Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 78 references

CLASSY. XV. Kinematics and Spatial Distributions of Outflows in Local Highly Star-Forming Galaxies

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In 17 nearby star-forming galaxies, cooler silicon-traced wind gas moves faster, is less porous, and terminates closer to the galaxy than warmer gas, and mass, momentum, and energy loading factors fall with stellar mass.

desk verdict Careful analysis of 17 CLASSY outflows with useful phase-resolved results, but the absolute loading factors and simulation agreement rest on an unmeasured ionization-completeness assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12482 v1 pith:UDL25DGK submitted 2026-08-12 astro-ph.GA

Mason S. Huberty , Cody A. Carr , Claudia Scarlata , Alaina Henry , Matthew Hayes , Xinfeng Xu , Timothy Heckman , Karla Z. Arellano-Cordova
show 12 more authors
Danielle A. Berg R. Michael Jennings Crystal L. Martin Kaelee S. Parker Stephane Charlot John Chisholm Simon Gazagnes Weida Hu Bethan L. James Claus Leitherer Matilde Mingozzi Evan D. Skillman
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galacticoutflowsstar-forminggalaxiesultravioletabsorptionspectroscopyradiativetransfermodelingmassloadingfactorstellarpopulationscircumgalacticmediumgalaxyfeedback
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that galactic outflows are genuinely multiphase in their spatial and kinematic structure, and that their power depends on galaxy mass and stellar age. Using radiative transfer fits to ultraviolet silicon absorption lines in 17 nearby, highly star-forming galaxies, it finds that the cool gas traced by Si II flows faster, is less porous, and terminates at smaller radius than the warmer gas traced by Si III and Si IV. It then converts those line fits into hydrogen mass, momentum, and kinetic-energy outflow rates and reports that the corresponding loading factors decline as stellar mass increases, in agreement with state-of-the-art hydrodynamic simulations for mass and momentum, while kinetic-energy loading sits far below simulated total energy budgets. Finally, it links outflow phase to stellar age: young (<5 Myr) stellar populations drive cool-gas-dominated, high-mass outflows whose rates decrease with radius, whereas older systems are more ionized and show flatter or rising outflow profiles. If right, these results validate the feedback prescriptions used in galaxy simulations and imply that low-mass, young starbursts are the most efficient at ejecting gas.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Semi-Analytical Line Transfer (SALT) model, a radiative transfer code that fits ultraviolet resonance-line profiles under the Sobolev approximation, including resonant absorption and re-emission infilling. From the Si II, Si III, and Si IV profiles SALT returns the outflow opening angle $\alpha$, orientation angle $\psi$, porosity $f_c$, optical depth $\tau_0$, power-law velocity and density indices $\gamma$ and $\delta$, launch radius $R_{\rm SF}$ (set to the NUV half-light radius), and terminal radius $R_W$. The paper converts the summed silicon outflow rates to hydrogen rates with Eq. (2), dividing by galaxy metallicity and the solar silicon fraction under the assumption that all silicon is in the three observed ions. These ingredients give radial profiles of $\dot M_H$, momentum flux, and kinetic-energy flux, from which the mass, momentum, and energy loading factors are computed at $R_{\rm SF}$.

What would settle it

In one of the 17 galaxies, obtain spectra covering additional silicon ionization stages, such as Si V and Si VI, and estimate silicon depletion onto dust: if the summed Si II + Si III + Si IV column accounts for substantially less than the total silicon expected from the galaxy metallicity, then the hydrogen outflow rates and all loading factors are systematically low by that missing fraction. Likewise, spatially resolved integral-field observations that resolve the outflow into multiple distinct cones, or a clumpy medium with strongly varying porosity, would invalidate the single-bicone geometry assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that the outflows of 17 local, actively star-forming galaxies are not single-phase winds: the cool gas traced by Si II flows faster (average maximum cool-gas velocity about 620 km/s), is less porous, terminates at a smaller radius, and carries a larger share of the mass outflow than the warmer gas traced by Si III and Si IV, whose angular geometries correlate closely with each other but not with Si II. From the SALT fits, it derives hydrogen mass, momentum, and kinetic-energy outflow rates at the half-light radius and finds that the mass, momentum, and energy loading factors (outflow rate normalized by star-formation rate, supernova momentum deposition, and supernova energy deposition) all decrease with stellar mass, with mass and momentum loading in agreement with high-resolution galaxy-formation simulations. The paper also connects outflow phase to stellar age: galaxies with young light-weighted populations (<5 Myr) tend to be dominated by cool Si II, have higher mass outflow rates, and show mass outflow rates that decrease with radius, whereas older systems are more ionized and show flat or rising radial mass outflow profiles.

Load-bearing premise

The mass, momentum, and energy outflow rates all assume that every silicon atom in the wind is in one of the three observed ionization states (Si II, Si III, or Si IV) and that the wind is a single power-law bicone with one porosity; if much silicon is in other ions or in dust, or if the geometry is more complicated, every loading factor shifts by a large factor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • More massive galaxies have lower mass, momentum, and energy loading factors, so low-mass starbursts return a larger fraction of their star-formation budget to the circumgalactic medium per unit star formation.
  • Agreement between observed mass and momentum loading factors and hydrodynamic simulations validates the feedback prescriptions in those simulations for cool and warm outflows, while the much smaller observed kinetic-energy loading factors than simulated total energy loading indicates that the hot phase is not captured by ultraviolet silicon lines.
  • Because cool Si II gas is faster, less porous, and shorter-lived in radius than warmer gas, single-ion estimates of outflow rates are systematically biased, and multi-phase measurements are needed for total mass and energy budgets.
  • Outflows from young (<5 Myr) stellar populations are cooler, more massive, and decelerate with radius, whereas older (>10 Myr) populations drive more ionized outflows whose mass outflow rates stay flat or rise, tying outflow phase to the onset of supernovae.
  • The average maximum cool-gas wind velocity of about 620 km/s matches hydrodynamic simulations of starburst-driven winds, supporting the simulated relation between wind speed and galaxy potential.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the assumed ionization completeness is wrong, the absolute loading factors shift by one common factor, so the reported scaling with stellar mass could survive even though the normalization would not; a direct measurement of the silicon ionization balance would separate these two cases.
  • The age sequence suggests a two-stage wind lifecycle that is testable at fixed stellar mass: young bursts should show cool, compact, decelerating outflows, while older bursts should show more ionized, extended, flat or rising mass profiles; comparing galaxies across burst ages with the same mass and metallicity would test this.
  • Because the ultraviolet lines miss the hot phase where simulations put most of the energy, the kinetic-energy loading deficit may be partly an observational aperture effect; adding X-ray absorption or emission measurements of the same outflows would show whether the missing energy is in a hot component or radiated away.
  • Extending the same radiative transfer analysis to additional ions, such as C II, C IV, and O VI, and to spatially resolved or lensed high-redshift analogues, would test whether the mass-loading decline with stellar mass is universal.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes 17 CLASSY galaxies previously modeled with the SALT radiative transfer code by Huberty et al. (2024). It compares SALT-derived properties of SiII, SiIII, and SiIV outflows, converts silicon outflow rates to hydrogen rates via Eq. (2), and uses these to derive mass, momentum, and energy loading factors. The central claims are that the cool SiII-traced gas has distinct kinematics and spatial distribution (faster, less porous, smaller terminal radius) relative to the warmer SiIII/SiIV gas; that loading factors decrease with stellar mass and match FIRE-2 for mass and momentum; that the average terminal velocity of about 620 km/s matches CGOLS; and that outflows from young, single-burst stellar populations have cooler-gas-dominated columns and radially decreasing mass outflow rates.

Significance. If correct, the paper would strengthen the empirical case that star-formation-driven outflow properties depend on gas phase and stellar age, and it would provide observational support for FIRE-2 and CGOLS feedback prescriptions. The work builds on a well-defined CLASSY sample and uses a radiative transfer model (SALT) that has been validated against RASCAS and simulation outputs in earlier papers. The paper also reports 16th/84th percentile uncertainties and places the results alongside LzLCS measurements. The main caveats are that the hydrogen normalization rests on an ionization-completeness assumption that is not directly verified in the CLASSY data, and that the apparent agreement with simulations compares fitted quantities rather than independent predictions; these caveats should be addressed before the stronger conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (2)] The conversion Mdot_H = Mdot_Si/(Z_Galaxy * Z_Si_sun) assumes that all silicon in the outflow is in SiII, SiIII, or SiIV. This is a multiplicative normalization for every mass, momentum, and energy loading factor in Table 1 and Figure 4, so any silicon that resides in other ionization stages or in dust will shift all derived quantities. If the missing fraction varies with stellar mass, metallicity, or age, the reported inverse scaling of eta_H, eta_p, and eta_E with stellar mass, and the agreement with FIRE-2 and CGOLS, could be partly artifacts of the assumption. The paper's own caveat in Section 4 that the hot phase is not traced by the UV silicon lines makes this concern concrete. Please add a robustness test, for example using photoionization calculations to estimate the unobserved SiV/SiVI fraction across the sampled stellar mass and metallicity range, or demonstrate what mass-dependent missing fraction would be required to erase the trends. At minimum, the abstract and conclusions should state that the loading-factor scaling is conditional on this ionization-completeness assumption.
  2. [Section 4.2 and Figure 5] The comparison between CLASSY and CGOLS is framed as agreement in maximum velocity, but v_w is a free parameter of the SALT model fitted to the spectra (Section 2), not a measured quantity independent of the model. The same applies to the loading factors in Figure 4, which are functions of the fitted SALT parameters (tau_0, alpha, psi, f_c, and the power-law indices). Thus the statements that the measurements agree with FIRE-2 and CGOLS are consistency checks between the adopted outflow model and simulation outputs, not validation of the simulations against independent observables. Please revise the abstract and Section 4 to use 'consistent with' language and, where possible, identify which combinations of SALT parameters drive the apparent agreement.
  3. [Section 3.2 and Figure 2] The claim that single-burst versus multi-burst galaxies differ in N_SiII/N_Si rests on a two-sample KS test with p = 0.047 for a sample of 17 galaxies, after dividing the sample into two groups using the Parker et al. (2026) classification. Given the small sample and the multiple ways the population could be split, this p-value alone is weak evidence. Please report the KS statistic (already given as 0.639), the effect size, the number of galaxies in each group, and a bootstrap or permutation p-value. If the evidence does not survive these tests, the age-composition claim should be downgraded.
  4. [Section 4.2 and Figure 5 (right panel)] The radial trend in Mdot_H(r), decreasing for young sources and increasing or constant for older sources, is presented largely by visual inspection of the right panel of Figure 5. With large uncertainties and SALT's known tendency to overestimate Mdot(R_W) as cited from Carr et al. (2023), this age-dependent radial claim needs a quantitative test, such as fitting the slope of Mdot(r) per galaxy and comparing the posterior distributions of slopes between young and old groups. As written, the conclusion in Section 5 that young outflows have Mdot decreasing with radius is not supported by a stated statistical measure.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and throughout] The ionization-state labels are typeset inconsistently (for example, 'Siii', 'Siiii', and 'Siiv' appear in the abstract and text), which makes the phase labels difficult to read. Please use unambiguous SiII, SiIII, and SiIV notation throughout.
  2. [Section 2] There are typographical errors such as 'realtive' and 'supperbubbles' that should be corrected during copyediting.
  3. [Section 3.1] The statement that the cooler gas traces faster outflows is based on the density-weighted velocity v_rho; please clarify that this does not imply all cool gas is faster than all warm gas, as the text already notes later in the same paragraph.
  4. [Section 4 and footnote 19] The self-correlation between eta_H and SFR is acknowledged in a footnote, but the text should more prominently state that part of the anti-correlation in the upper-right panel of Figure 4 is expected because eta_H is defined as Mdot/SFR and Mdot correlates with SFR.
  5. [Figure 4, lower right panel] The comparison with FIRE-2 is between observed kinetic-energy loading and simulated total-energy loading; the text mentions this, but the figure caption should explicitly repeat it so the two quantities are not mistaken for the same definition.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No central circularity: the main loading-factor and velocity comparisons are against external simulations, with one acknowledged self-correlation between eta_H and SFR.

  1. self definitional [Section 4, Figure 4 upper-right panel and footnote 19]
    "The upper right panel of Figure 4 which shows the comparison between the mass loading factor and the star-formation rate. We find as the SFR increases, ηH decreases. ... It is also worth noting that as η is derived from the SFR, a degeneracy may have been introduced (see T. M. Heckman et al. 2015)."

    The mass loading factor is defined as eta_H = Mdot(RSF)/SFR in Section 4, and the upper-right panel of Figure 4 plots this same eta_H against SFR. Any correlation between eta_H and SFR is therefore partly built into the definition of the plotted quantity: the denominator of eta_H is the x-axis variable. The paper acknowledges this in footnote 19 ('as eta is derived from the SFR, a degeneracy may have been introduced'), which confirms the reduction. Because the main loading-factor trend in the paper is against stellar mass rather than SFR, and because the FIRE-2/CGOLS comparisons are external, this is a minor self-definitional step rather than the central derivation.

full rationale

This paper is an analysis of previously published SALT fits (H24) rather than a derivation from first principles, and the pattern-fit distinction matters for circularity. The velocity maxima, loading factors, and radial profiles are all outputs of parameters fitted to the CLASSY spectra in H24; however, the paper does not call these independent predictions. Comparing the fitted terminal velocity (~620 km/s) to CGOLS and the fitted loading factors to FIRE-2 is an external model comparison, not a circular reduction, because the simulations are not used in the fitting. The SALT validation via RASCAS and simulations (Carr et al. 2023; Carr et al. 2025a) is independent support, and no uniqueness theorem is imported. The ionization-completeness assumption in Eq. 2 is an explicit premise, not a derived result; it is a correctness risk but not a circular step. The one place where a plotted result is partly constructed from its own definition is the eta_H-SFR panel: eta_H = Mdot_H/SFR places the abscissa in the denominator, and the paper itself warns in footnote 19 of the introduced degeneracy. Because this is a side panel and the main loading-factor/scaling claims are against stellar mass with external comparisons, the circularity is minor. Score 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the SALT model parameter set fitted in H24, the adopted R_SF from Xu et al. 2022, the ionization-completeness assumption for silicon, and external catalog quantities including SFR, stellar mass, and metallicity from Berg et al. 2022 and light-weighted ages from Parker et al. 2026. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • SALT optical depth tau_0 = per galaxy, from H24 SALT fits
    Primary normalization of the silicon column density and hence Mdot in Eq. 1.
  • Opening angle alpha = average ~54 to 59 degrees per ionization state
    Geometric solid-angle factor in Eq. 1; drives the outflow rate normalization.
  • Orientation angle psi = per galaxy, from H24 SALT fits
    Observer line-of-sight geometry; affects emission infilling and R_W inference.
  • Velocity power-law index gamma = average ~1.2 for CLASSY outflows
    Sets radial velocity growth used in the CGOLS comparison; weakly constrained per Carr et al. 2023.
  • Density power-law index delta = per galaxy, from H24 SALT fits
    Sets the radial density falloff and hence the slope of the radial Mdot profile.
  • Porosity f_c = average 0.66 (SiII), 0.82 (SiIII), 0.76 (SiIV)
    Clumping and covering factor; multiplies the outflow rate in Eq. 1.
  • Launch velocity v_0 = per galaxy, from H24 SALT fits
    Velocity at R_SF; sets the initial point of the modeled radial velocity profile.
  • Terminal velocity v_w = average maximum ~620 km/s
    Velocity at R_W; the abstract's 620 km/s maximum is this fitted parameter, not an independent prediction.
  • R_SF = NUV half-light radius from Xu et al. 2022
    Adopted, not fitted; defines the radius at which all outflow rates and loading factors are quoted.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Sobolev approximation, with no thermal or turbulent broadening, applies to the UV resonance lines
    Section 2: SALT solves the radiative transport under Sobolev and omits broadening; validated against RASCAS in Carr et al. 2023.
  • domain assumption Silicon in the outflows exists only in the observed SiII, SiIII, and SiIV states
    Section 2: hydrogen outflow rates are measured 'assuming that silicon is only in the three observed ionization states, consistent with simulations'. This is load-bearing for every loading factor.
  • domain assumption Catalog SFR, stellar mass, and metallicity from Berg et al. 2022, and the solar silicon fraction from Lodders 2021, are accurate
    SFR and Z enter Eq. 2 and the loading factors; Table 1 takes these values from the CLASSY catalog.
  • domain assumption Light-weighted ages and single/multi-burst classes from Parker et al. 2026 trace the stellar population actually driving each outflow
    Section 3.2: used to split the sample and to claim age-dependent composition and Mdot(r); the paper notes light-weighted ages bias toward young stars and that the COS aperture may miss stellar populations.
  • domain assumption The CGOLS cluster seeding radius of 1 kpc is a valid proxy for R_SF
    Section 4.2: used to normalize radii in the CLASSY versus CGOLS velocity comparison.
  • standard math Cosmology H0=70, Omega_m=0.3, Omega_Lambda=0.7
    Stated at the end of Section 1 as the assumed cosmology, used for distance-dependent quantities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CLASSY. XV. Kinematics and Spatial Distributions of Outflows in Local Highly Star-Forming Galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UDL25DGK

@misc{pith2026260812482,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CLASSY. XV. Kinematics and Spatial Distributions of Outflows in Local Highly Star-Forming Galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UDL25DGK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12482}
}
read the original abstract

Star-forming galaxies drive massive outflows that play an important role in galaxy evolution by regulating feedback and influencing the dynamics of surrounding media. Measuring galactic outflow rates is essential for quantifying feedback efficiency and the amount of mass, momentum, and energy deposited into the circumgalactic medium. In this paper, we examine 17 galactic outflows from the CLASSY survey with radiative transfer modeling of UV absorption lines presented in M. Huberty et al. (2024), to study their spatial distributions and kinematic properties. We study the SiII, SiIII, and SiIV ionization states that trace the cool and warm phases of the outflows and find that SiII traced winds generally behave differently than the warmer SiIII and SiIV traced winds. We derive the mass, momentum, and energy loading factors, which we find scale inversely proportional to stellar mass. We find that our measurements of the mass and momentum loading factors are in agreement with the hydrodynamic FIRE-2 simulations. We model the velocity profiles of the winds, with profiles reaching a maximum velocity of 620 km/s on average, in agreement with hydrodynamic simulations from CGOLS. We also investigate the relationship between outflow properties and the age of the stellar population from SED fitting. We find that outflows associated with young star forming regions are more likely to have a column density dominated by cooler gas and have mass outflow rates which decrease with radius.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12482 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparisons for the opening angle α (upper-left), the orientation angle ψ (upper-center), the porosity fc (lower-left), the terminal radius RW (lower-center), and the density weight outflow velocity vρ (lower-right) between the different ionization states of silicon. The Si iii properties are given on the x-axis, and with the Si ii (Si iv) properties given on the y-axis in orange (purple). The upper right shows 4 ex… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison between the proportion of the outflow that is in the Si ii (left panel), Si iii (middle panel), and Si iv (right panel) ionization state relative the total amount of silicon in terms of mass (y-axis) and column density (x-axis). Each point is color-coded according to its classification as a younger, single-burst source (blue) or an older, multi-burst source (red). The histograms in the top row reflect the… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: Comparison between the measured mass outflow rate and the proportion of the outflow column density in Si ii. The greater proportion of the column density in the cool-gas tracing Si ii ion tends to correlate with the mass outflow rate of hydrogen. Right: Comparison between the measured mass outflow rate and the star-formation rate for the CLASSY galaxies, suggesting a direct correlation between these two galact… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Upper left (Upper right): Comparison between ηH and the stellar mass (SFR) for CLASSY galaxies (black) and LzLCS galaxies (purple, C. A. Carr et al. 2025c). A few simulated models established in previous works are included as a reference, which follow the same trends a…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left panel: Radial profiles of the velocity of the CLASSY outflows in the Si ii traced cool gas. The CLASSY outflows are predicted to rise faster than the CGOLS simulations predict, but have similar terminal velocities as the CGOLS simulations. The dashed (solid) lines…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  2. [2]

    A., James, B

    Berg, D. A., James, B. L., King, T., et al. 2022, ApJS, 261, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6c03

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac6c03 2022

  3. [3]

    How Do Ionizing Photons Escape from Star-Forming Galaxies?

    Carr, C., Cen, R., Flury, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.23105, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.23105

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.23105 2025

  4. [4]

    2023, ApJ, 952, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd331

    Carr, C., Michel-Dansac, L., Blaizot, J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd331

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd331 2023

  5. [5]

    2022, ApJ, 939, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac93fa

    Carr, C., & Scarlata, C. 2022, ApJ, 939, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac93fa

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac93fa 2022

  6. [6]

    2021, ApJ, 906, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc7c3

    Carr, C., Scarlata, C., Henry, A., & Panagia, N. 2021, ApJ, 906, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc7c3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc7c3 2021

  7. [7]

    2018, ApJ, 860, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac48e

    Carr, C., Scarlata, C., Panagia, N., & Henry, A. 2018, ApJ, 860, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac48e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac48e 2018

  8. [8]

    A., Smith, A., Pandya, V., et al

    Carr, C. A., Smith, A., Pandya, V., et al. 2025a, ApJ, 990, 220, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf4c2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf4c2

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    A., Cen, R., McCandliss, S., et al

    Carr, C. A., Cen, R., McCandliss, S., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.21197, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.21197

    doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    A., Cen, R., Scarlata, C., et al

    Carr, C. A., Cen, R., Scarlata, C., et al. 2025c, ApJ, 982, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb72f

    doi

  3. [11]

    A., Leitherer, C., & Chen, Y

    Chisholm, J., Tremonti, C. A., Leitherer, C., & Chen, Y. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 4831, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1164

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    Costa, T., Sijacki, D., & Haehnelt, M. G. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 2355, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1632

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    M., Moustakas, J., Tremonti, C

    Diamond-Stanic, A. M., Moustakas, J., Tremonti, C. A., et al. 2012, ApJL, 755, L26, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/755/2/L26

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    2015, A&A, 580, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526114 Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., & Quataert, E

    Falstad, N., Gonz´ alez-Alfonso, E., Aalto, S., et al. 2015, A&A, 580, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526114 Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., & Quataert, E. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 605, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21512.x

    2015

  7. [15]

    M., Burkert, A., Ntormousi, E., et al

    Fierlinger, K. M., Burkert, A., Ntormousi, E., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 710, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2699

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 5753, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1666

    Fluetsch, A., Maiolino, R., Carniani, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 5753, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1666

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    R., Jaskot, A

    Flury, S. R., Jaskot, A. E., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 260, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5331

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    R., Jaskot, A

    Flury, S. R., Jaskot, A. E., Saldana-Lopez, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc305

    2025 doi

  11. [19]

    2024, ApJ, 969, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad47a4

    Gazagnes, S., Cullen, F., Mauerhofer, V., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad47a4

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 3129, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2235 Gonz´ alez-Alfonso, E., Fischer, J., Graci´ a-Carpio, J., et al

    Geen, S., Hennebelle, P., Tremblin, P., & Rosdahl, J. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 3129, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2235 Gonz´ alez-Alfonso, E., Fischer, J., Graci´ a-Carpio, J., et al. 2012, A&A, 541, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118029

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    C., Froning, C

    Green, J. C., Froning, C. S., Osterman, S., et al. 2012, ApJ, 744, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/1/6010.1086/141956

    2012

  14. [22]

    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

  15. [23]

    Hayes, M. J. 2023, MNRAS, 519, L26, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac135

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    C., & Hopkins, P

    Hayward, C. C., & Hopkins, P. F. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 1682, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2888

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    2017, ApJ, 846, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa80dc

    Bordoloi, R. 2017, ApJ, 846, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa80dc

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    2015, ApJ, 809, 147, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/2/147

    Overzier, R., & Leitherer, C. 2015, ApJ, 809, 147, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/2/147

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    2020, A&A, 633, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937109

    Herrera-Camus, R., Sturm, E., Graci´ a-Carpio, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937109

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    F., Kereˇ s, D., O˜ norbe, J., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Kereˇ s, D., O˜ norbe, J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 581, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1738

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad725f

    Huberty, M., Carr, C., Scarlata, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad725f

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

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

    2007 doi

  23. [31]

    L., Berg, D

    James, B. L., Berg, D. A., King, T., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac8008

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    C., & Oey, M

    Jecmen, M. C., & Oey, M. S. 2023, ApJ, 958, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0460

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    M., Henry, A., Mauerhofer, V., et al

    Jennings, R. M., Henry, A., Mauerhofer, V., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b13

    2025 doi

  26. [34]

    C., Somerville, R

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

    doi

  27. [35]

    C., Fielding, D

    Kim, C.-G., Ostriker, E. C., Fielding, D. B., et al. 2020b, ApJL, 903, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abc252

    doi

  28. [36]

    2018, ApJ, 868, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae390

    Laha, S., Guainazzi, M., Piconcelli, E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 868, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae390

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    Lamers, H. J. G. L. M., & Cassinelli, J. P. 1999, Introduction to Stellar Winds

    1999

  30. [38]

    Leitherer, C., & Heckman, T. M. 1995, ApJS, 96, 9, doi: 10.1086/192112

    1995 doi

  31. [39]

    D., et al

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

    1999 doi

  32. [40]

    Li, M., & Bryan, G. L. 2020, ApJL, 890, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7304

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    2021, SSRv, 217, 44, doi: 10.1007/s11214-021-00825-8

    Lodders, K. 2021, SSRv, 217, 44, doi: 10.1007/s11214-021-00825-8

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    Martin, C. L. 2005, ApJ, 621, 227, doi: 10.1086/427277 15

    2005 doi

  35. [43]

    L., Peng, Z., & Li, Y

    Martin, C. L., Peng, Z., & Li, Y. 2024, ApJ, 966, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad34ac

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    2021, A&A, 646, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039449

    Mauerhofer, V., Verhamme, A., Blaizot, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039449

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    McQuinn, K. B. W., van Zee, L., & Skillman, E. D. 2019, ApJ, 886, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c37

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    D., Schaye, J., Bower, R

    Mitchell, P. D., Schaye, J., Bower, R. G., & Crain, R. A. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3971, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa938

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    L., Kereˇ s, D., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al

    Muratov, A. L., Kereˇ s, D., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2691, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2126

    2015 doi

  40. [48]

    Murray, N., Quataert, E., & Thompson, T. A. 2005, ApJ, 618, 569, doi: 10.1086/426067

    2005 doi

  41. [49]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 3234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2306

    Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2306

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    B., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., et al

    Pandya, V., Fielding, D. B., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 2979, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2714

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    S., Berg, D

    Parker, K. S., Berg, D. A., Chisholm, J., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae22d9

    2026 doi

  44. [52]

    S., Werk, J

    Peeples, M. S., Werk, J. K., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 786, 54, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/54

    2014 doi

  45. [53]

    L., Chen, Z., et al

    Peng, Z., Martin, C. L., Chen, Z., et al. 2025, ApJ, 981, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada606

    2025 doi

  46. [54]

    X., Kasen, D., & Rubin, K

    Prochaska, J. X., Kasen, D., & Rubin, K. 2011, ApJ, 734, 24, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/734/1/24

    2011 doi

  47. [55]

    Rupke, D. S. N. 2018, Galaxies, 6, 138, doi: 10.3390/galaxies6040138

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

    J., et al

    Saldana-Lopez, A., Gkini, A., Hayes, M. J., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.13865, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.13865

    2026 doi arXiv

  49. [57]

    2020, A&A, 644, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039077

    Holt, J. 2020, A&A, 644, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039077

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    2015, ApJ, 801, 43, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/43

    Scarlata, C., & Panagia, N. 2015, ApJ, 801, 43, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/43

    2015 doi

  51. [59]

    E., & Mao, S

    Schneider, E. E., & Mao, S. A. 2024, ApJ, 966, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2e8a

    2024 doi

  52. [60]

    Thompson, T. A. 2020, ApJ, 895, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8ae8

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

    E., & Robertson, B

    Schneider, E. E., & Robertson, B. E. 2018, ApJ, 860, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac329

    2018 doi

  54. [62]

    E., Steidel, C

    Shapley, A. E., Steidel, C. C., Pettini, M., & Adelberger, K. L. 2003, ApJ, 588, 65, doi: 10.1086/373922

    2003 doi

  55. [63]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 4336, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv565

    Smith, A., Safranek-Shrader, C., Bromm, V., & Milosavljevi´ c, M. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 4336, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv565

    2015 doi

  56. [64]

    Sobolev, V. V. 1960, Moving Envelopes of Stars, doi: 10.4159/harvard.9780674864658

    1960 doi

  57. [65]

    S., Aravena, M., Phadke, K

    Spilker, J. S., Aravena, M., Phadke, K. A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc4e6

    2020 doi

  58. [66]

    T., Keeney, B

    Stocke, J. T., Keeney, B. A., Danforth, C. W., et al. 2013, ApJ, 763, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/2/148

    2013 doi

  59. [67]

    K., Ponman, T

    Strickland, D. K., Ponman, T. J., & Stevens, I. R. 1997, A&A, 320, 378, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9608064

    1997 doi arXiv

  60. [68]

    S., & Werk, J

    Tumlinson, J., Peeples, M. S., & Werk, J. K. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 389, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055240

    2017 doi

  61. [69]

    S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H

    Vink, J. S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 2001, A&A, 369, 574, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010127

    2001 doi

  62. [70]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  63. [71]

    K., Prochaska, J

    Werk, J. K., Prochaska, J. X., Thom, C., et al. 2013, ApJS, 204, 17, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/204/2/17

    2013 doi

  64. [72]

    K., Prochaska, J

    Werk, J. K., Prochaska, J. X., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 8, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/8

    2014 doi

  65. [73]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 222, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6d56

    Xu, X., Heckman, T., Henry, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 222, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6d56

    2022 doi

  66. [74]

    2023, ApJ, 948, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbf46

    Xu, X., Heckman, T., Henry, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbf46

    2023 doi

  67. [75]

    2025, ApJ, 984, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc302

    Xu, X., Henry, A., Heckman, T., et al. 2025, ApJ, 984, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc302

    2025 doi

  68. [76]

    2026, ApJ, 1003, 155, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae63d1

    Xu, X., Fielding, D., Heckman, T., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1003, 155, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae63d1

    2026 doi

  69. [77]

    2018, Galaxies, 6, 114, doi: 10.3390/galaxies6040114

    Zhang, D. 2018, Galaxies, 6, 114, doi: 10.3390/galaxies6040114

    2018 doi

  70. [78]

    B., Comparat, J., Kneib, J.-P., et al

    Zhu, G. B., Comparat, J., Kneib, J.-P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 815, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/48

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.