny on that assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03519 v1 pith:D6QSQ3H7 submitted 2025-09-03 astro-ph.GA

Ronan Hix , Lucia Armillotta , Eve Ostriker , Chang-Goo Kim This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords cosmic-raytransportGeVcosmicraysinterstellarmediumAlfvénwavescatteringgalacticwindsfeedbackspiralarmsmagnetohydrodynamics
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 asks what actually moves ~1 GeV cosmic rays out of star-forming galactic disks and into the halo. Using magnetohydrodynamic simulations of galactic disk patches that span two orders of magnitude in gas surface density and nearly three in star-formation rate, the authors compute cosmic-ray transport with a scattering rate set locally by the balance between streaming-driven Alfvén wave excitation and gas damping. They find that inside the cool, mostly neutral disk, field-aligned diffusion makes cosmic-ray pressure almost uniform, while above the disk, dynamical transport — gas advection plus cosmic-ray streaming at the ion Alfvén speed — sets the vertical pressure profile. They compress this into a one-dimensional predictive model: the extraplanar pressure follows Pc/P0 = (vtot/v0)^(-4/3), and the midplane pressure is Pc ≈ Fin / (4 vtot,WIM + (3/2) N Λcoll). If right, cosmic-ray pressure in disks can be predicted from star-formation rate and basic gas properties, with direct consequences for how much cosmic-ray pressure supports galactic disks and drives winds.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the self-confinement scattering prescription: the parallel scattering coefficient σ∥ is set by equating gyroresonant Alfvén-wave growth from streaming cosmic rays to local damping, with nonlinear Landau damping dominant in ionized gas and ion-neutral friction dominant in neutral gas. This prescription enters a two-moment cosmic-ray transport scheme that evolves the cosmic-ray energy density and flux. The analytic 1D model reduces the steady-state equations in the source-free, high-scattering extraplanar regime to Pc/P0 = (vtot/v0)^(-4/3), where vtot is the sum of vertical gas advection speed and cosmic-ray streaming speed. A second identity closes the model by join

What would settle it

Take one simulated galactic disk environment, add an extra Alfvén-wave damping process in the extraplanar gas with an observationally motivated amplitude, and recompute the GeV cosmic-ray pressure profile; if the extraplanar scale height rises well above the 0.5–1 kpc range, or if the Pc/P0 = (vtot/v0)^(-4/3) relation no longer tracks the simulation, the central claim fails. Observationally, a gamma-ray-derived cosmic-ray pressure gradient in a star-forming galaxy halo that implies a diffusion coefficient orders of magnitude larger than the wave-balance value would likewise falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that GeV cosmic-ray transport in galactic environments has two sharply separated regimes, with a boundary at the ~10^4 K transition between neutral and ionized gas. In the cool/neutral gas, where ion-neutral friction damps Alfvén waves, the scattering rate is very low; cosmic rays diffuse rapidly along field lines and are nearly uniform. In the hot, low-density extraplanar gas, nonlinear Landau damping leaves a much higher scattering rate, so field-aligned diffusion is slow; the escaping cosmic-ray flux is carried by gas advection and by streaming down the cosmic-ray pressure gradient at the ion Alfvén speed. The vertical profile Pc/P0 = (vt

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the local scattering rate being set by a balance between streaming-driven Alfvén wave excitation and only two damping processes, nonlinear Landau damping and ion-neutral friction — if hot extraplanar gas has an additional strong damping channel that lowers scattering, diffusion would retake control of GeV cosmic-ray escape.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Cosmic-ray scale heights are set by the dynamical flow and are nearly constant, 0.5–1 kpc, across environments spanning orders of magnitude in star-formation rate; cosmic-ray pressure therefore does not strongly support galactic disks vertically.
  • Midplane cosmic-ray pressure can be computed from the injected supernova flux, gas column density, and warm-ionized-medium dynamical velocity alone, giving a predictive relation for galaxy-scale models.
  • The cosmic-ray feedback yield decreases with star-formation rate as Υc ∝ Σ_SFR^(-0.23), matching the expectation that faster dynamical escape in higher-SFR environments lowers the pressure built up for a given injection rate.
  • In the spiral-arm simulation, advection carries cosmic rays out of supernova injection regions and field-aligned transport equalizes pressure across arm and interarm regions, with perpendicular diffusion negligible.
  • The subgrid scattering formulas provide a practical way for lower-resolution simulations to reproduce the multiphase cosmic-ray transport effects using only local MHD quantities and the local cosmic-ray pressure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If dynamical transport also dominates in real galaxies, then cosmic-ray pressure gradients in the halo, and hence cosmic-ray-driven wind acceleration, are controlled by outflow and Alfvén speeds at the disk–halo interface; galaxy models that treat halo cosmic-ray transport as purely diffusive may place the cosmic-ray pressure support in the wrong location.
  • A testable extension is to compare the predicted halo gamma-ray or synchrotron profiles from the Pc ∝ vtot^(-4/3) relation with edge-on galaxy observations, which would constrain whether the extraplanar cosmic-ray pressure gradient follows the dynamical speed structure.
  • Because the damping balance includes only two mechanisms, applying the subgrid scattering formulas to low-metallicity galaxies or to environments with strong turbulence is an extrapolation; the strongest test would be to rerun the wave balance with an additional damping term and see whether the dynamical-transport conclusion survives.
  • The paper's energy-dependent correction factor implies that at higher CR energies diffusion begins to matter; extending the same machinery to a full spectrum of proton and electron energies would allow direct comparison with multi-GeV gamma-ray and synchrotron observations.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper uses the TIGRESS MHD simulation suite (R2, R4, R8, and R8 Arm) with a two-moment CR transport scheme in which the parallel scattering coefficient is set by balancing streaming-driven Alfvén-wave excitation against nonlinear Landau damping and ion-neutral friction. The authors find that GeV CR pressure is nearly uniform in the neutral disk and decays exponentially in the extraplanar region, with a scale height of ~0.5–1 kpc that is nearly independent of environment. They argue that pure diffusion cannot explain these profiles and derive a parameter-free scaling, Eq. (26): Pc/P0 = (vtot/v0)^(-4/3), where vtot is the sum of gas advection and ion Alfvén streaming. The scaling is compared to simulation profiles in Figure 7 and reported as good agreement. They further derive a 1D model for the midplane CR pressure, Eq. (30), Pdisk = Fin / (4 vtot,WIM + (3/2) N Λcoll), calibrate effective velocities, provide empirical fits for the CR feedback yield (Eqs. 31–32), and present a subgrid scattering prescription (Eqs. 39–40).

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a valuable and physically motivated replacement for constant-diffusion treatments of GeV CR transport in galaxy simulations, with analytic predictions that can be tested observationally and incorporated into subgrid models. The derivation of Eq. (26) is clean under the stated approximations, and the comparison across environments spanning orders of magnitude in SFR and pressure is a strength. The paper also ships falsifiable predictions (Eqs. 30, 33–34) and a practical subgrid model, which are useful to the community. However, the central dynamical-transport conclusion rests on the assumption that only nonlinear Landau and ion-neutral damping set the scattering rate; the authors themselves acknowledge that additional damping processes could be important. This is a load-bearing uncertainty that needs to be addressed before the main claim can be considered robust.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2, Eqs. (12)–(13); §3.3, Eq. (20)] The scattering coefficient σ∥ is derived from a wave-energy balance that includes only nonlinear Landau damping and ion-neutral friction. The authors note in §2.2 that other damping mechanisms (e.g., turbulent damping, as in Hopkins et al. 2021, 2022) could meaningfully contribute. This is not a peripheral detail: the 'diffusion fails' argument in §3.3 uses Eq. (20) to estimate H_diff ≈ 40–80 pc for R8, which is an order of magnitude smaller than the measured Hc ≈ 500 pc. That contrast is the motivation for preferring dynamical transport. If an additional damping process reduces σ∥ by a factor of ~10 in the low-density extraplanar gas, H_diff becomes comparable to Hc, and the agreement of Pc(z) with Eq. (26) would no longer be decisive. I request a sensitivity test (e.g., artificially reducing σ∥ by factors of 3–10 and recomputing H_diff and the Eq. (26) comparison) or a quantitative arg
  2. [§4.2, Eqs. (28)–(30)] The paper describes Eq. (30) as a 'predictive model' for the midplane CR pressure, but the closure is not independent of the simulations used to test it. The effective velocity veff is inferred from the same simulations via Eq. (29), and then identified with vtot,WIM, the measured dynamical velocity in the warm ionized medium. While Figure 8 shows that veff tracks vtot in the WIM, this is a post-hoc calibration, not a parameter-free prediction. To support the 'predictive' claim, the authors should either (a) validate Eq. (30) against a simulation or observational dataset not used in the calibration, or (b) demonstrate that vtot,WIM can be predicted from basic galaxy parameters (e.g., SFR surface density, gas surface density) without recourse to the CR simulations. The current presentation overstates the extent to which Eq. (30) is a closed analytic model.
  3. [§4.1, Figure 7] The central evidence for Eq. (26) is visual agreement in Figure 7, with profiles normalized at arbitrary altitudes. The paper does not provide a quantitative goodness-of-fit metric (e.g., reduced chi-square, RMS scatter in log Pc, or a slope comparison) for the relation Pc ∝ vtot^{-4/3} across the four environments. Given that the claim is that this scaling holds 'for all models' and is the basis for the dynamical-transport conclusion, I ask for a quantitative measure of agreement and, ideally, a direct comparison of the dynamical model against the pure-diffusion model (Eq. 19–20) using the same data. This would make the case much more compelling and would also clarify how much weight to place on the restricted-damping assumption.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] Typographical errors: 'T able 1' in the table caption and 'surface densirt' in the column description. Please correct.
  2. [§2.3.1] The text says 'Utilizing the CR transport algorithms discussed in §2.3'; the CR transport implementation is in §2.2, while §2.3 describes the application to TIGRESS. Please fix the cross-reference.
  3. [§2.3.2] Typo: 'controlling the the detailed structure' should be 'controlling the detailed structure'.
  4. [Abstract and §1] The phrase 'almost solely responsible' in the abstract is stronger than the conclusions in the text, which allow for diffusion in the midplane and at higher energies. Consider softening to 'primarily responsible' to avoid overclaiming.
  5. [§4.1, Eq. (26)] The derivation of Eq. (26) omits the collisional loss term in Eq. (21) and the source term, which is reasonable for the extraplanar region, but this should be stated more explicitly in the text near Eq. (24) to avoid the impression that the simplification is universally valid.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; central dynamical-transport claim is tested with a parameter-free scaling relation, with only a minor in-prep self-citation noted.

full rationale

The paper's central claim that dynamical transport dominates extraplanar GeV CR transport is tested via Eq. 26, a derived scaling relation Pc/P0 = (vtot/v0)^{-4/3} obtained from the two-moment equations in the limit of high scattering and no sources/losses. This relation is compared to the simulations in Figure 7 with only an amplitude normalization at an arbitrary altitude; the power-law shape and the Hc=(4/3)Ha consequence are not fitted parameters, so the test is self-contained and not reduced to the model's inputs. The midplane pressure model (Eq. 30) is built from Eq. 29, where veff is explicitly calibrated from the same simulations ('allowing a determination of veff for calibration purposes'), and veff is then identified with the independently measured vtot,WIM. This is an empirical correlation and, although the word 'prediction' is somewhat overstated because the validation is in-sample, the paper transparently acknowledges the calibration and the need for future validation ('The accuracy of our predictions can be validated by future multi-environment multi-energy simulation'). The restricted wave-damping set (NLL and IN only) is explicitly flagged as a limitation with citations to Hopkins et al. (2021, 2022), so it is a robustness concern, not a circularity. The subgrid model in §6 is explicitly an empirical fit. The only mild issue is a self-citation to 'M. Winter et al, in prep' to justify that magnetic field lines oscillate vertically enough for CRs to escape the disk; this is not load-bearing for the central transport finding, which rests on direct measurements of the uniform midplane CR pressure. Overall, no load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The predictive formulas (Eqs 30, 39-40) are calibrated against the same simulations used to test them; the feedback yield and velocity fits introduce fitted exponents and normalizations. The spectral conversion adopts a hand-chosen delta. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • Feedback yield normalization (Eq 31) = 284 ± 33 km/s
    Fitted to the four TIGRESS environments to relate Upsilon_c = P_c/SigmaSFR to SigmaSFR.
  • Feedback yield slope (Eq 31) = -0.23 ± 0.05
    Power-law index fitted to the four simulated environments.
  • Feedback yield normalization (Eq 32) = 426 ± 42 km/s
    Fitted to relate Upsilon_c to the ISM weight estimator PDE.
  • Feedback yield slope (Eq 32) = -0.29 ± 0.04
    Power-law index fitted to the four simulated environments.
  • Effective velocity normalization (Eq 33) = 21 ± 3 km/s
    Fitted for veff as a function of SigmaSFR.
  • Effective velocity slope (Eq 33) = 0.20 ± 0.05
    Fitted power-law index.
  • Effective velocity normalization (Eq 34) = 15 ± 2 km/s
    Fitted for veff as a function of PDE.
  • Effective velocity slope (Eq 34) = 0.26 ± 0.05
    Fitted power-law index.
  • Spectral index delta (Eq 16) = -0.35
    Adopted by hand between the two values considered in Padovani et al. 2018 for converting simulated CR pressure to a spectral flux; not central to the transport results.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Two-moment fluid treatment of CRs with isotropic pressure (P_c = e_c/3) and reduced speed of light v_m = 10^4 km/s adequately represents GeV CR transport in the ISM.
    Adopted from Jiang & Oh 2018 and prior Armillotta papers; the reduced speed of light is justified by insensitivity tests, but the closure is an approximation.
  • domain assumption GeV CRs are self-confined: they excite Alfvén waves that scatter them, limiting bulk streaming to the ion Alfvén speed.
    Standard paradigm for sub-to-few GeV CRs, supported by MHD-PIC simulations; but it is a physical assumption.
  • domain assumption The local scattering rate is set by balance between wave excitation and damping, with only nonlinear Landau and ion-neutral damping included.
    Explicit in Section 2.2; other damping mechanisms are acknowledged but omitted.
  • domain assumption Post-processing with frozen MHD fields followed by a brief MHD relaxation (0.5-2 Myr) without new SN feedback yields a CR distribution representative of the coupled system.
    Stated in Section 2.3; validated by comparing pre/post relaxation R8 profiles, but the relaxation is short and omits feedback.
  • domain assumption Steady-state, source-free, loss-free, high-scattering assumptions in the extraplanar region justify the derivation of Eq 26.
    Used in Section 4.1; the paper argues these are valid in the low-density extraplanar region.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamically Controlled Transport of GeV Cosmic Rays in Diverse Galactic Environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D6QSQ3H7

@misc{pith2026250903519,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamically Controlled Transport of GeV Cosmic Rays in Diverse Galactic Environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D6QSQ3H7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03519}
}
abstract

We study transport of GeV cosmic rays (CRs) in a set of high-resolution TIGRESS magnetohydrodynamic simulations of the star-forming interstellar medium (ISM). Our local disk patch models sample a wide range of gas surface densities, gravitational potentials, and star formation rates (SFRs), and include a spiral arm simulation. Our approach incorporates CR advection by the background gas, streaming along the magnetic field limited by the local ion Alfv\'en speed, and diffusion relative to the Alfv\'en wave frame, with the diffusion coefficient set by the balance between streaming-driven Alfv\'en wave excitation and damping mediated by local gas properties. We find that dynamical transport mechanisms (streaming and advection) are almost solely responsible for GeV CR transport in the extra-planar regions of galaxies, while diffusion along the magnetic field dominates within the primarily-neutral ISM of galactic disks. We develop a simple 1D predictive model for the CR pressure $P_\mathrm{c}$, dependent only on injected CR flux and gas parameters. We demonstrate that the CR transport efficiency increases with increasing SFR, and provide a fit for the CR feedback yield $\Upsilon_\mathrm{c}~\equiv~P_\mathrm{c}/\Sigma_\mathrm{SFR}$ as a function of $\Sigma_\mathrm{SFR}$, the SFR surface density. We analyze lateral CR transport within the galactic disk, showing that CRs propagate away from feedback regions in spiral arms into interarm regions by a combination of gas advection and field-aligned transport. Lastly, we develop an empirical subgrid model for the CR scattering rate that captures the impacts of the multiphase ISM on CR transport without the numerical burden of full simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03519 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Slices taken from an exemplar snapshot of the R8 Arm model. The top row shows vertical slices through the center of the simulation box, while the lower panels show horizontal slices through the midplane. In these coordinates, z represents the extraplanar altitude, while the y (x) axis is parallel (perpendicular) to the local spiral arm segment. From left to right, the columns show hydrogen number density (nH), gas t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Horizontally and temporally averaged vertical profiles of the “relative verticality” of the gas velocity (|vz/v|; left) and magnetic field (|Bz/B|; right). The top row shows the results for hot gas (> 2 × 104 K), while the bottom row shows warm/cold gas (< 2 × 104 K). Lines with different colors represent different models, with the arm models differentiated into the arm and interarm regions: R2 (red), R4 (green), R8… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Horizontally and temporally averaged pressure profiles for each model: R8 (top left), R4 (middle left), R2 (bottom left) and R8 Arm (right panels). Each panel shows the profiles of thermal pressure (Ptherm; green line), vertical magnetic stress (Pmag,z; yellow line), vertical turbulent pressure (Pturb,z; pink line), and CR pressure (Pc; blue line) as a function of z. The shaded regions represent the 16th - 84th perc… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Horizontally and temporally averaged profiles of the CR pressure in the R8 model, chosen as an example. Pro￾files are shown after the post-processing step and after the MHD relaxation step. The shaded region again represents the 16th - 84th percentiles of temporal vari…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparative CR pressure profiles for the vari￾ous models. The top panel shows the R-models, while the bottom panels shows the R8 Arm model, split into the arm and interarm regions. The shaded regions represent the 16th - 84th percentiles of temporal variation. Exponent…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Temporal medians of the median CR parallel scattering coefficient (σ∥) profiles as a function of temper￾ature. The shaded regions represent the 16th - 84th per￾centiles of temporal variation. The arm and interarm regions of the R8 Arm model displayed no meaningful vari…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparisons between the normalized vertical CR pressure profiles obtained from the simulations (blue lines) and those predicted by the analytic model assuming dynamically controlled vertical CR transport (red lines; Equation 26). The pressure profile is the temporal me…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: CR pressure-weighted mean vertical dynamical velocity (vtot = vz + vs,z) as a function of temperature for all models (solid lines). Different colors correspond to different models: R2 (red), R4 (green), R8 (blue), R8 Arm (purple). The arm and interarm regions of the R8…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Slices from a snapshot of the R8 Arm model. The top/bottom row represents vertical/horizontal slices through the center of the simulation box. The color maps represent scalar quantities: from left to right, these are gas temperature (T), hydrogen number density (nH), m…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Spatial and temporal median values of σ∥ (normalized by a specific combination of gas parameters motivated by the form of Equations 37 and 38) as a function of local CR pressure. The left panel shows results for gas in the NLL regime and right panel for gas in the IN …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2014, Science, 345, 554, doi: 10.1126/science.1253947

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Albert, A., et al. 2014, Science, 345, 554, doi: 10.1126/science.1253947

    doi:10.1126/science.1253947 2014

  2. [2]

    2015, PhRvL, 115, 211101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.211101

    Aguilar, M., Aisa, D., Alpat, B., et al. 2015, PhRvL, 115, 211101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.211101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.115.211101 2015

  3. [3]

    2018, Advances in Space Research, 62, 2731, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2017.04.019

    Amato, E., & Blasi, P. 2018, Advances in Space Research, 62, 2731, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2017.04.019

    doi:10.1016/j.asr.2017.04.019 2018

  4. [4]

    C., & Jiang, Y.-F

    Armillotta, L., Ostriker, E. C., & Jiang, Y.-F. 2021, ApJ, 922, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1db2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1db2 2021

  5. [5]

    C., & Jiang, Y.-F

    Armillotta, L., Ostriker, E. C., & Jiang, Y.-F. 2022, ApJ, 929, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5fa9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5fa9 2022

  6. [6]

    C., Kim, C.-G., & Jiang, Y.-F

    Armillotta, L., Ostriker, E. C., Kim, C.-G., & Jiang, Y.-F. 2024, ApJ, 964, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5c 2024

  7. [7]

    Energy-Dependent Transport of Cosmic Rays in the Multiphase, Dynamic Interstellar Medium

    Armillotta, L., Ostriker, E. C., & Linzer, N. B. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.00120. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.00120

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    2020, A&A, 644, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038962

    Bacchini, C., Fraternali, F., Pezzulli, G., & Marasco, A. 2020, A&A, 644, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038962

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038962 2020

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    2022, ApJ, 928, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac56e1

    Bai, X.-N. 2022, ApJ, 928, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac56e1

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    C., Plotnikov, I., & Stone, J

    Bai, X.-N., Ostriker, E. C., Plotnikov, I., & Stone, J. M. 2019, ApJ, 876, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1648

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Bai, X.-N., & Ostriker, E

    Bambic, C. J., Bai, X.-N., & Ostriker, E. C. 2021, ApJ, 920, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0ce7

    2021 doi

  4. [13]

    2001b, SSRv, 99, 243, doi: 10.1023/A:1013805401252

    Beck, R. 2001b, SSRv, 99, 243, doi: 10.1023/A:1013805401252

    doi

  5. [14]

    2013, in Planets, Stars and Stellar Systems

    Beck, R., & Wielebinski, R. 2013, in Planets, Stars and Stellar Systems. Volume 5: Galactic Structure and Stellar Populations, ed. T. D. Oswalt & G. Gilmore, Vol. 5, 641, doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-5612-0 13

    2013 doi

  6. [16]

    D., & Ostriker, J

    Blandford, R. D., & Ostriker, J. P. 1978, ApJL, 221, L29, doi: 10.1086/182658

    1978 doi

  7. [17]

    S., Lopez-Rodriguez, E., Beck, R., et al

    Borlaff, A. S., Lopez-Rodriguez, E., Beck, R., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd934

    2023 doi

  8. [19]

    Boulares, A., & Cox, D. P. 1990b, ApJ, 365, 544, doi: 10.1086/169509

    doi

  9. [20]

    K., Kereˇ s, D., Hopkins, P

    Chan, T. K., Kereˇ s, D., Hopkins, P. F., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3716, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1895

    2019 doi

  10. [22]

    C., Stone, E

    Cummings, A. C., Stone, E. C., Heikkila, B. C., et al. 2016b, ApJ, 831, 18, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/18

    doi

  11. [23]

    2020, A&A, 638, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936339

    Dashyan, G., & Dubois, Y. 2020, A&A, 638, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936339

    2020 doi

  12. [24]

    Draine, B. T. 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium 29

    2011

  13. [25]

    2018, PhRvL, 121, 021102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.021102

    Evoli, C., Blasi, P., Morlino, G., & Aloisio, R. 2018, PhRvL, 121, 021102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.021102

    2018 doi

  14. [26]

    A., Black, J

    Grenier, I. A., Black, J. H., & Strong, A. W. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 199, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122457

    2015 doi

  15. [27]

    W., & Girichidis, P

    Hanasz, M., Strong, A. W., & Girichidis, P. 2021, Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics, 7, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41115-021-00011-1

    2021 doi

  16. [28]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  17. [29]

    F., Squire, J., Butsky, I

    Hopkins, P. F., Squire, J., Butsky, I. S., & Ji, S. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 5413, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2909

    2022 doi

  18. [30]

    F., Squire, J., Chan, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Squire, J., Chan, T. K., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 4184, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3691

    2021 doi

  19. [31]

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

    2007 doi

  20. [32]

    K., Hummels, C

    Ji, S., Chan, T. K., Hummels, C. B., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 4221, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1849

    2020 doi

  21. [33]

    Jiang, Y.-F., & Oh, S. P. 2018, ApJ, 854, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa6ce

    2018 doi

  22. [34]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, 1801, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa385

    Kempski, P., & Quataert, E. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 1801, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa385

    2020 doi

  23. [35]

    Kim, C.-G., & Ostriker, E. C. 2017, ApJ, 846, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8599

    2017 doi

  24. [36]

    C., Somerville, R

    Kim, C.-G., Ostriker, E. C., Somerville, R. S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba962

    2020 doi

  25. [37]

    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

  26. [38]

    J., & Dowell, C

    Kim, J.-A., Jones, T. J., & Dowell, C. D. 2023, AJ, 165, 223, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acc9c7

    2023 doi

  27. [39]

    Kim, J.-G., Kim, W.-T., & Ostriker, E. C. 2018, ApJ, 859, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabe27

    2018 doi

  28. [40]

    Kim, W.-T., Kim, C.-G., & Ostriker, E. C. 2020, ApJ, 898, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b87

    2020 doi

  29. [41]

    2014, ApJ, 789, 68, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/68

    Kim, W.-T., Kim, Y., & Kim, J.-G. 2014, ApJ, 789, 68, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/68

    2014 doi

  30. [42]

    Kim, W.-T., & Ostriker, E. C. 2002, ApJ, 570, 132, doi: 10.1086/339352

    2002 doi

  31. [43]

    Kim, W.-T., & Ostriker, E. C. 2006, ApJ, 646, 213, doi: 10.1086/504677

    2006 doi

  32. [44]

    Kim, Y., Kim, W.-T., & Elmegreen, B. G. 2015, ApJ, 809, 33, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/33

    2015 doi

  33. [45]

    2002, ApJL, 564, L97, doi: 10.1086/338978

    Koyama, H., & Inutsuka, S.-i. 2002, ApJL, 564, L97, doi: 10.1086/338978

    2002 doi

  34. [46]

    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

  35. [47]

    Kulsrud, R., & Pearce, W. P. 1969, ApJ, 156, 445, doi: 10.1086/149981

    1969 doi

  36. [48]

    Kulsrud, R. M. 2005, Plasma Physics for Astrophysics

    2005

  37. [49]

    M., & Cesarsky, C

    Kulsrud, R. M., & Cesarsky, C. J. 1971, Astrophys. Lett., 8, 189

    1971

  38. [50]

    D., et al

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

    1999 doi

  39. [51]

    B., Armillotta, L., Ostriker, E

    Linzer, N. B., Armillotta, L., Ostriker, E. C., & Quataert, E. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.00142. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.00142

    2025 arXiv

  40. [52]

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

    Linzer, N. B., Kim, J.-G., Kim, C.-G., & Ostriker, E. C. 2024, ApJ, 975, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7733

    2024 doi

  41. [53]

    S., Kereˇ s, D., Hopkins, P

    Lu, Y. S., Kereˇ s, D., Hopkins, P. F., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.13597, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.13597

    2025 doi

  42. [54]

    2012, A&A, 538, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117855

    Morlino, G., & Caprioli, D. 2012, A&A, 538, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117855

    2012 doi

  43. [55]

    C., & Kim, C.-G

    Ostriker, E. C., & Kim, C.-G. 2022, ApJ, 936, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7de2

    2022 doi

  44. [56]

    C., McKee, C

    Ostriker, E. C., McKee, C. F., & Leroy, A. K. 2010, ApJ, 721, 975, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/975

    2010 doi

  45. [57]

    V., Galli, D., & Caselli, P

    Padovani, M., Ivlev, A. V., Galli, D., & Caselli, P. 2018, A&A, 614, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732202

    2018 doi

  46. [58]

    V., Galli, D., et al

    Padovani, M., Ivlev, A. V., Galli, D., et al. 2020, SSRv, 216, 29, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00654-1 Planck Collaboration, Adam, R., Ade, P. A. R., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527101

    2020 doi

  47. [59]

    C., & Bai, X.-N

    Plotnikov, I., Ostriker, E. C., & Bai, X.-N. 2021, ApJ, 914, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf7b3

    2021 doi

  48. [60]

    Quataert, E., & Hopkins, P. F. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 66, doi: 10.33232/001c.138772

    2025 doi

  49. [61]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 1843, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1104

    Rathjen, T.-E., Naab, T., Walch, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 1843, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1104

    2023 doi

  50. [62]

    2020, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 29, 2030006, doi: 10.1142/S0218271820300062

    Recchia, S. 2020, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 29, 2030006, doi: 10.1142/S0218271820300062

    2020 doi

  51. [63]

    2022, SN Applied Sciences, 4, 15, doi: 10.1007/s42452-021-04891-z

    Reichherzer, P., Merten, L., D¨ orner, J., et al. 2022, SN Applied Sciences, 4, 15, doi: 10.1007/s42452-021-04891-z

    2022 doi

  52. [64]

    Roberts, W. W. 1969, ApJ, 158, 123, doi: 10.1086/150177

    1969 doi

  53. [65]

    2023, A&A Rv, 31, 4, doi: 10.1007/s00159-023-00149-2

    Ruszkowski, M., & Pfrommer, C. 2023, A&A Rv, 31, 4, doi: 10.1007/s00159-023-00149-2

    2023 doi

  54. [66]

    N., Ostriker, E

    Shetty, R., Vogel, S. N., Ostriker, E. C., & Teuben, P. J. 2007, ApJ, 665, 1138, doi: 10.1086/520037

    2007 doi

  55. [67]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.06988, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.06988

    Weber, M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.06988, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.06988

    2024 doi arXiv

  56. [68]

    A., & Ostriker, E

    Skinner, M. A., & Ostriker, E. C. 2013, ApJS, 206, 21, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/206/2/21

    2013 doi

  57. [69]

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

    2008 doi

  58. [70]

    M., Tomida, K., White, C

    Stone, J. M., Tomida, K., White, C. J., & Felker, K. G. 2020, ApJS, 249, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929b

    2020 doi

  59. [71]

    S., & Dopita, M

    Sutherland, R. S., & Dopita, M. A. 1993, ApJS, 88, 253, doi: 10.1086/191823

    1993 doi

  60. [72]

    2023, MNRAS, 521, 3023, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad472 30

    Thomas, T., Pfrommer, C., & Pakmor, R. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 3023, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad472 30

    2023 doi

  61. [73]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.13121, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.13121

    Thomas, T., Pfrommer, C., & Pakmor, R. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.13121, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.13121

    2024 doi arXiv

  62. [74]

    J., ZuHone, J

    Turk, M., Goldbaum, N. J., ZuHone, J. A., et al. 2025, Introducing yt 4.0: Analysis and Visualization of Volumetric Data, Tech. rep., Manubot

    2025

  63. [75]

    2020, ApJ, 894, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8474

    Li, M. 2020, ApJ, 894, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8474

    2020 doi

  64. [76]

    2004, MNRAS, 349, 270, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07484.x

    Wada, K., & Koda, J. 2004, MNRAS, 349, 270, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07484.x

    2004

  65. [77]

    Wentzel, D. G. 1974, ARA&A, 12, 71, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.12.090174.000443

    1974

  66. [78]

    G., & Ruszkowski, M

    Wiener, J., Zweibel, E. G., & Ruszkowski, M. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 205, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2007

    2019 doi

  67. [79]

    2002, PhRvL, 89, 281102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.281102

    Yan, H., & Lazarian, A. 2002, PhRvL, 89, 281102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.281102

    2002 doi

  68. [80]

    Zweibel, E. G. 2017, Physics of Plasmas, 24, 055402, doi: 10.1063/1.4984017

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.