Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 3 cited by

Introducing the Rhea simulations of Milky-Way-like galaxies I: Effect of gravitational potential on morphology and star formation

T0 review · 3 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that the non-axisymmetric parts of a Milky Way-like gravitational potential, the bar and spiral arms, decide where stars form but leave the galaxy-wide star formation rate almost unchanged, with the bar preventing…

desk verdict Useful new simulation suite; the global SFR result is solid, but the bar- and spiral-specific claims are grounded in a two-run comparison that doesn't isolate those components. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02646 v1 pith:O3FXGKHM submitted 2025-02-04 astro-ph.GA

Junia Göller , Philipp Girichidis , Noé Brucy , Glen Hunter , Karin Kjellgren , Robin Tress , Ralf S. Klessen , Simon C. O. Glover
show 6 more authors
Patrick Hennebelle Sergio Molinari Rowan Smith Juan D. Soler Mattia C. Sormani Leonardo Testi
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords MilkyWaysimulationsgalacticbarspiralarmsstarformationgravitationalpotentialinterstellarmediumstellarfeedbackcenterquenching
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks how much the shape of a galaxy's gravitational potential controls star formation in a Milky Way-like disk. It runs two otherwise identical simulations, one with a simple flat rotation curve and one with a potential tuned to the Milky Way's bar, spiral arms, and other components. Despite the differences in where gas is gathered and where stars form, the total star formation rate stays nearly the same: about 2.9 versus 2.6 solar masses per year at 2500 Myr. The bar funnels gas into the innermost few kiloparsecs, keeping star formation alive there, while the spiral arms mostly organize star formation into long-lived patterns without changing the properties of the star groups themselves.

What carries the argument

The comparison of two fixed external gravitational potentials: a logarithmic potential with a flat rotation curve at 220 km/s, and a multi-component Milky Way model that adds a galactic bar and four spiral arms with pattern speeds, plus a rotation curve that peaks near 240 km/s and declines outward. Both disks start from the same smooth gas distribution and include the same interstellar-medium chemistry, star formation, and supernova feedback. The analysis separates the effect of the potential by comparing global star formation rates, radial and azimuthal distributions, and density-based hierarchical grouping of star particles and supernovae in space and time.

What would settle it

Run a third simulation with the Milky Way rotation curve but all non-axisymmetric components, the bar and spirals, removed. If the central region still avoids quenching, or if star-forming groups in the inner 2.5 kiloparsecs remain small and fast-forming, then the paper's attribution of these effects to the bar would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the global efficiency of star formation in a Milky-Way-like disk is essentially independent of the detailed non-axisymmetric gravitational potential, whereas the spatial distribution of star formation is strongly controlled by it. A barred potential channels gas inward and keeps the central region from quenching, concentrating star formation in the innermost 1.5 kiloparsecs and leaving a depleted gap around a few kiloparsecs. A spiral-arm potential does not change how star particles cluster: roughly 62 percent of stars formed beyond 6 kiloparsecs appear inside the imposed spiral arms, but the groups of formed stars have the same sizes and formation times as in the flat-potential run. Inside the bar region, however, star-forming groups are smaller and form faster, and supernova clustering is correspondingly tighter. The authors conclude that a simple axisymmetric potential suffices to reproduce the Milky Way's global star-formation properties, but a barred potential is indispensable for the inner region.

Load-bearing premise

The weakest link is the assumption that any difference between the two runs is caused by the bar and spiral arms, since the potentials also differ in rotation-curve shape and vertical structure, and each setup is a single realization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A simple axisymmetric, flat-curve potential reproduces the global star-formation rate of a Milky Way-like disk, so galaxy-wide star-formation predictions do not require a detailed bar and spiral structure.
  • The bar is what keeps the galactic center forming stars: without it, the inner few kiloparsecs quench within a few gigayears.
  • Outside the bar region, spiral arms act as an organizing template: roughly 60 percent of disk stars form within them, and the structures persist for gigayears rather than being transient.
  • Within the innermost 2.5 kiloparsecs, the bar's shear makes star-forming groups about 0.4 dex smaller and shortens their formation time by about 0.2 dex compared with the flat potential.
  • Simulations without a barred potential will misplace star formation even when they match the total rate, especially for studies of the central molecular zone.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the two potentials also differ in rotation-curve shape and vertical structure, a direct test would be to rerun with the Milky Way rotation curve but no bar or spirals; if central quenching still does not occur, the paper's attribution to the bar alone would be weakened.
  • The near-invariance of global star formation rate suggests a self-regulating star-formation law set by feedback, with the large-scale potential moving gas around but not changing the average efficiency; an ensemble of random realizations would tell whether the 2.9 versus 2.6 solar masses per year difference is real.
  • A testable observational prediction follows: young stellar groups in the inner 2.5 kiloparsecs of the Milky Way should be systematically smaller and shorter-lived than groups at similar gas surface density in the outer disk, which future surveys of cluster ages and sizes could check.
  • The result implies that cosmological-volume simulations that lack resolved bars cannot be compared to the Milky Way's center on a star-by-star basis, even if their total star formation rate matches observations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. This paper introduces the Rhea simulations, two Arepo moving-mesh hydrodynamical simulations of isolated Milky-Way-like galaxies that differ in the adopted external gravitational potential: a simple logarithmic 'flat' potential and a multi-component Milky Way model from Hunter et al. (2024) including a bar and four spiral arms. The paper analyzes morphology, gas thermodynamics, the star formation history, and the clustering of star particles and supernovae at 3000 Msun resolution, with 1000 Msun resolution checks. The main reported findings are that the total SFR is nearly identical between the two potentials (~2.9 vs 2.6 Msun/yr at 2500 Myr) despite different spatial distributions; the bar funnels gas inward and prevents central quenching; and group properties are altered only in the innermost 2.5 kpc, attributed by the authors to the bar, leading to the conclusion that the spiral arm potential has little effect on star-forming groups.

Significance. The Rhea simulations represent a substantial technical effort: detailed ISM chemistry, star formation and SN feedback in a full galactic disk with two carefully specified external potentials, plus a resolution study. The result that the global SFR is insensitive to the potential while the spatial and clustering properties respond is physically interesting and consistent with earlier idealized studies (e.g., Kim et al. 2020); if the causal attribution to the bar is supported, this would be a useful reference for designing future Milky Way simulations and interpreting observations of the Galactic center and spiral arms. The paper is clearly written and the figures are generally informative. However, the central bar/spiral attributions currently rest on a comparison of only two runs that differ in several potential properties simultaneously, and the spiral null result is weak because of the low spiral amplitude; these issues need to be addressed before the conclusions are accepted at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.4, Sec. 6, Abstract] The central causal claims — that the bar specifically lowers group size and formation time and that the spiral potential specifically has no effect on groups — are not isolated by the simulation design. The two runs differ simultaneously in the rotation curve shape (Fig. 4: flat 220 km/s vs. MW peaking near 240 km/s and declining to ~200 km/s), in the central mass concentration and vertical potential (the MW potential includes bulge and nuclear components while the logarithmic potential has none), and in the presence of the bar and spiral perturbations, with one realization per potential. Consequently, the lower group volumes and shorter activity times in the innermost 2.5 kpc (Fig. 11, third and fourth rows, left column; also Fig. 13) could be produced by the deeper central potential or higher shear in the MW model rather than by the bar itself; the text itself says this is 'probably caused by stronger shear ... because of the bar potential' in Sec. 4.4. Likewise, the absence of a group-property difference at R > 5 kpc (Fig. 11, right column) is interpreted as a null result for the spiral potential, but this region also has a declining MW rotation curve versus a flat one, so two effects could cancel. To support the abstract's bar/spiral attributions, the authors need either a control run with the MW rotation curve but no bar, a run with the flat rotation curve and an added bar/spiral, or an ensemble of realizations; at minimum, the abstract and conclusions should be rephrased to attribute the differences to the full MW potential.
  2. [Sec. 3.3, Fig. 3, Abstract] The statement that 'a spiral arm potential does not influence properties of groups of formed stars' is a low-sensitivity null result that is not adequately qualified. As shown in Fig. 3, the spiral perturbation is roughly two orders of magnitude weaker than the bar perturbation in the external potential, so an effect on group properties at the tested spiral strength could easily be below the detection threshold of the hdbscan analysis. Moreover, the F3000HD run also develops spiral structure through self-gravity and feedback (Sec. 3.1, Fig. C.1), so the comparison is not 'with spiral potential' versus 'without any spiral structure' but rather 'imposed long-lived spiral potential plus bar' versus 'self-generated transient spiral structure.' The conclusion should be restricted to the specific amplitude and pattern speed of the imposed spiral, or be supported by a run with the spiral potential alone.
  3. [Appendix B, Sec. 4.4] The resolution study (Appendix B) demonstrates convergence of the global SFR, depletion time, and phase structure, but does not test the convergence of the group/clustering statistics that ground the paper's main conclusions in Sec. 4.4 and Figs. 11/13. Since the group analysis uses star particles at 3000 Msun (each representing many stars), the sizes and activity times of the detected groups could in principle depend on the particle mass. The authors should either show that the group properties are converged in the 1000 Msun runs or explicitly list this as a caveat in Sec. 5.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Sec. 3.1] In the description of Fig. 1, 'MW300HD' appears twice and should read 'MW3000HD'.
  2. [Sec. 3.2] The phrase 'we look at how the affect the phase of the gas' should be 'how they affect the phase of the gas'.
  3. [Sec. 3.5] 'The stars however are not sensible to pressure gradients' should read 'not sensitive to pressure gradients'.
  4. [Sec. 4.4 and Figs. 11, 13] The noun 'extend' is used where 'extent' is meant in several places (e.g., 'Extends of SN groups' and 'extend of groups').
  5. [Sec. 5] The word 'shortcomming' is misspelled; it should be 'shortcoming'.
  6. [References] The reference list contains duplicate entries for Colling et al. 2018 and for Kim et al. 2020; these should be merged.
  7. [Sec. 4.3, Fig. 10] The definition of spiral arms as regions where the spiral potential perturbation is 'lower than 0 m^2 s^-2' is confusing; please clarify whether this is a potential-minimum threshold and how the chosen value affects the reported 62% fraction of stars formed in spirals.
  8. [Abstract] The phrase 'lowers size and formation time of those associations' uses 'associations' before the term is introduced in the body; consider using 'star-forming groups' in the abstract.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central bar/spiral conclusions are empirical simulation outputs; only the 'long-lived spirals' corollary restates the imposed rigid spiral pattern.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.5.2 (MW external potential setup) feeding Section 4.3 and the abstract conclusion]
    "The chosen model enforces 4 spiral arms with a pattern speed of Ωspa = −22.5 km s−1 kpc−1 and a Galactic bar with a pattern speed of Ωbar = −37.5 km s−1 kpc−1 and is fully described in Hunter et al. (2024). We introduce these non-axisymmetric components linearly within the first 150 Myr of the simulation to avoid transients."

    The MW external potential is defined with a persistent, rigidly rotating four-arm spiral component, so a long-lived spiral pattern in the potential is present from the start and cannot be destroyed by feedback. The conclusion in the abstract that a spiral-arm potential matters only for 'producing long-lived spiral structures instead of transient ones' restates this input property as a simulation outcome. The nontrivial results, such as the 62% arm-formed stellar fraction, the azimuthal SFR-potential correlation, and the unchanged global SFR, are not forced by the potential and are independent simulation findings.

full rationale

The paper is a two-realization numerical experiment, and its central claims are outputs of the Arepo runs rather than identities built into the potentials. The global SFR values (2.9 vs 2.6 M_sun/yr), the radial SFR profiles, the group-size and activity-time distributions, and the azimuthal correlation of SFR with potential wells are all measured simulation results; nothing in the flat logarithmic potential (Eqs. 20-21) or in the Hunter et al. (2024) MW potential definition fixes these quantities. The MW potential itself is an externally calibrated model, fit to observed Milky Way structure and dynamics, so citing Hunter et al. (2024) is independent support despite overlapping authorship; it is not fitted to the present paper's predictions. The one by-construction element is the 'long-lived spiral structures' corollary: the MW potential enforces a rigidly rotating four-arm spiral component, so the persistence of the spiral pattern in that run is an input property restated as a conclusion; the non-tautological parts of the spiral-arm result, such as the 62% arm-formed stellar fraction and the unchanged global SFR, are independent. Section 5 lists modeling limitations, including no circum-galactic medium replenishment, no satellites, no pre-supernova feedback, and no magnetic fields or cosmic rays; these affect physical completeness, not circularity. The single-realization confound, in which the two potentials differ simultaneously in rotation curve, vertical potential, central mass concentration, and non-axisymmetric components, is a causal-identification weakness rather than an equation-level reduction of output to input, and therefore it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The free parameters are the inputs that define the two potentials and the subgrid physics; none are fitted to the paper's own target results. The MW potential's parameters come from the companion Hunter et al. 2024 model, calibrated to observations. The main modeling assumptions are rigid external potentials, the phase-I turbulence preparation, and the subgrid SF/SN prescriptions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • Star formation efficiency per free-fall time, epsilon = 1%
    Chosen from observational determinations (Sun et al. 2023); the authors varied it from 0.1% to 10% and report weak influence on global SFR, so it is not tuned to the reported differences.
  • Flat potential parameters (v0, Rc, q_Phi) = 220 km/s, 100 pc, 0.8
    Chosen by hand to give a flat rotation curve; these set the baseline potential against which the MW potential is compared.
  • MW potential parameters (bar and spiral pattern speeds, component masses) = Omega_bar = -37.5 km/s/kpc, Omega_spa = -22.5 km/s/kpc; see Hunter et al. 2024
    Taken from a companion paper calibrated to Milky Way observations; these parameters define the detailed potential and are the primary variables between the two runs.
  • SN injection radius, Rinject = 100 pc
    Chosen to contain enough resolution elements for feedback; a standard choice in this code family and not varied in the paper.
  • Initial gas disk parameters (Sigma0, Rd, Rm, zd) = 50 M_sun/pc2, 7 kpc, 1.5 kpc, 85 pc
    Chosen to resemble the Milky Way gas disk; identical in both runs and not fitted to the outcomes.
  • hdbscan minimum cluster size = 5 star particles
    Analysis threshold for defining groups of star particles; directly affects the measured group size and activity-time distributions.
  • Spiral arm definition threshold = spiral arm potential perturbation < 0 m2/s2
    Defines which regions count as spiral arms for measuring the 60% stellar mass fraction formed in arms.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The external gravitational potential is fixed and does not respond to the gas and stars (no live potentials).
    Section 2.5: the potential is the sum of an external potential and self-gravity of gas and stars; the external components (bar, spirals, halo) are rigid. If the bar were to weaken or change in response to gas inflow, the inferred bar-induced quenching prevention could differ.
  • domain assumption Phase I with accelerated supernova feedback (2 Gyr) produces a realistic turbulent ISM from smooth initial conditions, so phase II results are not dominated by initial transients.
    Section 2.8: turbulence is induced via modulated SN feedback with shortened stellar lifetimes; the paper analyzes only phase II, assuming it is representative of an evolved galaxy.
  • domain assumption The subgrid star formation prescription (Jeans-mass-based, epsilon = 1%) and SN feedback model capture the essential regulation of star formation.
    Sections 2.3 and 2.4: the authors note a resolution study but do not vary the feedback physics, so the conclusions depend on this model choice.
  • domain assumption The simulation box size (150 kpc) and periodic boundary conditions prevent boundary effects from affecting the disk within the analyzed region.
    Section 2.7: the large box prevents outflows from reaching boundaries, but no circumgalactic gas accretion is modeled, which the authors acknowledge as a caveat affecting late-time SFR.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Introducing the Rhea simulations of Milky-Way-like galaxies I: Effect of gravitational potential on morphology and star formation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O3FXGKHM

@misc{pith2026250202646,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Introducing the Rhea simulations of Milky-Way-like galaxies I: Effect of gravitational potential on morphology and star formation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O3FXGKHM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02646}
}
read the original abstract

The Milky Way is a complex ecosystem, for which we can obtain detailed observations probing the physical mechanisms determining the interstellar medium. For a detailed comparison with observations, and to provide theories for missing observables, we need to model the Milky Way as closely as possible. However, details of the Galactic structure are not fully defined by observations, raising the need for more generalized models. With the Rhea simulations we present a set of Milky Way like simulations, containing detailed physics of the interstellar medium, as well as star formation and stellar feedback. We conduct two simulations that differ in the gravitational potential: one fitted to several structural details derived from observations, the other just reproducing the most basic quantities. We find little difference in the overall morphology except for the bar region, which funnels gas towards the Galactic inner region and therefore prevents quenching in the center. Despite differences with galacto-centric radius, the global star formation rate is almost identical in both setups. A spiral arm potential does not influence properties of groups of formed stars. A bar potential, however, lowers size and formation time of those groups. We therefore conclude for a spiral arm potential to have little influence on star formation in the Galaxy, except for producing long-lived spiral structures instead of transient ones. A Galactic bar potential has noticeable influence on star formation mainly within the innermost 2.5kpc.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02646 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Surface density of total gas (first column), ionized hydrogen (second column), stars (third column) and the temperature in a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Temperature-density plot for the conducted simulations at the fiducial time of 2500 Myr. All phase plots show a three-phase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Azimuthal velocity mass-averaged over radial bins of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Gravitational potential and acceleration. Top: Non [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Volume-weighted density distribution of gas (left) and stars (right) in the radial (upper row) and vertical (lower row, averaged [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Height of the plane containing 75% of the mass at a given radius, for all simulated mass (left), simulated gas and newly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Azimuthal profile of the normalized fluctuations of the gas (top), stars (middle) and SFR (bottom) surface densities at t [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: SFR history (left) and depletion time τ (right) for F3000HD (blue) and MW3000HD (red). We limit the measurement to ±1 kpc around the Galactic plane. Changing the potential does not result in a change of the overall SFR at the fiducial analysis time. is increased. In re…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: SFR surface density in MW3000HD and F3000HD in radial bins for the central ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Stellar mass fraction formed in spirals in MW3000HD (top-right panel) and formed stellar mass in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Grouped star formation: Mass of group (first row), mass fraction of stars born in groups (second row), activity time (third [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Fraction of stellar mass formed in associations within [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Grouped supernovae: Number of association members (top row), fraction of SN exploding within groups (second row), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Activity times of groups of star particles (upper row) and SN (lower row) vs their density for MW3000HD and F3000HD. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Rhea-RT: Dynamical impact of Central Molecular Zone conditions on the properties of the interstellar medium and stellar feedback coupling

    astro-ph.GA 2025-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    In the CMZ, short orbital times and strong shear decouple young O stars from their parental gas clouds, so stellar feedback becomes background turbulence instead of clustered cloud disruption.

  2. The Rosetta Stone Project. I. A suite of radiative magnetohydrodynamics simulations of high-mass star-forming clumps

    astro-ph.SR 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A catalog of radiative magnetohydrodynamics simulations shows magnetic field strength has the largest influence on how massive star-forming clumps fragment and form stars, and that the luminosity-to-mass ratio is a ro...

  3. The dynamical impact of cosmic rays in the Rhea magnetohydrodynamics simulations

    astro-ph.GA 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Cosmic rays in the Rhea simulations lower the star formation rate and drive sustained, disk-wide outflows with mass-loading factors of about 0.2, while magnetizing and cooling the circumgalactic medium.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

115 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2021, MNRAS, 503, 5826 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A

    Agertz, O., Renaud, F., Feltzing, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 5826 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

    2021

  2. [2]

    2020, A&A, 633, A147

    Benedettini, M., Molinari, S., Baldeschi, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A147

    2020

  3. [3]

    A., Churchwell, E., Babler, B

    Benjamin, R. A., Churchwell, E., Babler, B. L., et al. 2005, ApJ, 630, L149

    2005

  4. [4]

    2009, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Bertola, F. 2009, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 409, Cosmology Across Cultures, ed. J. Rubiño-Martín, J. Belmonte, F. Prada, & A. Alberdi, 237

    2009

  5. [5]

    2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 595, A32

    Beuther, H., Bihr, S., Rugel, M., et al. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 595, A32

    2016

  6. [6]

    & Tremaine, S

    Binney, J. & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition (Princeton University Press)

    2008

  7. [7]

    & Gerhard, O

    Bland-Hawthorn, J. & Gerhard, O. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 529

    2016

  8. [8]

    M., Wright, E

    Blondin, J. M., Wright, E. B., Borkowski, K. J., & Reynolds, S. P. 1998, ApJ, 500, 342

    1998

Show all 115 references
  1. [9]

    2020, ApJL, 896, L34

    Brucy, N., Hennebelle, P., Bournaud, F., & Colling, C. 2020, ApJL, 896, L34

    2020

  2. [10]

    M., Dzib, S

    Brunthaler, A., Menten, K. M., Dzib, S. A., et al. 2021, A&A, 651, A85

    2021

  3. [11]

    V ., et al

    Buck, T., Obreja, A., Macciò, A. V ., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 3461

    2020

  4. [12]

    L., & López-Corredoira, M

    Cabrera-Lavers, A., González-Fernández, C., Garzón, F., Hammersley, P. L., & López-Corredoira, M. 2008, A&A, 491, 781

    2008

  5. [13]

    Campello, R. J. G. B., Moulavi, D., & Sander, J. 2013, in Advances in Knowl- edge Discovery and Data Mining, ed. J. Pei, V . S. Tseng, L. Cao, H. Motoda, & G. Xu (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 160–172

    2013

  6. [14]

    J., Noriega-Crespo, A., Mizuno, D

    Carey, S. J., Noriega-Crespo, A., Mizuno, D. R., et al. 2009, PASP, 121, 76

    2009

  7. [15]

    & Povich, M

    Chomiuk, L. & Povich, M. S. 2011, AJ, 142, 197

    2011

  8. [16]

    C., Glover, S

    Clark, P. C., Glover, S. C. O., & Klessen, R. S. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 745

    2012

  9. [17]

    C., Glover, S

    Clark, P. C., Glover, S. C. O., Ragan, S. E., & Duarte-Cabral, A. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 4622

    2019

  10. [19]

    2018, A&A, 620, A21

    Colling, C., Hennebelle, P., Geen, S., Iffrig, O., & Bournaud, F. 2018, A&A, 620, A21

    2018

  11. [20]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 3670 Correa Magnus, L

    Colman, T., Robitaille, J.-F., Hennebelle, P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 3670 Correa Magnus, L. & Vasiliev, E. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2610

    2022

  12. [21]

    L., Burkert, A., & Pringle, J

    Dobbs, C. L., Burkert, A., & Pringle, J. E. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 1318

    2011

  13. [22]

    Draine, B. T. 1978, ApJS, 36, 595

    1978

  14. [23]

    2000, A&A, 358, L13 Durán-Camacho, E., Duarte-Cabral, A., Pettitt, A

    Drimmel, R. 2000, A&A, 358, L13 Durán-Camacho, E., Duarte-Cabral, A., Pettitt, A. R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.09503

    2000 arXiv

  15. [24]

    2022, ApJ, 941, 162

    Elia, D., Molinari, S., Schisano, E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 162

    2022

  16. [25]

    M., Sales, L

    Elias, L. M., Sales, L. V ., Creasey, P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 4004

    2018

  17. [26]

    F., Sawala, T., et al

    Fattahi, A., Navarro, J. F., Sawala, T., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 844

    2016

  18. [27]

    2023, A&A, 672, A193 Ferrière, K

    Fensch, J., Bournaud, F., Brucy, N., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A193 Ferrière, K. M. 2001, Reviews of Modern Physics, 73, 1031

    2023

  19. [28]

    W., Walter, F., & Leroy, A

    Foyle, K., Rix, H. W., Walter, F., & Leroy, A. K. 2010, ApJ, 725, 534 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1

    2010

  20. [29]

    Gatto, A., Walch, S., Low, M. M. M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 1057

    2015

  21. [30]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, L63

    Gensior, J., Feldmann, R., Mayer, L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, L63

    2023

  22. [31]

    & Seiden, P

    Gerola, H. & Seiden, P. E. 1978, ApJ, 223, 129

    1978

  23. [32]

    Girichidis, P., Offner, S. S. R., Kritsuk, A. G., et al. 2020, Space Sci. Rev., 216, 68

    2020

  24. [33]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 3432

    Girichidis, P., Walch, S., Naab, T., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 3432

    2016

  25. [34]

    Glover, S. C. O. & Clark, P. C. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 116

    2012

  26. [35]

    Glover, S. C. O., Federrath, C., Mac Low, M. M., & Klessen, R. S. 2010, MN- RAS, 404, 2

    2010

  27. [36]

    Grand, R. J. J., Gómez, F. A., Marinacci, F., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 179

    2017

  28. [37]

    M., Reynolds, R

    Haffner, L. M., Reynolds, R. J., Tufte, S. L., et al. 2003, ApJS, 149, 405

    2003

  29. [38]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    2020

  30. [39]

    Hou, L. G. & Han, J. L. 2014, A&A, 569, A125

    2014

  31. [40]

    Hunt, E. L. & Reffert, S. 2021, A&A, 646, A104

    2021

  32. [41]

    H., Sormani, M

    Hunter, G. H., Sormani, M. C., Beckmann, J. P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.18000 Hyginus. probably 0-200AC, De astronomia

    2024 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Immer, K., Schuller, F., Omont, A., & Menten, K. M. 2012, A&A, 537, A121

    2012

  34. [43]

    Jeffreson, S. M. R., Kruijssen, J. M. D., Keller, B. W., Chevance, M., & Glover, S. C. O. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 385

    2020

  35. [44]

    R., Walch, S., Seifried, D., et al

    Joshi, P. R., Walch, S., Seifried, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1735

    2019

  36. [45]

    Kalberla, P. M. W. & Dedes, L. 2008, A&A, 487, 951

    2008

  37. [46]

    Kennicutt, R. C. & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531

    2012

  38. [47]

    & Ostriker, E

    Kim, C.-G. & Ostriker, E. C. 2015, ApJ, 802, 99

    2015

  39. [48]

    & Ostriker, E

    Kim, C.-G. & Ostriker, E. C. 2017, ApJ, 846, 133

    2017

  40. [50]

    Kim, W.-T., Kim, C.-G., & Ostriker, E. C. 2020, ApJ, 898, 35

    2020

  41. [51]

    2024, A&A, 686, A8

    Konstantinou, A., Ntormousi, E., Tassis, K., & Pallottini, A. 2024, A&A, 686, A8

    2024

  42. [52]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    2001

  43. [53]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D., Longmore, S. N., Elmegreen, B. G., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 3370

    2014

  44. [54]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 548

    Li, Q., Narayanan, D., Torrey, P., Davé, R., & V ogelsberger, M. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 548

    2021

  45. [55]

    Licquia, T. C. & Newman, J. A. 2015, ApJ, 806, 96

    2015

  46. [56]

    Lin, C. C. & Shu, F. H. 1964, ApJ, 140, 646

    1964

  47. [57]

    N., Bally, J., Testi, L., et al

    Longmore, S. N., Bally, J., Testi, L., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 987

    2013

  48. [58]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 1094

    Mackey, J., Walch, S., Seifried, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 1094

    2019

  49. [59]

    2008, Physics, formation and evolution of rotating stars (Springer Science & Business Media)

    Maeder, A. 2008, Physics, formation and evolution of rotating stars (Springer Science & Business Media)

    2008

  50. [60]

    2010, Acta Astron., 60, 55

    Majaess, D. 2010, Acta Astron., 60, 55

    2010

  51. [61]

    A., Sharma, S., et al

    Malhan, K., Ibata, R. A., Sharma, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 107

    2022

  52. [62]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 504

    Martizzi, D., Faucher-Giguère, C.-A., & Quataert, E. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 504

    2015

  53. [63]

    S., Mezger, P

    Mathis, J. S., Mezger, P. G., & Panagia, N. 1983, A&A, 128, 212

    1983

  54. [64]

    M., Stanimirovi´c, S., & Rybarczyk, D

    McClure-Griffiths, N. M., Stanimirovi´c, S., & Rybarczyk, D. R. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 19

    2023

  55. [65]

    2011, ApJ, 735, L33

    Molinari, S., Bally, J., Noriega-Crespo, A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 735, L33

    2011

  56. [66]

    2010, A&A, 518, L100

    Molinari, S., Swinyard, B., Bally, J., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L100

    2010

  57. [67]

    Moon, S., Kim, W.-T., Kim, C.-G., & Ostriker, E. C. 2021, ApJ, 914, 9

    2021

  58. [68]

    Mueller, M. W. & Arnett, W. D. 1976, ApJ, 210, 670

    1976

  59. [69]

    Nelson, R. P. & Langer, W. D. 1997, ApJ, 482, 796

    1997

  60. [70]

    2005, ApJ, 621, L105

    Nishiyama, S., Nagata, T., Baba, D., et al. 2005, ApJ, 621, L105

    2005

  61. [71]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 197

    Ortega-Martinez, S., Obreja, A., Dominguez-Tenreiro, R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 197

    2022

  62. [72]

    & Springel, V

    Pakmor, R. & Springel, V . 2013, MNRAS, 432, 176

    2013

  63. [73]

    R., Dobbs, C

    Pettitt, A. R., Dobbs, C. L., Acreman, D. M., & Price, D. J. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 919

    2014

  64. [74]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 4667

    Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Truong, N., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 4667

    2021

  65. [75]

    2021, A&A, 647, A1

    Predehl, P., Andritschke, R., Arefiev, V ., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A1

    2021

  66. [76]

    K., Meidt, S

    Querejeta, M., Leroy, A. K., Meidt, S. E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.05364

    2024 arXiv

  67. [77]

    2021, A&A, 656, A133

    Querejeta, M., Schinnerer, E., Meidt, S., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A133

    2021

  68. [78]

    E., Moore, T

    Ragan, S. E., Moore, T. J. T., Eden, D. J., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 2361

    2018

  69. [79]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 1843

    Rathjen, T.-E., Naab, T., Walch, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 1843

    2023

  70. [80]

    J., Menten, K

    Reid, M. J., Menten, K. M., Brunthaler, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 131

    2019

  71. [81]

    2013, MNRAS, 436, 1836

    Renaud, F., Bournaud, F., Emsellem, E., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 1836

    2013

  72. [82]

    J., Moore, T

    Rigby, A. J., Moore, T. J. T., Plume, R., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 2885

    2016

  73. [83]

    S., et al

    Schuller, F., Csengeri, T., Urquhart, J. S., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A124

    2017

  74. [84]

    2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 504, 415

    Schuller, F., Menten, K., Contreras, Y ., et al. 2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 504, 415

    2009

  75. [85]

    2017, MNRAS, 472, 4797

    Seifried, D., Walch, S., Girichidis, P., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 4797

    2017

  76. [86]

    Seigar, M. S. & James, P. A. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 1113

    2002

  77. [87]

    R., Howk, J

    Sembach, K. R., Howk, J. C., Ryans, R. S. I., & Keenan, F. P. 2000, ApJ, 528, 310

    2000

  78. [88]

    & Kim, W.-T

    Seo, W.-Y . & Kim, W.-T. 2013, ApJ, 769, 100

    2013

  79. [89]

    2019, ApJ, 872, 5

    Seo, W.-Y ., Kim, W.-T., Kwak, S., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 5

    2019

  80. [90]

    Shu, F. H. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 667

    2016

  81. [91]

    C., Bryan, G

    Smith, M. C., Bryan, G. L., Somerville, R. S., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 506, 3882

    2021

  82. [92]

    J., Treß, R

    Smith, R. J., Treß, R. G., Sormani, M. C., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1594

    2020

  83. [93]

    C., Sobacchi, E., & Sanders, J

    Sormani, M. C., Sobacchi, E., & Sanders, J. L. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 5742

    2024

  84. [94]

    C., Treß, R

    Sormani, M. C., Treß, R. G., Glover, S. C., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488, 4663

    2019

  85. [95]

    C., Tress, R

    Sormani, M. C., Tress, R. G., Glover, S. C. O., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 5024 Article number, page 21 of 26 A&A proofs: manuscript no. introducing_rhea

    2020

  86. [96]

    C., Treß, R

    Sormani, M. C., Treß, R. G., Klessen, R. S., & Glover, S. C. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 407

    2017

  87. [97]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 5404

    Sotillo-Ramos, D., Pillepich, A., Donnari, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 5404

    2022

  88. [98]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 791

    Springel, V . 2010, MNRAS, 401, 791

    2010

  89. [99]

    & Hernquist, L

    Springel, V . & Hernquist, L. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 339, 289

    2003

  90. [100]

    M., Taylor, A

    Stil, J. M., Taylor, A. R., Dickey, J. M., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 1158

    2006

  91. [101]

    K., Ostriker, E

    Sun, J., Leroy, A. K., Ostriker, E. C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, L19

    2023

  92. [102]

    2019, PASJ, 71, S19

    Tokuyama, S., Oka, T., Takekawa, S., et al. 2019, PASJ, 71, S19

    2019

  93. [103]

    G., Smith, R

    Tress, R. G., Smith, R. J., Sormani, M. C., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 2973

    2020

  94. [104]

    G., Sormani, M

    Tress, R. G., Sormani, M. C., Glover, S. C. O., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 4455

    2020

  95. [105]

    J., Smith, B

    Turk, M. J., Smith, B. D., Oishi, J. S., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 9

    2011

  96. [106]

    Vanhollebeke, E., Groenewegen, M. A. T., & Girardi, L. 2009, A&A, 498, 95

    2009

  97. [107]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525

    Vasiliev, E. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525

    2019

  98. [108]

    2023, Galaxies, 11, 77

    Vieira, K., Korchagin, V ., Carraro, G., & Lutsenko, A. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 77

    2023

  99. [109]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261 V oges, W., Aschenbach, B., Boller, T., et al. 1999, A&A, 349, 389

    2020

  100. [110]

    2015, MNRAS, 454, 238

    Walch, S., Girichidis, P., Naab, T., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 238

    2015

  101. [111]

    2022, A&A, 660, A142

    Wang, T.-M., Magnelli, B., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A142

    2022

  102. [112]

    2020, ApJS, 248, 32

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V ., & Pakmor, R. 2020, ApJS, 248, 32

    2020

  103. [113]

    R., Hopkins, P

    Wetzel, A. R., Hopkins, P. F., Kim, J.-h., et al. 2016, ApJ, 827, L23

    2016

  104. [114]

    Wibking, B. D. & Krumholz, M. R. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 5972

    2023

  105. [115]

    G., Hollenbach, D., McKee, C

    Wolfire, M. G., Hollenbach, D., McKee, C. F., Tielens, A. G. G. M., & Bakes, E. L. O. 1995, ApJ, 443, 152

    1995

  106. [116]

    W., Arendt, R

    Yusef-Zadeh, F., Hewitt, J. W., Arendt, R. G., et al. 2009, ApJ, 702, 178

    2009

  107. [117]

    E., Pillsworth, R., Robinson, H., & Wadsley, J

    Zhao, B., Pudritz, R. E., Pillsworth, R., Robinson, H., & Wadsley, J. 2024, Fil- amentary Hierarchies and Superbubbles: Galactic Multiscale MHD Simula- tions of GMC to Star Cluster Formation Article number, page 22 of 26 Junia Göller et al.: Introducing the Rhea simulations of...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.