Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 1 minor 1 cited by

AGN activity in a dwarf galaxy simulation creates compact hot bubbles that drive 600 km/s outflows but keep the gas bound within 10 kpc.

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 ↗

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-07-01 01:59 UTC pith:QDA7J7DS

load-bearing objection This AURIGA dwarf case shows AGN-driven hot bubbles driving 600 km/s flows that recycle within 10 kpc and shift the galaxy across BPT diagrams, but the pressure-peak selection for isolating those episodes is the main weak point. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2606.30726 v1 pith:QDA7J7DS submitted 2026-06-29 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

AGN-driven outflows in dwarf galaxies from cosmological simulations: Internal properties and observational signatures

Elena Arjona-G\'alvez , Arianna Di Cintio , Robert J. J. Grand , Laura V. Sales , Gabriela Canalizo , Teresa Matamoro Zatarain , Aswin P. Vijayan This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO
keywords AGN feedbackdwarf galaxiesgalactic outflowscosmological simulationsBPT diagramsemission line diagnosticsblack hole feedbackISM regulation
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 paper analyses a high-resolution cosmological zoom-in simulation of a dwarf galaxy containing a 10^7 solar mass black hole. It isolates AGN outflow episodes by locating pressure peaks around the central black hole, then follows the thermodynamic and velocity evolution of the affected gas. These episodes generate over-pressurised bubbles hotter than one million kelvin that accelerate interstellar gas faster than stellar feedback can achieve. The gas does not leave the halo; instead it slows and remains inside a 10 kpc radius. Synthetic emission-line maps constructed from photoionisation models show the galaxy crossing BPT diagnostic diagrams from the star-forming sequence into the AGN region over time, consistent with episodic self-regulation.

Core claim

AGN activity produces compact, over-pressurised central bubbles reaching temperatures above 10^6 K. These structures accelerate the ISM to velocities up to 600 km/s. The outflowing material does not escape the halo but decelerates and redistributes within 10 kpc of the galaxy centre. Synthetic emission-line modelling shows the galaxy migrating from the star-forming locus through the composite region into the AGN regime on BPT diagrams, illustrating a self-regulation cycle in which the black hole accretes fuel and then heats and recycles the surrounding gas.

What carries the argument

Identification of individual outflow episodes through pressure peaks in the gas surrounding the central black hole, followed by thermodynamic and kinematic tracking and construction of synthetic spatially resolved nebular emission for BPT diagnostic diagrams.

Load-bearing premise

Pressure peaks around the black hole mark genuine AGN-driven outflow episodes rather than being produced mainly by stellar feedback or simulation resolution limits.

What would settle it

High-resolution integral-field observations of dwarf galaxies hosting AGN that show either outflows extending beyond 10 kpc, gas temperatures well below 10^6 K in the central bubbles, or no systematic migration across BPT diagrams over time would falsify the central claim.

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

If this is right

  • AGN-driven outflows exceed stellar-feedback velocities yet remain bound inside the central 10 kpc.
  • Gas is redistributed locally through episodic heating and rapid recycling rather than large-scale ejection.
  • The galaxy traces the observed locus of dwarf AGNs on BPT diagrams and moves from the star-forming sequence into the AGN regime over its lifetime.
  • Clear time-dependent spectroscopic signatures appear that can be used to identify AGN feedback episodes in low-mass systems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same central recycling process could operate in real dwarf galaxies and help explain why many low-mass AGN show modest rather than extreme outflow extents.
  • Targeted observations of the inner few kiloparsecs of dwarf galaxies could reveal the predicted temperature and velocity signatures even when global mass loss is absent.
  • If the mechanism is common, it would imply that AGN feedback in the dwarf regime primarily modulates central star formation rather than altering halo gas reservoirs.
  • Running the same pressure-peak identification on additional AURIGA or similar zoom-in runs would test whether the reported behaviour is typical across the dwarf mass range.

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

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes AGN-driven outflows in a dwarf galaxy (M* = 10^9.7 M⊙, BH mass = 10^7 M⊙) from a single high-resolution AURIGA cosmological zoom-in simulation. Outflow episodes are identified via pressure peaks in gas surrounding the central BH; the study tracks the gas's thermodynamic and kinematic evolution, computes synthetic spatially-resolved emission lines for BPT diagrams, and concludes that AGN activity produces compact >10^6 K over-pressurised bubbles that accelerate ISM to 600 km/s (exceeding stellar feedback), with material recycling within 10 kpc rather than escaping the halo, and time-dependent BPT migration from the star-forming sequence through the composite region into the AGN regime, indicating self-regulation.

Significance. If the attribution of the selected episodes to AGN holds, the work fills a gap in the dwarf-galaxy regime by linking internal thermodynamic/kinematic effects to observable emission-line signatures. The synthetic BPT modeling and emphasis on episodic central regulation rather than large-scale ejection are strengths that could inform observational searches for AGN feedback in low-mass systems.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and methods (outflow identification)] Abstract and methods (outflow identification): The central claims—that AGN produces >10^6 K bubbles accelerating gas to 600 km/s exceeding stellar feedback, with BPT migration—rest on post-hoc selection of episodes exclusively via pressure peaks around the BH. No source-tagged energy injection, run-with/without-AGN comparison, or explicit temporal cross-correlation of pressure peaks against BH accretion rate (versus SFR) is described, leaving the separation from stellar-feedback or numerical contributions unverified and directly undermining the kinematic, thermodynamic, and observational-signature conclusions.
  2. [Results (velocity and stellar-feedback comparison)] Results (velocity and stellar-feedback comparison): The assertion that AGN-driven outflows reach speeds exceeding those from stellar feedback relies on the pressure-peak sample being AGN-dominated. In a full-physics simulation containing both feedback channels, central star-formation or supernova heating can generate overlapping pressure enhancements; without quantitative demonstration that the selected peaks are uncontaminated, the 'exceeding' comparison and the claim of AGN dominance are not load-bearing.
  3. [Discussion and conclusions] Discussion and conclusions: All quantitative results (bubble temperatures, 600 km/s speeds, 10 kpc recycling, BPT locus) derive from one zoom-in galaxy. The manuscript does not explore robustness across different subgrid AGN/stellar feedback implementations or additional AURIGA dwarfs, limiting generalizability of the self-regulation picture to the broader dwarf population.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The phrase 'high-resolution' is used without quoting the gas or dark-matter mass resolution or softening length; these parameters should be stated explicitly when first introduced in the methods.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments. We address each major comment below and indicate planned revisions to the manuscript where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract and methods (outflow identification): The central claims—that AGN produces >10^6 K bubbles accelerating gas to 600 km/s exceeding stellar feedback, with BPT migration—rest on post-hoc selection of episodes exclusively via pressure peaks around the BH. No source-tagged energy injection, run-with/without-AGN comparison, or explicit temporal cross-correlation of pressure peaks against BH accretion rate (versus SFR) is described, leaving the separation from stellar-feedback or numerical contributions unverified and directly undermining the kinematic, thermodynamic, and observational-signature conclusions.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this methodological point. Outflow episodes are identified via pressure peaks in gas surrounding the central BH, timed with the BH accretion history in the simulation. We acknowledge that no without-AGN run or source-tagged injection is available. In revision we will add an explicit temporal cross-correlation between pressure-peak times and BH accretion rate (versus SFR) in the methods section to quantitatively support the AGN attribution of the selected episodes. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Results (velocity and stellar-feedback comparison): The assertion that AGN-driven outflows reach speeds exceeding those from stellar feedback relies on the pressure-peak sample being AGN-dominated. In a full-physics simulation containing both feedback channels, central star-formation or supernova heating can generate overlapping pressure enhancements; without quantitative demonstration that the selected peaks are uncontaminated, the 'exceeding' comparison and the claim of AGN dominance are not load-bearing.

    Authors: We agree that the velocity comparison requires quantitative support to demonstrate AGN dominance. In the revised results we will include a direct comparison of the velocity distributions (or peak velocities) during the selected pressure-peak episodes against periods of high SFR without central pressure peaks, thereby testing whether the 600 km/s speeds are associated with the AGN-selected sample or contaminated by stellar feedback. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Discussion and conclusions: All quantitative results (bubble temperatures, 600 km/s speeds, 10 kpc recycling, BPT locus) derive from one zoom-in galaxy. The manuscript does not explore robustness across different subgrid AGN/stellar feedback implementations or additional AURIGA dwarfs, limiting generalizability of the self-regulation picture to the broader dwarf population.

    Authors: We acknowledge that all quantitative results come from a single high-resolution zoom-in simulation and therefore constitute a detailed case study. We will revise the discussion and conclusions to explicitly frame the findings as illustrative of the self-regulation mechanism rather than statistically general, and to note that extension to other feedback implementations or additional dwarfs lies beyond the present scope. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Demonstrating robustness across multiple galaxies or alternative subgrid feedback models requires additional simulations that are not available in the current study.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; analysis derives directly from simulation outputs

full rationale

The paper identifies AGN outflow episodes from pressure peaks in the AURIGA zoom-in simulation, tracks gas thermodynamics and kinematics, and computes synthetic BPT diagrams via standard photoionisation models. These steps produce direct outputs from the run (temperatures, velocities, spatial redistribution) that are then compared to external observations rather than fitted to them. No equations reduce a claimed prediction to a fitted input by construction, no load-bearing uniqueness theorems are imported via self-citation, and no ansatz is smuggled in. The derivation chain remains self-contained against the simulation data and independent benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based on abstract only; the simulation inherits all AURIGA subgrid parameters and the assumption that pressure peaks isolate AGN episodes. No new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the provided text.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The AURIGA magneto-hydrodynamical zoom-in simulation accurately captures AGN feedback physics at dwarf galaxy scales.
    Invoked implicitly by using the simulation to draw conclusions about real dwarf galaxies.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5894 in / 1277 out tokens · 32830 ms · 2026-07-01T01:59:37.309566+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

While AGN feedback is a key driver of massive galaxy evolution, its physical properties and observational signatures in the dwarf regime remain poorly understood. We investigate the impact of AGN-driven outflows on the ISM of dwarf galaxies and assess whether these events can be robustly identified through emission-line diagnostics. We analysed a high-resolution cosmological magneto-hydrodynamical zoom-in simulation from the AURIGA project. We focused on a dwarf galaxy with 1e9.7 M*/Msun hosting a BH of 1e7 Msun. We identified individual outflow episodes via pressure peaks in the gas surrounding the central BH, tracked the thermodynamic and kinematic history of such gas, and computed synthetic, spatially resolved nebular emission using photoionisation models to construct BPT diagnostic diagrams. We show that AGN activity in this regime produces compact, over-pressurised central bubbles reaching >1e6 K temperatures. These structures accelerate the ISM up to 600km/s, exceeding those driven by stellar feedback: the outflowing material does not escape the halo, but instead decelerates and redistributes within 10kpc from the galaxy center. Synthetic emission-line modelling reveals clear, time-dependent signatures of such AGN-driven feedback. Over its life cycle, the simulated AGN-hosting galaxy traces the locus of observed dwarf AGNs and migrates from the SF sequence in the BPT diagrams through the composite region into the AGN regime, highlighting a self-regulation mechanism in which the BH accretes its fuel supply, progressively moving towards the low-ionisation nuclear region. Our results suggest that AGN-driven outflows in dwarfs primarily regulate the central ISM through episodic heating and rapid gas recycling, rather than large-scale gas ejection. These processes generate observable spectroscopic signatures, offering a promising avenue for identifying AGN feedback in low-mass galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.30726 by Arianna Di Cintio, Aswin P. Vijayan, Elena Arjona-G\'alvez, Gabriela Canalizo, Laura V. Sales, Robert J. J. Grand, Teresa Matamoro Zatarain.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Normalised local gas pressure of the nearest gas cells [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Temperature vs radius diagrams for gas associated with the identified pressure peaks in Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Outflowing gas at t= 12.23 Gyr (peak 4 in Figs 1 and 2) in our AGN-galaxy, colour-coded by the radial velocity of each tracked particle relative to the BH for the first and middle rows and in purple for the last row. The remaining gas is shown in grey. Top row: temperature vs radius for the gas at three times: one snapshot before the event, at the selected outflow event, and one snapshot after. In each pan… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radial velocity (top) and line-of-sight velocity (bottom) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Face-on maps of H0 galaxy within 15 kpc of radius for the corresponding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: BPT narrow-line diagnostic diagrams for our simulated galaxy before, during and after the selected outflow event at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolution of our simulated AGN-galaxy across the BPT diagram. The panels display 2D histogram of the narrow-line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] 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 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Stellar photoionisation modelling in SYNTHESIZER

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Synthesizer now combines stellar population spectra with Cloudy photoionisation grids to predict nebular line and continuum emission for galaxies, with a systematic map of modelling choices.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2026, ApJ, 1000, 230

    Aravindan, A., Bohn, T., Canalizo, G., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1000, 230

    work page 2026

  2. [2]

    2023, ApJ, 950, 33 Arjona-Gálvez, E., Di Cintio, A., & Grand, R

    Aravindan, A., Liu, W., Canalizo, G., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 33 Arjona-Gálvez, E., Di Cintio, A., & Grand, R. J. J. 2024, A&A, 690, A286

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    A., Phillips, M

    Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP, 93, 5

    work page 1981

  4. [4]

    Bessiere, P. S. & Ramos Almeida, C. 2022, MNRAS, 512, L54

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    1952, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 112, 195

    Bondi, H. 1952, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 112, 195

    work page 1952

  6. [6]

    & Hoyle, F

    Bondi, H. & Hoyle, F. 1944, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 104, 273

    work page 1944

  7. [7]

    B., Stinson, G

    Brook, C. B., Stinson, G. S., Gibson, B. K., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 690

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    M., Satyapal, S., Abel, N

    Cann, J. M., Satyapal, S., Abel, N. P., et al. 2019, ApJ, 870, L2

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    2023, Rev

    Chatzikos, M., Bianchi, S., Camilloni, F., et al. 2023, Rev. Mexicana Astron. Astrofis., 59, 327

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    M., Shabala, S

    Crockett, R. M., Shabala, S. S., Kaviraj, S., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 1603

    work page 2012

  11. [11]

    A., Dubois, Y ., & Hartwig, T

    Dashyan, G., Silk, J., Mamon, G. A., Dubois, Y ., & Hartwig, T. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 5698

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    & Silk, J

    Dekel, A. & Silk, J. 1986, ApJ, 303, 39 Di Matteo, T., Springel, V ., & Hernquist, L. 2005, Nature, 433, 604

    work page 1986

  13. [13]

    2009, MNRAS, 399, 497

    Dolag, K., Borgani, S., Murante, G., & Springel, V . 2009, MNRAS, 399, 497

    work page 2009

  14. [14]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 1502

    Dubois, Y ., V olonteri, M., Silk, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1502

    work page 2015

  15. [15]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455

    work page 2012

  16. [16]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 3354

    Feltre, A., Charlot, S., & Gutkin, J. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 3354

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

    2013, MNRAS, 435, 1426

    Genel, S., V ogelsberger, M., Nelson, D., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 1426

    work page 2013

  18. [18]

    2010, Nature, 463, 203

    Governato, F., Brook, C., Mayer, L., et al. 2010, Nature, 463, 203

    work page 2010

  19. [19]

    Grand, R. J. J., Fragkoudi, F., Gómez, F. A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 1814

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    Grand, R. J. J., Gómez, F. A., Marinacci, F., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, stx071

    work page 2017

  21. [21]

    Grand, R. J. J., van de V oort, F., Zjupa, J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4786

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 3935

    Habouzit, M., V olonteri, M., & Dubois, Y . 2017, MNRAS, 468, 3935

    work page 2017

  23. [23]

    M., Costa, T., Tadhunter, C

    Harrison, C. M., Costa, T., Tadhunter, C. N., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 198

    work page 2018

  24. [24]

    Harrison, C. M. & Ramos Almeida, C. 2024, Galaxies, 12, 17

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    F., Kereš, D., Oñorbe, J., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Kereš, D., Oñorbe, J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 581

    work page 2014

  26. [26]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 3768

    Irodotou, D., Fragkoudi, F., Pakmor, R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 3768

    work page 2022

  27. [27]

    M., Tremonti, C., et al

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., Tremonti, C., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 1055

    work page 2003

  28. [28]

    J., Dopita, M

    Kewley, L. J., Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, R. S., Heisler, C. A., & Trevena, J. 2001, ApJ, 556, 121

    work page 2001

  29. [29]

    J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T

    Kewley, L. J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 961

    work page 2006

  30. [30]

    & Nixon, C

    King, A. & Nixon, C. 2015, MNRAS, 453, L46

    work page 2015

  31. [31]

    Kormendy, J. & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511

    work page 2013

  32. [32]

    A., & Sijacki, D

    Koudmani, S., Henden, N. A., & Sijacki, D. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 3568

    work page 2021

  33. [33]

    A., & Smith, M

    Koudmani, S., Sijacki, D., Bourne, M. A., & Smith, M. C. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 2047

    work page 2019

  34. [34]

    Koudmani, S., Sijacki, D., & Smith, M. C. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 2112

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 33

    Liu, W., Fan, X., Yang, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 33

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    2020, ApJ, 905, 166

    Liu, W., Veilleux, S., Canalizo, G., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 166

    work page 2020

  37. [37]

    C., Roper, W

    Lovell, C. C., Roper, W. J., Vijayan, A. P., et al. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 152 Mac Low, M.-M. & Ferrara, A. 1999, ApJ, 513, 142

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    R., Fabian, A

    Maiolino, R., Russell, H. R., Fabian, A. C., et al. 2017, Nature, 544, 202

    work page 2017

  39. [39]

    M., Canalizo, G., & Sales, L

    Manzano-King, C. M., Canalizo, G., & Sales, L. V . 2019, ApJ, 884, 54

    work page 2019

  40. [40]

    Martin, C. L. 1998, ApJ, 506, 222

    work page 1998

  41. [41]

    C., et al

    Mercedes-Feliz, J., Anglés-Alcázar, D., Hayward, C. C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 3446

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 2576

    Mezcua, M., Civano, F., Marchesi, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 2576

    work page 2018

  43. [43]

    & Domínguez Sánchez, H

    Mezcua, M. & Domínguez Sánchez, H. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 5252

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    C., Shahinyan, K., Sugarman, H

    Moran, E. C., Shahinyan, K., Sugarman, H. R., Vélez, D. O., & Eracleous, M. 2014, AJ, 148, 136

    work page 2014

  45. [45]

    & Trakhtenbrot, B

    Netzer, H. & Trakhtenbrot, B. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 672

    work page 2014

  46. [46]

    A., Koudmani, S., et al

    Ortame, G., Bourne, M. A., Koudmani, S., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.00241

    work page arXiv 2026

  47. [47]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 455, 1134

    Pakmor, R., Springel, V ., Bauer, A., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 455, 1134

    work page 2016

  48. [48]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Pillepich, A., Springel, V ., Nelson, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4077 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, A16

    work page 2018

  49. [49]

    Reines, A. E. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 26

    work page 2022

  50. [50]

    E., Greene, J

    Reines, A. E., Greene, J. E., & Geha, M. 2013, ApJ, 775, 116 Rodríguez Morales, V ., Mezcua, M., Domínguez Sánchez, H., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A235

    work page 2013

  51. [51]

    2026, The Journal of Open Source Software, 11, 9436

    Roper, W., Lovell, C., Vijayan, A., et al. 2026, The Journal of Open Source Software, 11, 9436

    work page 2026

  52. [52]

    Schawinski, K., Koss, M., Berney, S., & Sartori, L. F. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2517

    work page 2015

  53. [53]

    A., Bower, R

    Schaye, J., Crain, R. A., Bower, R. G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 521

    work page 2015

  54. [54]

    & Reines, A

    Schutte, Z. & Reines, A. E. 2022, Nature, 601, 329

    work page 2022

  55. [55]

    S., Brooks, A

    Sharma, R. S., Brooks, A. M., Somerville, R. S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, 103

    work page 2020

  56. [56]

    & Nusser, A

    Silk, J. & Nusser, A. 2010, ApJ, 725, 556

    work page 2010

  57. [57]

    & Rees, M

    Silk, J. & Rees, M. J. 1998, A&A, 331, L1

    work page 1998

  58. [58]

    2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105

    Springel, V . 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105

    work page 2005

  59. [59]

    2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 401, 791

    Springel, V . 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 401, 791

    work page 2010

  60. [60]

    & Hernquist, L

    Springel, V . & Hernquist, L. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 289

    work page 2003

  61. [61]

    Springel, V ., White, S. D. M., Tormen, G., & Kauffmann, G. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 726

    work page 2001

  62. [62]

    Strickland, D. K. & Stevens, I. R. 2000, MNRAS, 314, 511

    work page 2000

  63. [63]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 5607

    Trebitsch, M., V olonteri, M., Dubois, Y ., & Madau, P. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 5607

    work page 2018

  64. [64]

    R., Sun, M., Zeimann, G

    Trump, J. R., Sun, M., Zeimann, G. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 811, 26

    work page 2015

  65. [65]

    & Osterbrock, D

    Veilleux, S. & Osterbrock, D. E. 1987, ApJS, 63, 295 V ogelsberger, M., Genel, S., Sijacki, D., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 3031

    work page 1987

  66. [66]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V ., Hernquist, L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291

    work page 2017

  67. [67]

    F., et al

    Wellons, S., Faucher-Giguère, C.-A., Hopkins, P. F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 5394

    work page 2023

  68. [68]

    & Bourne, M

    Zubovas, K. & Bourne, M. A. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 4956

    work page 2017

  69. [69]

    & Maskeli¯unas, G

    Zubovas, K. & Maskeli¯unas, G. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 4819 Article number, page 12 of 15 Arjona-Gálvez E. et. al: AGN outflows in dwarf galaxies Appendix A: Gas-phase metallicity distributions Figure A.1 compares the mass-weighted gas-phase metallicity distributions of the AGN and non-AGN simulations. We show the distributions for all gas withinR 200, as well ...

    work page 2023