Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 5 cited by

Cold gas survives in the circumgalactic medium only where cooling beats turbulent mixing.

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

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

Cold-gas survival in the circumgalactic medium is set by t_cool/t_mix; small-scale cold gas requires dense, quiescent regions, not turbulent cascade patches.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection Important sub-sampling warning and clean high-res MHD results, but the central t_cool/t_mix scaling is shakier than the abstract claims — Table 1 shows the parameter is not actually held fixed across the Tmix series. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2511.00229 v2 pith:JE4PJZGT submitted 2025-10-31 astro-ph.GA

Multiphase gas in Circumgalactic cloud complexes: Insights from kiloparsec-scale Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence Simulations

Rajsekhar Mohapatra , Alankar Dutta , Prateek Sharma This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords circumgalactic mediummultiphase gasMHD turbulencecold gas survivalcooling timemixing timet_cool/tmixbaryon cycle
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the survival of cold gas (T < 10^4 K) in the circumgalactic medium is controlled by a single dimensionless ratio: the cooling time divided by the turbulent mixing time, t_cool/t_mix. In magnetohydrodynamic simulations of 0.125–8 kpc CGM patches that resolve the cooling length, low-density gas (n ≈ 3×10^-4 cm^-3) cannot sustain cold gas because t_cool/t_mix ≫ 1, while denser environments (n ≈ 3×10^-3 cm^-3) reach a multiphase steady state with up to 50% of the mass in the cold phase. The key scaling result is that simulations with similar t_cool/t_mix produce comparable cold gas mass fractions and lifetimes across box sizes, making this ratio a predictive control parameter for the CGM. If correct, this means the small-scale (≲10 kpc) cold gas seen in absorption arises in relatively dense, quiescent cloud complexes, not in turbulence cascading from large scales — a concrete prediction for where and how cold gas is distributed in halos.

Core claim

The central claim is that t_cool/t_mix — the ratio of isobaric cooling time to turbulent mixing time at the integral scale — is the control parameter for multiphase gas in the circumgalactic medium, not the box size or turbulent heating rate. Simulations with matched t_cool/t_mix show comparable cold gas mass fractions and lifetimes even when the box size differs by a factor of 64, whereas holding the energy injection rate fixed shortens t_mix in smaller boxes and erases the cold phase. Low-density gas (3×10^-4 cm^-3) has t_cool/t_mix ≥ 1 at all temperatures and cannot sustain gas below 10^4 K, while denser gas (3×10^-3 cm^-3) reaches a multiphase steady state with 20–50% of mass cold occupy

What carries the argument

The operating object is the dimensionless ratio t_cool/t_mix, where t_cool is the isobaric cooling time and t_mix = l_int / v_l is the turbulent mixing time at the integral scale; for multiphase gas, t_mix carries a √χ factor for the hot/cold density contrast. The paper varies box size (0.125–8 kpc) under two scalings — constant energy injection rate (so t_mix ∝ l^{2/3}, mimicking a turbulent cascade) and constant t_mix — to isolate this ratio's role. The identity that carries the argument is scale-invariance: runs with matched t_cool/t_mix reproduce each other's cold gas mass fraction and lifetime, making the ratio a transferable control parameter between local patch simulations and cosmolo

Load-bearing premise

The simulations maintain global thermal balance with an artificial heating term (eq. 2b) that returns all net cooling and turbulent work as heat; the simulated cold-gas fractions, including the up-to-50% steady state, depend on that heating being as responsive as assumed.

What would settle it

If observations find cold gas below 10^4 K persisting for ≳100 Myr in low-density, highly turbulent CGM gas with t_cool/t_mix ≳ 10 (n ≈ 3×10^-4 cm^-3), or if a simulation run without the global compensating heating term fails to reproduce the 20–50% cold fractions at matched t_cool/t_mix, the central claim would be falsified.

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

If this is right

  • Cold gas at ≲10 kpc scales in the CGM is expected to live in relatively dense, quiescent cloud complexes; large-scale turbulent cascade tends to destroy it.
  • Low-density CGM gas (n ≈ 3×10^-4 cm^-3) is largely single-phase: any cold gas that forms evaporates within a few mixing times.
  • Cosmological and meso-scale simulations cannot be compared by simple volume sub-sampling; they should be compared at matched t_cool/t_mix.
  • Dense CGM environments can sustain a steady multiphase state with ~20–50% cold mass fraction (hydro vs MHD), ~1% volume fraction, and area covering fractions near 80%.
  • Magnetic fields suppress mixing and fragmentation, extending cold gas lifetime and producing filamentary cold structures.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If t_cool/t_mix is a universal control parameter, cold-gas survival could be estimated directly from observed density, temperature, and velocity dispersion, without running simulations.
  • The quantitative cold-gas fractions (20–50%) likely depend on the paper's responsive compensating heating term; a less responsive heating prescription could shift the budget even if the t_cool/t_mix scaling holds.
  • The flat density power spectra imply multiphase gas adds density fluctuations down to AU scales, predicting enhanced FRB scattering that current FRB observations can test.
  • The ICM-like runs suggest matching t_cool/t_mix at the integral scale already absorbs the density-contrast correction via smaller cloud sizes; a testable extension is that cold gas mass fraction is roughly independent of χ at matched t_cool/t_mix.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a suite of 0.125–8 kpc magnetohydrodynamic and hydrodynamic turbulence simulations of CGM-like gas, with parameters motivated by quasar absorption-line observations. The simulations resolve the minimum cooling length by at least 30 cells for gas above ~10^4 K. The central claim is that the ratio t_cool/t_mix, rather than box size or turbulent heating rate, controls cold gas survival: low-density runs (n=3e-4 cm^-3) cannot sustain cold gas below 10^4 K, while higher-density Fiducial runs (n=3e-3 cm^-3) reach a multiphase steady state with cold mass fractions up to ~50% in MHD and ~20% in hydro. By varying box size under two scalings—fixed energy injection rate (Dedt) and fixed mixing time (Tmix)—the authors argue that matched t_cool/t_mix yields comparable cold fractions across scales, implying that small-scale cold gas arises in dense, quiescent CGM regions rather than in uniformly turbulent cascades. The paper also examines magnetic field geometry, compressive vs. solenoidal forcing, volume- vs. mass-weighted heating, and ICM-like density contrasts.

Significance. If the central scaling claim holds, the paper provides a useful organizing principle for connecting pc-scale cloud simulations, kpc-scale turbulent box simulations, and cosmological CGM simulations. The simulations are well-resolved in the sense that c_s t_cool is resolved by at least 30 cells, and the use of an open-source GPU-capable code (AthenaK) is a strength. The comparisons to observed non-thermal line broadening and the predicted flat density power spectra in multiphase gas are interesting and potentially relevant for FRB scattering and absorption-line diagnostics. However, the central claim that t_cool/t_mix is a robust control parameter is currently under-supported by the presented data, because the reported t_cool/t_mix values are initial inputs rather than measured simulation quantities, and because the matched runs in Table 1 do not actually show comparable cold fractions in the MHD case. The compensatory heating prescription also directly shapes the quoted steady-state cold fractions and needs more scrutiny. The paper's significance would be substantially strengthened by reporting measured mixing times and by quantifying the sensitivity of the cold fraction to the hea

major comments (2)
  1. [§4, Table 1, Fig. 8] The key scaling claim—simulations with similar t_cool/t_mix exhibit comparable cold gas mass fractions—is not convincingly supported by Table 1. Column 5 lists t_cool/t_mix as an 'initial ratio' (see table note), not a measured steady-state quantity. The actual velocity dispersion deviates from the assumed target; for example, 0.125TmixHydroLR has σ_v=1.4 km/s while the stated target in §2.5.2 for a 0.125 kpc box with Tmix scaling would be ~2.5 km/s. More importantly, the MHD matched runs fail: FidMHDLR has t_cool/t_mix=2.7 and M_cold/Mtot=0.42, while 8TmixMHDLR has t_cool/t_mix=2.9 and M_cold/Mtot=0.18. These are similar control parameters but cold fractions differ by more than a factor of two. The 0.125Tmix runs also have t_cool/t_mix=1.9–2.2 and cold fractions 0.30–0.40, spanning a factor ~1.6 in the control parameter. Since each configuration is a single realization without ensemble
  2. [§2.2, Eq. (2b); §5.2, Fig. 13] The compensatory heating term Q(t) is an artificial thermostat that offsets all net cooling and turbulent work to maintain global thermal balance. With the default mass-weighted heating (α_heat=1), Q is preferentially deposited in denser gas, and as cold gas condenses the net cooling rate rises, which increases Q and pumps heat back into the hot phase. This feedback loop directly regulates the steady-state cold gas mass fraction. The paper's headline result of up to 50% cold mass in the Fiducial MHD run therefore rests on this prescription. The sensitivity run with volume-weighted heating (QvwHydroLR, α_heat=0) already shows a material difference: M_cold/Mtot=0.33 versus 0.20 for FidHydroLR (Table 1 and Fig. 13). The authors should quantify how much of the steady-state cold fraction is controlled by the thermostat rather than by the t_cool/t_mix balance, justify the α_heat=1 choice physi
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.3] The text says 'second-order Runge–Kutta (RK3)' but RK3 is third-order. Please correct the order or the acronym.
  2. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption mentions 'green solid lines in the upper panels' representing initial density perturbations, but the figure as rendered appears to show only colored time-series lines. Please check the color/legend and update the caption or figure.
  3. [Table 1] The column header says t_cool/t_mix, but the note says this is the initial ratio. To avoid confusion, either rename the column to 'initial t_cool/t_mix' or provide a second column with measured steady-state values.
  4. [§2.5.2] The description of the two box-size scalings is clear, but Eq. (5a) fixes t_mix as an input while the realized t_mix depends on the actual velocity dispersion. Please clarify in the text that the Tmix labels denote target conditions, and that the realized values must be measured.
  5. [References] The two Afruni et al. 2023a,b entries appear to have identical author lists and page numbers (A680, A112). If they are the same paper, merge them; if different, correct the bibliographic details.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

The Tmix 'confirmation' of the t_cool/t_mix scaling is partly a consistency check with the runs' construction (eq. 5a fixes t_mix, hence t_cool/t_mix at fixed density), and the matched MHD runs actually disagree (FidMHDLR t_cool/t_mix=2.7 -> Mcold=0.42 vs 8TmixMHDLR 2.9 -> 0.18); independent LDens/Fiducial and ICM content keeps the central claim from being fully circular.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Abstract; §2.5.2 (eq. 5a); §4; §7; Table 1 note]
    "we explore different box sizes (0.125–8 kpc) and identify a key scaling relation: simulations with similar t_cool/t_mix exhibit comparable cold gas mass fractions and lifetimes. ... In the second approach, we fix the mixing time t_mix across all box sizes ... t_mix = t_mix,fid (5a) ... Since the density is unchanged, t_cool remains constant. ... Tmix simulations with matched turbulent mixing times (t_mix) yield consistent cold gas fractions across scales, confirming t_cool/t_mix as a robust control parameter for the multiphase CGM."

    The runs offered as the key test of the scaling relation are constructed to embody it: eq. 5a fixes t_mix across box sizes, and with density unchanged t_cool is constant, so the input t_cool/t_mix is equal by construction. The comparable cold fractions in Fig. 8/Table 1 are therefore a consistency check of the design, presented in §7 as 'confirming t_cool/t_mix as a robust control parameter.' Table 1 column 5 records only the input ('initial ratio of cooling to mixing time at the driving scale'), not a measured steady-state ratio, and realized velocities deviate from the eq. 5b targets (0.125TmixHydroLR sigma_v=1.4 vs 2.5 km/s), so the 'key scaling relation' partly restates design intent. Where independently checkable the relation fails: FidMHDLR (t_cool/t_mix=2.7) has Mcold=0.42 while 8Tm

full rationale

The central claim that t_cool/t_mix controls cold-gas survival has genuine independent content. The LDens-vs-Fiducial contrast is a clean emergent test: input t_cool/t_mix of 27–35 (LDens) versus 2.5–3.2 (Fiducial) yields cold fractions of ~0 versus 0.20–0.50, and this is a measured, externally meaningful difference. The ICM suite varies the density contrast chi with t_cool/t_mix matched and produces genuinely different outcomes (cold gas survives when t_cool/t_mix is matched; it evaporates when t_cool/t_multimix is matched), which could have falsified the framework. The Dedt runs likewise make a falsifiable prediction (small stirred boxes cannot retain cold gas) that the simulations realize. The partially circular element is the Tmix 'confirmation': those runs equalize t_cool/t_mix as an input (eq. 5a), so the similar cold fractions constitute a consistency check, and the summary's wording ('confirming t_cool/t_mix as a robust control parameter') converts the design criterion into a result. This is compounded by Table 1 labeling column 5 as an initial (input) ratio rather than a realized steady-state quantity, and by the MHD matched pair contradicting the scaling (2.7 -> 0.42 versus 2.9 -> 0.18). The box-size conclusion also leans on the adopted Kolmogorov input scaling (eq. 4b: t_mix ~ l_box^(2/3)), so the 'cold gas lives in quiescent regions' inference is in part a propagation of that assumption. Self-citations (Banerjee & Sharma 2014; Mohapatra et al. 2023) motivate the control parameter, but they are not the only support: Gronke et al. (2022) is independent, and the paper's own LDens/Fiducial and ICM runs provide internal evidence. The global thermostat (eq. 2b) shapes the quantitative 20–50% fractions, but this is an openly stated modeling choice that the paper itself probes with an alpha_heat=0 run (QvwHydroLR, §5.2), so it is a caveat, not circularity. Overall: one self-reinforcing consistency check presented as confirmation, with the central claim retaining independent content; score 4.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on a parsimonious but idealized setup: a periodic MHD box, a cooling function with chosen metallicity and fixed equilibrium, a thermostat-like heating term, a calibrated turbulence amplitude, and a borrowed control parameter (t_cool/t_mix). The paper is transparent about several of these in §6, but they are load-bearing for the quantitative claims (50% mass, 1% volume, 'cannot sustain cold gas').

free parameters (6)
  • Turbulent driving velocity calibration v_driv ≈ 20 km/s (Fiducial) = ~20 km/s (motivated by Chen et al. 2023 non-thermal broadening)
    Fiducial runs target σ_v≈20 km/s to match observed line broadening; this calibration sets t_mix and thus the t_cool/t_mix values that drive the central result. Caveat admitted in §6.
  • Metallicity Z = 0.3 Z_sun = 0.3 Zsun
    Cooling function uses 0.3 Zsun and HM12 background; cold-gas survival and t_cool depend on Z. Fixed, chosen input.
  • Initial density perturbation amplitude σ_rho/⟨ρ⟩ ≈ 0.6 (k=1–3) = ~0.6
    Large-scale density seeds are imposed to 'aid in the formation of multiphase gas' (§2.5). The LDens/Fiducial outcome depends on this seed; no exploration of lower amplitude.
  • Mass-weighted heating fraction α_heat = 1 (default) = 1 (vs 0 in one run)
    Eq. 2b: compensatory heating prescription; choice affects cold gas fraction. Explored but not derived.
  • Temperature floor 10^3.2 K = 10^3.2 K
    Numerically imposed floor; cold-gas phase at ~10^4 K because cooling plummets below; floor may affect cold-phase definition.
  • Initial magnetic field plasma beta β=100 with k^-1/3 spectrum = β=100
    Magnetic field initial condition; although constraints are weak, the MHD mixing suppression is central to the MHD results.
axioms (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Compensatory heating term Q maintains global thermal balance (eq. 2b), offsetting all net cooling and turbulent work.
    This thermostat is not derived from physical heating processes; it ensures steady state by construction and can pump heat into the hot phase as cold gas forms, affecting the apparent steady-state cold fraction.
  • domain assumption t_cool/t_mix at the integral scale is the control parameter for cold-gas survival.
    Imported from previous studies (Banerjee & Sharma 2014; Gronke et al. 2022; Mohapatra et al. 2023), then used as the organizing principle for the scale-dependence claims. The paper confirms, does not derive it.
  • domain assumption A periodic box with stochastic spectral forcing represents a CGM patch; no gradients, gravity, or galactic potential.
    The entire method assumes local turbulent cascade statistics are sufficient; the concluding argument about 'dense quiescent regions' is an inference from this idealized setup, not from cosmological context.
  • domain assumption Photoionization equilibrium and fixed 0.3 Z_sun throughout the box.
    Cooling function from AstroPlasma with HM12 background; NEI effects at 10^4–10^5.5 K could change cooling and survival. Stated as caveat in §6.
  • domain assumption Kolmogorov scaling (u ∝ ℓ^{1/3}, t_mix ∝ ℓ^{2/3}) applies to MHD turbulence when designing the Dedt scaling.
    Admits in §4 footnote: 'This assumption is a simplification for MHD runs, where the velocity power spectrum is flatter than Kolmogorov.' If invalid, the Dedt interpretation of sub-sampling is altered.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multiphase gas in Circumgalactic cloud complexes: Insights from kiloparsec-scale Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence Simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JE4PJZGT

@misc{pith2026251100229,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multiphase gas in Circumgalactic cloud complexes: Insights from kiloparsec-scale Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence Simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JE4PJZGT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.00229}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

The circumgalactic medium (CGM) is the diffuse gas surrounding a galaxy's halo, and it plays a vital role in the galactic baryon cycle. However, its mass distribution across the virial phase and the cooler, denser atomic phase, remains uncertain. To investigate this, we perform high-resolution magnetohydrodynamic simulations of 0.125--8 kpc-scale representative patches of the CGM, with parameters informed by quasar absorption line observations. Our simulations resolve the cooling length (the minimum across all temperatures of $c_s t_{\rm cool}$, where $c_s$ is the sound speed and $t_{\rm cool}$ is the cooling time in isobaric conditions), allowing us to track the evolution of cold gas more accurately. We find that low-density CGM gas ($3\times10^{-4}$ cm$^{-3}$) cannot sustain cold gas below $10^4$ K for long, due to a large value of the ratio between the cooling to mixing time ($t_{\rm cool}/t_{\rm mix}$). In contrast, higher-density environments ($3\times10^{-3}~{\rm cm}^{-3}$) reach a turbulent multiphase steady state, with up to $50\%$ of the mass in the cold phase, occupying only about $1\%$ of the volume. To connect with large-volume cosmological simulations and small ${\rm pc}$-scale idealized simulations, we explore different box sizes (0.125--8 kpc) and identify a key scaling relation: simulations with similar $t_{\rm cool}/t_{\rm mix}$ exhibit comparable cold gas mass fractions and lifetimes. Importantly, we find that simply sub-sampling (reducing box-size) a small region from a large-volume simulation while maintaining a constant turbulent energy density injection rate from larger to smaller scales artificially shortens $t_\mathrm{mix}$, leading to inaccurate predictions for cold gas survival. This means that cold gas at small $\lesssim 10$ kpc scales arises in relatively dense, quiescent regions of the CGM rather than the turbulent ones undergoing cascade from large scales.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.00229 by Alankar Dutta, Prateek Sharma, Rajsekhar Mohapatra.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: — Projections of density (Col 1, vol-weighted), temperature (Col 2, mass-weighted), Cooling rate (Col 3, vol-weighted), and plasma beta (Col 4, mass-weighted) along the x-direction for the Fiducial and LDens sets of runs. The streamlines on Columns 2 and 4 depict the mass-weighted projections of the velocity and magnetic field, respectively. Cold, dense gas exists in all runs except the LDensHydro run, whe… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: — Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: — Time evolution of different statistical properties of the gas for the Fiducial and LDens hydro and MHD runs. Left col: The velocity dispersion is smaller for the MHD runs compared to the hydro runs. For the MHD runs, the plasma beta is a few 100 in steady state, and both simulations are sub-Alfvenic. Right col: The Fiducial set of runs reach a steady state with roughly half of their mass in the cold phas… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: — Density-temperature phase diagram (Row 1) for our Fiducial and LDens hydro and MHD runs; also shown are tcool/tmix and cstcool/∆x in Rows 2 and 3, respectively. The contours on Rows 2 and 3 denote the 90% and 99.9% percentile of the density-temperature PDF. The cold and hot gas are mostly isobaric. For LDens set of runs, tcool > tmix for all gas, whereas for the Fiducial set, tcool ≲ tmix for T ≲ 105 K. … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: — Density and compensated velocity spectra at different times for our LDens hydro and MHD runs. The density power spectrum is much flatter than Komlogorov (K41), and with time evolution it reduces in amplitude and becomes steeper for both hydro and MHD runs. The velocity power spectrum is slightly steeper than the K41 scaling for hydro runs, whereas for the MHD run it is slightly flatter than k−4/3 scaling… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: — Density and compensated velocity spectra in steady state for our Fiducial hydro and MHD runs. Similar to the LDens set, the density power spectra are much flatter than K41 scaling, and are almost independent of scale (∝ k−0.2 ) for the FidMHD run. The velocity power spectrum is steeper than K41 for hydro, and close to k−1.2 scaling for the MHD run. 10−2 10−1 100 ` [kpc] 101 102 103 VSF 2 km 2 / s 2 FidHy… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: — Velocity structure functions for all gas (solid) and cold gas (dotted) for the FidHydro and FidMHD runs. We also overplot 3b 2 nt inferred from absorption line data from CUBS and COS-LRG samples. Similar to the power spectra results, the VSF2 is steeper than K41 for Hydro, and close to K41 for the MHD runs. The cold gas VSF2 has a similar amplitude, but its scaling with separation is slightly steeper com… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: — Time evolution of the gas velocity dispersion, and the volume and mass fraction of cold gas for the Fiducial, fixed Dedt, and fixed Tmix hydro and MHD runs. The Dedt and Tmix runs use box sizes of 8 kpc and 0.125 kpc, respectively, compared to the 1 kpc box used in the Fiducial runs. When the box size is reduced, simulations with matched tmix exhibit similar cold gas fractions. In contrast, for fixed Ded… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: — Time evolution of the gas velocity dispersion, and the volume and mass fraction of cold gas for the Fiducial hydro and MHD runs (with random initial magnetic fields), compared to simulations with a uniform magnetic field configuration (MHDUni). While the cold gas fractions are largely insensitive to the initial field geometry, the evolution of plasma beta (β) and the root-mean￾square Alfv´en Mach number… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: — Volume rendering of gas in the FidHydro, FidMHD (with random orientation of initial magnetic fields), and MHDUni (with uniform initial magnetic fields along the z-direction) runs at t = 80 Myr. The gas opacity is scaled to density, and color encodes log10(T). Red streamlines in the second and third panels trace magnetic field lines. Cold gas morphology varies significantly across the runs: FidHydro show… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: — Steady-state power spectra of density, compensated velocity, and magnetic energy for the Fiducial hydro and MHD runs, and MHD runs with random and uniform magnetic field geometries. The density power spectra are flat on large scales, while the velocity spectra are flatter than Kolmogorov and consistent with k−4/3 scaling. The magnetic energy spectra show significant differences on large scales depending… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: — Time evolution of gas velocity dispersion, and the volume and mass fraction of cold gas for the Fiducial hydro run (density-weighted heating with solenoidal forcing), compared to runs with volume-weighted heating (QvwHydroLR) and compressive forcing (CompHydroLR). Both alternative setups produce a larger cold gas fraction than the Fiducial case. ciently, promoting the formation of cold gas. This mech￾an… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. The Origin of Da Scaling: Suppressed Cooling in Fast-Cooling Mixing Layers

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Ram-pressure suppression of interface folding in fast-cooling TRMLs produces Ė_cool ∝ Da^{1/4} scaling.

  2. Ceci n'est pas une Couche de M\'elange: The Meaning of Resolved Turbulent Radiative Mixing

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    The resolution independence of cooling rates in TRML simulations is an artifact of opposing numerical effects with no physical basis, and phase structure converges only when the turbulent Field length (where eddy turn...

  3. CRexit observed: probing cosmic ray transport in the circumgalactic medium with absorption line spectra

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5

    Efficient cosmic-ray transport in CR-pressure-dominated CGM simulations produces stronger cool-gas absorption (MgII, SiII) and covering fractions matching star-forming galaxies, while slow transport underproduces them.

  4. XMAGNET -- Stir before serving: a Lagrangian perspective on mixing-driven condensation in the intracluster medium

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Lagrangian tracers show mixing with low-entropy seeds drives most condensation in cluster cores; magnetic fields cause earlier divergence, higher vorticity, lower Mach numbers, and slower cold-cloud motion via tension.

  5. XMAGNET -- Stir before serving: a Lagrangian perspective on mixing-driven condensation in the intracluster medium

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    In cool-core cluster simulations, mixing with pre-existing cold gas, not direct radiative cooling, dominates condensation; magnetic fields stretch the pre-condensation history to ~150 Myr and brake infalling clouds th...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    W., Fielding D

    Abruzzo M. W., Fielding D. B., Bryan G. L., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e51 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...966..181A 966, 181

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e51 2024

  2. [3]

    Afruni A., et al., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347867 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...680A.112A 680, A112

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347867

  3. [4]

    Armillotta L., Fraternali F., Marinacci F., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1930 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2016MNRAS.462.4157A 462, 4157

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1930 2016

  4. [5]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..123A 156, 123

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  5. [6]

    Banerjee N., Sharma P., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1179 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2014MNRAS.443..687B 443, 687

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1179 2014

  6. [7]

    R., Federrath C., Kriel N., Mocz P., Seta A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1863 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.3201B 524, 3201

    Beattie J. R., Federrath C., Kriel N., Mocz P., Seta A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1863 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.3201B 524, 3201

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1863 2023

  7. [8]

    Magnetized compressible turbulence with a fluctuation dynamo and Reynolds numbers over a million

    Beattie J. R., Federrath C., Klessen R. S., Cielo S., Bhattacharjee A., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2405.16626 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240516626B p. arXiv:2405.16626

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.16626 2024

  8. [9]

    Berlok T., Pfrommer C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2347 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.3368B 489, 3368

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2347 2019

  9. [10]

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

    Bisht M. S., Sharma P., Dutta A., Nath B. B., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf1319 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.tmp.1273B

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1319 2025

  10. [11]

    B \"o ckmann K., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346777 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...678A..56B 678, A56

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346777 2023

  11. [12]

    Borthakur S., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/46 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...813...46B 813, 46

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/813/1/46 2015

  12. [13]

    Brandenburg A., Ntormousi E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-052807 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ARA&A..61..561B 61, 561

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-052807 2023

  13. [14]

    Br \"u ggen M., Scannapieco E., Grete P., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acd63e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...951..113B 951, 113

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd63e 2023

  14. [15]

    J., Scannapieco E., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad8bd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...864..114B 864, 114

    Buie II E., Gray W. J., Scannapieco E., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad8bd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...864..114B 864, 114

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad8bd 2018

  15. [16]

    J., Scannapieco E., Safarzadeh M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9535 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...896..136B 896, 136

    Buie Edward I., Gray W. J., Scannapieco E., Safarzadeh M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9535 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...896..136B 896, 136

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9535 2020

  16. [17]

    S., Fielding D

    Butsky I. S., Fielding D. B., Hayward C. C., Hummels C. B., Quinn T. R., Werk J. K., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abbad2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...903...77B 903, 77

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbad2 2020

  17. [18]

    Chen H.-W., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1773 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497..498C 497, 498

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1773 2020

  18. [19]

    Chen H.-W., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acf85b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...955L..25C 955, L25

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf85b 2023

  19. [20]

    C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1406 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...962...98C 962, 98

    Chen M. C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1406 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...962...98C 962, 98

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1406 2024

  20. [21]

    C., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9bac , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...978L..18C 978, L18

    Chen M. C., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9bac , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...978L..18C 978, L18

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad9bac 2025

  21. [22]

    O'Reilly

    Collette A., 2013, Python and HDF5. O'Reilly

    2013

  22. [23]

    J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2869 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.4359C 508, 4359

    Cooper T. J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2869 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.4359C 508, 4359

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2869 2021

  23. [24]

    K., Gronke M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527..991D 527, 991

    Das H. K., Gronke M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527..991D 527, 991

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3125 2024

  24. [25]

    Das S., Mathur S., Gupta A., Krongold Y., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0e8e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...918...83D 918, 83

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0e8e 2021

  25. [26]

    Das S., Chiang Y.-K., Mathur S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acd764 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...951..125D 951, 125

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd764 2023

  26. [27]

    S., Sharma P., Ghosh R., Roy M., Nath B

    Dutta A., Bisht M. S., Sharma P., Ghosh R., Roy M., Nath B. B., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae977 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.5117D 531, 5117

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae977 2024

  27. [28]

    arXiv:2506.08545

    Dutta A., Sharma P., Gronke M., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2506.08545 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250608545D p. arXiv:2506.08545

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.08545 2025

  28. [29]

    B., 1988, Computers and Fluids, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1988CF.....16..257E 16, 257

    Eswaran V., Pope S. B., 1988, Computers and Fluids, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1988CF.....16..257E 16, 257

    1988

  29. [30]

    F., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/52 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...835...52F 835, 52

    Faerman Y., Sternberg A., McKee C. F., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/52 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...835...52F 835, 52

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/52 2017

  30. [31]

    F., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7ffc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...893...82F 893, 82

    Faerman Y., Sternberg A., McKee C. F., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7ffc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...893...82F 893, 82

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7ffc 2020

  31. [32]

    P., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-125203 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ARA&A..61..131F 61, 131

    Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Oh S. P., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-125203 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ARA&A..61..131F 61, 131

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-125203 2023

  32. [33]

    S., Schmidt W., Mac Low M

    Federrath C., Roman-Duval J., Klessen R. S., Schmidt W., Mac Low M. M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912437 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2010A&A...512A..81F 512, A81

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912437 2010

  33. [34]

    B., Ostriker E

    Fielding D. B., Ostriker E. C., Bryan G. L., Jermyn A. S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8d2c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...894L..24F 894, L24

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab8d2c 2020

  34. [35]

    B., Ripperda B., Philippov A

    Fielding D. B., Ripperda B., Philippov A. A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/accf1f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...949L...5F 949, L5

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/accf1f 2023

  35. [36]

    Ganguly S., et al., 2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10

    2023

  36. [37]

    S., Liu A., Walker S

    Gatuzz E., Mohapatra R., Federrath C., Sanders J. S., Liu A., Walker S. A., Pinto C., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2039 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.2945G 524, 2945

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2039 2023

  37. [38]

    arXiv:2510.03552

    Ghosh R., Gronke M., Sharma P., Dutta A., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2510.03552 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv251003552G p. arXiv:2510.03552

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.03552 2025

  38. [39]

    W., Beckwith K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abdd22 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...909..148G 909, 148

    Grete P., O'Shea B. W., Beckwith K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abdd22 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...909..148G 909, 148

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abdd22 2021

  39. [40]

    W., Glines F

    Grete P., O'Shea B. W., Glines F. W., Prasad D., Wibking B. D., Fournier M., Br \"u ggen M., Voit G. M., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adde45 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...988..155G 988, 155

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adde45 2025

  40. [41]

    P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly131 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018MNRAS.480L.111G 480, L111

    Gronke M., Oh S. P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly131 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018MNRAS.480L.111G 480, L111

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly131 2018

  41. [42]

    P., Ji S., Norman C., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3351 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511..859G 511, 859

    Gronke M., Oh S. P., Ji S., Norman C., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3351 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511..859G 511, 859

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3351 2022

  42. [43]

    Ha T., Li Y., Xu S., Kounkel M., Li H., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abd8c9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...907L..40H 907, L40

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abd8c9 2021

  43. [44]

    Ha T., Li Y., Kounkel M., Xu S., Li H., Zheng Y., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac76bf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934....7H 934, 7

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac76bf 2022

  44. [45]

    Haardt F., Madau P., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...746..125H 746, 125

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/2/125 2012

  45. [46]

    Hafen Z., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa902 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.3581H 494, 3581

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa902 2020

  46. [47]

    R., et al., 2020, Array programming with NumPy ( @eprint arXiv 2006.10256 ), @doi 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, Array programming with NumPy ( @eprint arXiv 2006.10256 ), @doi 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  47. [48]

    Heesen V., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670L..23H 670, L23

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346008 2023

  48. [49]

    B., Rubin K

    Hummels C. B., Rubin K. H. R., Schneider E. E., Fielding D. B., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5965 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...972..148H 972, 148

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5965 2024

  49. [50]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  50. [51]

    L., Gr nnow A., McClure-Griffiths N

    Jung S. L., Gr nnow A., McClure-Griffiths N. M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1236 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.4161J 522, 4161

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1236 2023

  51. [52]

    Kanjilal V., Dutta A., Sharma P., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3610 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.1143K 501, 1143

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3610 2021

  52. [53]

    P., Mandelker N., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf706 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.539.3669K 539, 3669

    Kaul I., Tan B., Oh S. P., Mandelker N., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf706 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.539.3669K 539, 3669

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf706 2025

  53. [54]

    N., 1941, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1941DoSSR..32...16K 32, 16

    Kolmogorov A. N., 1941, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1941DoSSR..32...16K 32, 16

    1941

  54. [55]

    B., Scannapieco E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf4fc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...956...54K 956, 54

    Koplitz B., II E. B., Scannapieco E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf4fc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...956...54K 956, 54

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf4fc 2023

  55. [56]

    Lara-DI A., Mathur S., Krongold Y., Das S., Gupta A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acbf40 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...946...55L 946, 55

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbf40 2023

  56. [57]

    C., Wakker B

    Lehner N., Howk J. C., Wakker B. P., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/79 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...804...79L 804, 79

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/804/2/79 2015

  57. [58]

    N., Stone J

    Lemaster M. N., Stone J. M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1092 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...691.1092L 691, 1092

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/691/2/1092 2009

  58. [59]

    Li Y., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab65c7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...889L...1L 889, L1

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab65c7 2020

  59. [60]

    Li Y., Luo R., Fossati M., Sun M., J \'a chym P., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad874 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.4785L 521, 4785

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad874 2023

  60. [61]

    C., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa812 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.2641M 494, 2641

    Mandelker N., Nagai D., Aung H., Dekel A., Birnboim Y., van den Bosch F. C., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa812 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.2641M 494, 2641

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa812 2020

  61. [62]

    X., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.19562 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250419562M p

    Mas-Ribas L., McQuinn M., Prochaska J. X., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.19562 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250419562M p. arXiv:2504.19562

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.19562 2025

  62. [63]

    Mohapatra R., Federrath C., Sharma P., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa711 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.5838M 493, 5838

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa711 2020

  63. [64]

    Mohapatra R., Jetti M., Sharma P., Federrath C., 2022a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3429 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.2327M 510, 2327

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3429

  64. [65]

    Mohapatra R., Jetti M., Sharma P., Federrath C., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3603 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.3778M 510, 3778

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3603

  65. [66]

    Mohapatra R., Sharma P., Federrath C., Quataert E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2574 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.3831M 525, 3831

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2574 2023

  66. [67]

    Nelson D., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2419 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.2391N 498, 2391

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2419 2020

  67. [68]

    K., Chen M

    Ocker S. K., Chen M. C., Oh S. P., Sharma P., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ade0bc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...988...69O 988, 69

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade0bc 2025

  68. [69]

    http://learningsys.org/nips17/assets/papers/paper_16.pdf

    Okuta R., Unno Y., Nishino D., Hido S., Loomis C., 2017, in Proceedings of Workshop on Machine Learning Systems (LearningSys) in The Thirty-first Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS). http://learningsys.org/nips17/assets/papers/paper_16.pdf

    2017

  69. [70]

    S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0654 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...873..129P 873, 129

    Peeples M. S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0654 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...873..129P 873, 129

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0654 2019

  70. [71]

    Qu Z., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2528 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.4882Q 516, 4882

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2528 2022

  71. [72]

    Qu Z., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1886 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524..512Q 524, 512

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1886 2023

  72. [73]

    Ramesh R., Nelson D., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae237 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.3320R 528, 3320

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae237 2024

  73. [74]

    Ravi V., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb30 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...872...88R 872, 88

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafb30 2019

  74. [75]

    P., Katz H

    Rey M. P., Katz H. B., Cameron A. J., Devriendt J., Slyz A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae388 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.5412R 528, 5412

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae388 2024

  75. [76]

    S., Hummels C., Ponnada S

    Roy M., Su K.-Y., Tonnesen S., Lu Y. S., Hummels C., Ponnada S. B., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2510.21699 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv251021699R p. arXiv:2510.21699

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.21699 2025

  76. [77]

    C., Steidel C

    Rudie G. C., Steidel C. C., Pettini M., Trainor R. F., Strom A. L., Hummels C. B., Reddy N. A., Shapley A. E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4255 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...885...61R 885, 61

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4255 2019

  77. [78]

    Scannapieco E., Br \"u ggen M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/158 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...805..158S 805, 158

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/805/2/158 2015

  78. [79]

    C., 2006, Computers & Fluids, 35, 353

    Schmidt W., Hillebrandt W., Niemeyer J. C., 2006, Computers & Fluids, 35, 353

    2006

  79. [80]

    J., Quataert E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/652 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2010ApJ...720..652S 720, 652

    Sharma P., Parrish I. J., Quataert E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/652 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2010ApJ...720..652S 720, 652

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/720/1/652 2010

  80. [81]

    arXiv:2509.03802

    Sharma P., Kumar A., Datta D., Babul A., Das R., Aditya K., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2509.03802 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250903802S p. arXiv:2509.03802

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.03802 2025

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.