Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 150 references

Reconciling extragalactic star formation efficiencies with theory: insights from PHANGS

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the host galaxy's gravitational field, rather than turbulence inside clouds alone, sets the near-constant star formation efficiency per free-fall time seen across 67 nearby galaxies.

desk verdict A transparent, well-built extension of MFF models whose central claim—environment sets the power-law slope—is carried by a fitted α map rather than by independent data. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.19832 v1 pith:KD42D3EL submitted 2025-05-26 astro-ph.GA

Sharon E. Meidt , Simon C. O. Glover , Ralf S. Klessen , Adam K. Leroy , Jiayi Sun , Oscar Agertz , Eric Emsellem , Jonathan D. Henshaw
show 17 more authors
Lukas Neumann Erik Rosolowsky Eva Schinnerer Dyas Utomo Arjen van der Wel Frank Bigiel Dario Colombo Damian R. Gleis Kathryn Grasha Jindra Gensior Oleg Y. Gnedin Annie Hughes Eric J. Murphy Miguel Querejeta Rowan J. Smith Thomas G. Williams Antonio Usero
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords starformationefficiencyperfree-falltimeturbulence-regulatedpower-lawdensityPDFmulti-free-fallmodelsgalacticpotentialvirialparameterPHANGSsurveydensegasfraction
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

PHANGS measurements of the star formation efficiency per free-fall time in extragalactic cloud populations show almost no dependence on how turbulent or how far from virial balance the clouds are, contradicting standard turbulence-regulated star formation theories. This paper argues that the tension dissolves once the host galaxy's gravitational potential is allowed to regulate cloud-scale behavior. With a density distribution that includes a broad power-law tail beginning at the density where gas self-gravity exceeds the galactic background, with core formation restricted to densities above the collapse threshold, and with density structure renewed for only a fraction of a free-fall time, a multi-free-fall model matches the observed efficiencies without lowering the core-to-star efficiency. The match requires a power-law slope that varies systematically with environment, being shallower (more high-density gas) exactly where clouds are most super-virial. If this is right, the near-constant efficiency is a sign of galaxy regulation, not of virialized-cloud turbulence alone.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the kinked hybrid lognormal-plus-power-law density PDF, in which the power-law tail begins at the galactic decoupling density $\rho_G$ (Eq. 25), the density where gas self-gravity first exceeds the background galactic potential, rather than at the collapse threshold or at the density required by a smooth (differentiable) PDF. Core formation is restricted to gas above the Krumholz-McKee critical density (Eq. 4), and the density PDF is assumed to be replenished only for the time $t_{\rm stop}=t_{\rm ff,G}$, the free-fall time at $\rho_G$, which is shorter than a cloud free-fall time (Eq. 31). These ingredients enter the sgMFF efficiency formula, Eq. (32), which combines the normalization of the hybrid PDF with a multi-free-fall integral above the critical density. The slope $\alpha$ of the power-law tail is left free and is fitted to the observations; it carries the entire environmental variation in the model.

What would settle it

Measure the dense gas fraction (for example HCN(1-0)/CO line ratios, tracing gas above roughly $10^3\,{\rm cm^{-3}}$) as a function of virial parameter across the PHANGS regions: the model predicts that gas furthest from virial balance systematically contains the most high-density gas, with dense gas fractions rising toward galaxy centers in step with the virial parameter. A dataset showing dense gas fractions that are flat or declining with virial parameter would falsify the galaxy-regulation picture. A second, sharper test is to resolve the density PDF shape at Mach numbers of order 10 to 100: the model requires a downward kink from lognormal to a broad power-law beginning near the cloud edge, whereas a smooth or upward-kinking PDF would rule out the proposed mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the apparent conflict between PHANGS efficiencies and turbulence-regulated star formation models is resolved when the cloud's internal density structure and the duration of star formation are tied to the competition between gas self-gravity and the background galactic potential rather than to cloud-scale turbulence alone. The authors construct a hybrid density PDF that is lognormal at low densities and kinks downward into a power-law tail starting at the density $\rho_G$ where gas kinematically decouples from the galaxy (Eq. 25), restrict core formation to densities above the Krumholz-McKee critical density (Eq. 4), and limit PDF renewal to the free-fall time at $\rho_G$ (Eq. 31). In this 'self-gravitating' multi-free-fall (sgMFF) model, the efficiency is set mainly by the power-law slope $\alpha$, and matching the PHANGS measurements requires slopes between roughly 1.5 and 3 that become systematically shallower toward galaxy centers and toward higher virial parameters. Two opposing effects of the galaxy, pushing gas out of virial balance while forcing more of it to high density, nearly cancel, so the galaxy leaves little imprint on the efficiency itself.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on the premise that the extra kinetic energy that makes clouds look super-virial comes from the host galaxy's gravitational field, so that the density where gas self-gravity beats the galactic potential is the right place for the power-law tail to begin; if feedback, magnetic fields, or cloud collisions cause the super-virial state instead, the threshold is wrong, the fitted slopes lose their physical meaning, and the match to the data is a coincidence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The near-constant observed $\epsilon_{\rm ff}$ across PHANGS galaxies is reproduced without lowering the core-to-star efficiency $\epsilon_{\rm core}=0.5$, removing the ad hoc renormalization that multi-free-fall models previously required.
  • The power-law slope needed to match the data decreases (more high-density gas) with increasing virial parameter and toward galaxy centers, linking cloud internal structure to the galactic environment.
  • Dense gas fractions predicted from the fitted PDFs (fraction above roughly $10^3\,{\rm cm^{-3}}$) fall in the observed HCN/CO range, providing an independent check on the model's density structure.
  • Within main-sequence disks the sgMFF model behaves like the original virialized single-free-fall model of Krumholz and McKee, so disk star formation can be modeled as approximately virial even though the gas appears super-virial.
  • Outside disks, at high redshift or in starbursts before a stellar disk builds up, the flexible multi-free-fall models remain the better choice, and the same formula predicts substantially higher efficiencies there.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the calibration between power-law slope and virial parameter (Eq. 35) is physical rather than a fitting artifact, then virial parameter could serve as a cheap proxy for internal density structure in galaxies, letting future surveys predict dense-gas content from kinematics alone.
  • The same framework could be tested on the time-evolution side: if the shallow slopes in galaxy centers reflect faster or more advanced cloud evolution, cloud lifetime measurements as a function of environment should show systematically shorter lifetimes where $\alpha$ is low.
  • A direct test is to measure the density PDF shape, for instance through the ratio of gas traced at different density thresholds, and check for the predicted downward kink at high Mach number; an upward kink or a purely lognormal shape would favor the smooth hybrid PDFs the paper argues against.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes modifications to standard turbulence-regulated star formation models to reconcile them with PHANGS measurements of the cloud-population-averaged star formation efficiency per free-fall time epsilon_ff. The authors introduce a hybrid lognormal plus power-law density PDF whose power-law component begins at the density rho_G where gas self-gravity overcomes the background galactic potential (Eq. 25), restrict core formation to gas above the KM05 critical density (Eq. 4), and assume the density PDF is replenished only for t_stop = t_ff,G (Eqs. 29-31). The resulting 'self-gravitating' multi-free-fall model (Eq. 32) predicts strongly reduced epsilon_ff compared to pure-lognormal MFF models. Fitting the power-law slope alpha to the 841 PHANGS regions yields alpha in the range roughly 1.6-2.8 that varies systematically with environment, and the authors derive an empirical alpha-alpha_vir relation (Eq. 35). They argue that galaxy regulation keeps epsilon_ff nearly constant, making the sgMFF model behave like KM05 single-free-fall models in disks, while MFF models remain preferable outside disks.

Significance. If the interpretation is correct, this is a useful contribution: it offers an analytic prescription connecting the virial state of extragalactic clouds to their internal density structure and star formation efficiency, and it explains why observed epsilon_ff is nearly independent of cloud-scale velocity dispersion and virial parameter. The paper is careful in deriving Eq. (32), discusses the model choices in detail, and is honest about the empirical nature of Eq. (35). However, the central evidence for galaxy regulation is the recovered map of alpha, which is solved by forcing Eq. (32) to match the observed epsilon_ff; it is not independently measured. The external check via dense gas fractions is ensemble-level rather than per-aperture. The scientific claim is therefore plausible but not yet fully supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [§6.2.1, §6.5, Eq. (35), Appendix C] The power-law slope alpha is fitted per group by solving Eq. (32) against the observed epsilon_ff, and Eq. (35) is then calibrated to those fitted alpha values. The Appendix C predictions use Eq. (35) as input, so they are not independent tests; by construction they reduce to the fitted relation. The paper acknowledges that Eq. (35) is empirical, but the abstract and Section 6.6 interpret the resulting alpha variation as evidence for galaxy regulation. To support the central claim, the authors should provide an independent constraint on alpha for the same regions, for example per-aperture dense gas fractions from HCN/CO or multi-line observations, or explicitly reframe the match as a proof-of-concept rather than a validated physical inference.
  2. [§5.1.1, Eq. (25)] The threshold density rho_G is set by the specific choice gamma_G(k=0) ~ 2.5 from Meidt et al. (2018), and the fitted alpha values and the alpha-alpha_vir relation depend on this threshold. If the super-virial states of real clouds are caused by feedback, magnetic fields, or cloud collisions instead of galactic forcing, rho_G is misplaced and the recovered alpha values lose their physical interpretation. The authors should test robustness by varying gamma_G over a plausible range, or by comparing against an alternative prescription for rho_G, and show that the systematic trends in alpha with environment survive.
  3. [§6.4, Fig. 6] The only external check offered is the comparison of model-derived dense gas fractions f_d with the Neumann et al. (2023) relation in the middle column of Fig. 6. This is an ensemble-level comparison against a fitted literature relation, not a per-aperture comparison using the same 841 PHANGS regions. The authors should perform a quantitative per-region comparison, for example by predicting f_d from the fitted alpha in each region and comparing directly with measured HCN/CO or other dense-gas tracers, to demonstrate that the fitted alpha field has independent support.
  4. [§6.2.2, §6.5] Uncertainties in the fitted alpha values are not propagated into the reported trends or into Eq. (35). The quoted value R_alpha = 0.23 +/- 0.06 is computed from the mean and rms of (alpha - 1.5) log_10 alpha_vir across the plotted data points, treating each fitted alpha as exact. Given that alpha is determined by a nonlinear fit with bounded ranges and depends on the arbitrary grouping into galactocentric radius and surface-density percentile bins, the authors should propagate fitting uncertainties and test sensitivity to binning and sorting choices before claiming a robust alpha-alpha_vir calibration.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption reads 'between 30th and 30th percentiles' for the circular symbol style; this should presumably be 'between the 30th and 70th percentiles.'
  2. [§6.5, Eq. (35)] Equation (35) is described as 'chosen to asymptote to alpha = 1.5 at large alpha_vir,' but the expression alpha = 1.5 + R_alpha log_10 alpha_vir grows without bound as alpha_vir increases. Please clarify the intended functional form or correct the asymptotic statement.
  3. [Appendix A] In the description of the stellar scale height, the text refers to 'the empirical scaling relation measured by X between scale height and stellar mass'; the placeholder X should be replaced with the proper reference.
  4. [Various] There are minor typos, including 'Appendx A' in Section 5.1.1, 'rejunevate' in Section 4.4, and 'We emphase' in Section 6.5. These do not affect the science but should be corrected in revision.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Appendix C sgMFF 'predictions' are calibrated to the same PHANGS ε_ff data via fitted α and Eq. (35), so the match is by construction; the galaxy-regulation interpretation rests on an independently unmeasured α map.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 6.2.1 ("Using the comparison between the model and the observations to constrain α"), Eq. (32)]
    "With our approach – solving for the value of α that best matches the predictions to the observations – our determinations of α are only as good as the ϵff model, and they inherit the uncertainties associated with factors that are either not well-constrained or incorporated into the model at present."

    The power-law slope α is the only remaining free parameter after σ_s, s_crit, and s_t are fixed empirically. It is chosen by non-linear least-squares fitting of Eq. (32) to each group's observed ε_ff. Therefore any later statement that the sgMFF model 'matches' PHANGS ε_ff with a particular α is a restatement of the fit, not an independent test. The paper explicitly acknowledges this in the quoted sentence, making the subsequent match a fitted-input-called-prediction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 6.5, Eq. (35), and Appendix C]
    "In this section we illustrate the trends in ϵff vs. cloud scale properties predicted by Eq. (32) when using the calibration in Eq. (35) between α and αvir suggested in § 6.5 from the match between the sgMFF model and the PHANGS measurements. Substituting instead the α values fitted region by region (plotted in Figure 6) back into the model would (by design) yield predictions for ϵff that match the observations as closely as possible."

    Equation (35), with R_α = 0.23 ± 0.06, is fit to the previously fitted α values in Figure 7. Using this calibration in Appendix C to generate sgMFF ε_ff versus σ curves and then comparing them with PHANGS data is therefore circular: the calibrated relation is the inverse of the fit applied to the same measured ε_ff values. The paper itself labels the calibration 'purely empirical' and admits the direct substitution of fitted α values would match the observations 'by design,' so the Appendix C agreement cannot validate the model or the galaxy-regulation claim.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is partially circular. The model Eq. (32) is fitted to PHANGS ε_ff by solving for α, and the recovered α map is then used—via the empirically calibrated Eq. (35)—to produce sgMFF 'predictions' that are compared with the same PHANGS data in Appendix C. That specific comparison reduces by construction to the fit, so those curves are not independent validations. The galaxy-regulation interpretation (near-constant ε_ff because the galaxy adjusts density structure while raising α_vir) rests on the systematic variation of this fitted α, not on an independently measured density-PDF slope. Non-circular support does exist: the model is anchored to the KM05 critical density, observed local-cloud α ranges, and an external ensemble-level dense-gas-fraction trend from Neumann et al. (2023). These give the fitted PDFs plausibility, but they do not independently establish the environmental α trends or the causal regulation claim. Because the central interpretive step is carried by a fitted parameter whose Appendix C 'prediction' is the same data run through the inverse fit, a score of 6 is appropriate: partial circularity, with the descriptive fits retaining some independent external anchoring.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumed hybrid PDF shape, the galactic-potential threshold for self-gravity, finite PDF replenishment, and the KM05 critical density. The only parameters tuned to PHANGS in this work are alpha and the derived R_alpha; other constants are inherited from prior literature. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Power-law slope alpha = about 1.5 to 3.0, varying by radius and surface-density percentile
    Single structural degree of freedom in Eq. (32); fitted group by group to PHANGS epsilon_ff in section 6.2.1 and used to define the alpha-alpha_vir relation.
  • R_alpha scaling in Eq. (35) = 0.23 +/- 0.06
    Calibrated in section 6.5 from the fitted alpha values; enters the alpha-alpha_vir relation used in Appendix C model predictions.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The density PDF is a kinked hybrid lognormal plus power law of fixed slope alpha, with the transition at s_G = ln(rho_G/rho_0) given by Eq. (25).
    This form is motivated by local cloud observations and by the galactic bottleneck model, but it is not derived; it is the structural assumption on which the sgMFF predictions rest.
  • domain assumption Self-gravitation sets in where gas self-gravity exceeds the background galactic potential, with gamma_G(k=0) about 2.5 and rho_G from Eqs. (24) and (25).
    Adopted from Meidt et al. (2018, 2020); the threshold is calibrated in prior work and used to set both the onset of the power law and the PDF replenishment time.
  • ad hoc to paper The density PDF is in steady state only for t_stop = t_ff,G, the free-fall time at the self-gravitating threshold, rather than for a full cloud free-fall time.
    The finite-replenishment factor gamma_0/gamma_G in Eq. (31) is a modeling choice; without it the multi-freefall normalization would be higher by roughly a factor of 2.5.
  • domain assumption The collapse threshold for core formation is the KM05 critical density, s_crit approximately alpha_vir M^2 in Eq. (4), and turbulence-regulated star formation theory applies to extragalactic cloud populations.
    The paper adopts this standard turbulence-regulated star formation framework as its baseline; all model variants share this assumption.
  • domain assumption For long-visibility extragalactic tracers, t_obs is approximately t_life, which is approximately t_ff(rho_0), so the time-averaged observed efficiency can be compared to Eqs. (14) and (15).
    Inherited from Chevance et al. (2020) and Leroy et al. (2025); if t_obs is much larger or smaller, the finite-replenishment correction changes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reconciling extragalactic star formation efficiencies with theory: insights from PHANGS." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KD42D3EL

@misc{pith2026250519832,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reconciling extragalactic star formation efficiencies with theory: insights from PHANGS},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KD42D3EL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.19832}
}
abstract

New extragalactic measurements of the cloud population-averaged star formation (SF) efficiency per freefall time $\rm\epsilon_{\rm ff}$ from PHANGS show little sign of theoretically predicted dependencies on cloud-scale virial level or velocity dispersion. We explore ways to bring theory into consistency with observations, highlighting systematic variations in internal density structure that must happen together with an increase in virial level typical towards galaxy centers. To introduce these variations into conventional turbulence-regulated SF models we adopt three adjustments motivated by the host galaxy's influence on the cloud-scale: we incorporate self-gravity and a gas density distribution that contains a broad power-law (PL) component and resembles the structure observed in local resolved clouds, we let the internal gas kinematics include motion in the background potential and let this regulate the onset of self-gravitation, and we assume that the gas density distribution is in a steady-state for only a fraction of a freefall time. The combined result is a strong reduction to $\rm\epsilon_{\rm ff}$ predicted in multi-freefall (MFF) scenarios compared to purely lognormal probability density functions and variations that are tied to the PL slope $\alpha$. The $\alpha$ needed to match PHANGS $\rm\epsilon_{\rm ff}$'s vary systematically with environment in the sense that gas sitting furthest from virial balance contains more gas at high density. With this `galaxy regulation' behavior included, our `self-gravitating' sgMFF models function similar to the original, roughly `virialized cloud' single-freefall models. However, outside disks with their characteristic regulation, the flexible MFF models may be better suited.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.19832 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The time-average ϵff measured in 1.5-kpc wide hexagonal apertures sampling throughout 67 nearby galaxies targeted by PHANGS, as measured by Leroy et al. (2025). Measurements are plotted against the average cloud-scale velocity dispersion ⟨σ cloud mol ⟩ in each aperture (Leroy et al. 2025; see Sun et al. 2022, 2023 for details). Representative values for the z ∼ 1 clumps examined by Dessauges-Zavadsky et al. (2023) a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Left) Predictions for ϵff from turbulence-regulated SF models with a hybrid LN+PL smooth-PDF proposed by Burkhart (2018) in the single-free-fall (blue) or multi-free-fall (red) scenarios. In these hybrid PDFs, the transition from lognormal to power-law behavior is set to the critical density, st = scrit, as argued by Burkhart & Mocz (2019). A range of power-law slopes 1.6 < α < 2.1 set to the range observed by Kain… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (Left) Predictions for ϵff from turbulence-regulated SF models with the hybrid LN+PL PDF proposed here (Eq. 32) in the single-free-fall (blue) or multi-free-fall (red) scenarios. In these hybrid PDFs, the transition from lognormal to power-law behavior is set to density threshold for gas to kinematically decouple from the galaxy (Meidt et al. 2020). A range of power-law slopes 1.6 < α < 2.1 set to the range observed… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows the radial distribution of γ measured on the 150-pc cloud scale throughout the target sample, adopting k = 0. Values range from γk=0 ∼ 0.5 at inner radii to γk=0 ∼ 2. From the median (mean) γk=0 = 1.1 (γk=0 = 1.08), we infer that gas self-gravity and the galactic…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Histograms of the power-law slope α in the hybrid (LN+PL) PDFs that match four different SF models (black, blue and red and red dashed) to the ϵff measured in PHANGS. The fiducial shortened dura￾tion broad PL MFF model is shown in black, the full duration broad PL MFF …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Diagnostics of the hybrid LN+PL density PDFs that match different MFF (and SFF) SF models to the ϵff values measured in PHANGS, from left to right: the slope of the PL component of the PDF α, the dense gas fraction fd measured above a fixed density threshold (see text)…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Variation in the PL slope α calculated with the shortened du￾ration model given in Eq. (32) as a function of the cloud-scale virial parameter αvir. Symbol shapes and colors are as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

150 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abreu-Vicente, J., Kainulainen, J., Stutz, A., Henning, Th., Beuther, H., 2015 A&A, 581A, 74

    2015

  2. [2]

    Agertz, O., Renaud, F., Feltzing, S. et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 5826

    2021

  3. [3]

    Alves, J., Lombardi, M., & Lada, C. J. 2007, A&A, 462, 17

    2007

  4. [4]

    Alves, J., Lombardi, M., & Lada, C. J. 2017, A&A, 606, L2

    2017

  5. [5]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 1277

    Anathpindika, S., Burkert, A., Kuiper, R. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 1277

    2018

  6. [6]

    L., Teyssier R., Dekel A., 2024, arXiv, arXiv:2410.20530

    Andalman Z. L., Teyssier R., Dekel A., 2024, arXiv, arXiv:2410.20530

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Andr\' e , P., Men'shchikov, A., Bontemps, S., et al.\ 2010, A&A, 518, 102

    2010

  8. [8]

    M., Burkhart, B., Semenov, V

    Appel, S. M., Burkhart, B., Semenov, V. 2022, ApJ, 927, 75

    2022

Show all 150 references
  1. [9]

    Ballesteros-Paredes, J., Vázquez-Semadeni, E., Gazol, A. et al. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 1436

    2011

  2. [10]

    Barnes, A., Glover, S., Kreckel, K. et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 5362

    2021

  3. [11]

    & McKee, C.F

    Bertoldi, F. & McKee, C.F. 1992, ApJ, 395, 140

    1992

  4. [12]

    & Mocz, P

    Burkhart, B. & Mocz, P. 2019, ApJ, 879, 129

    2019

  5. [13]

    2018, ApJ, 863, 118

    Burkhart, B. 2018, ApJ, 863, 118

    2018

  6. [14]

    & Chang, P., 2018, MNRAS, 474, 4818

    Caldwell, S. & Chang, P., 2018, MNRAS, 474, 4818

    2018

  7. [15]

    Chevance, M., Kruijssen, J. M. D., Hygate, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 2872

    2020

  8. [16]

    Chevance, M, Kruijssen, J. M. D., Krumholz, M. R. et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 272

    2022

  9. [17]

    2014, ApJ, 784, 3

    Colombo, D., Hughes, A., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, 3

    2014

  10. [18]

    C., Kritsuk A

    Collins D. C., Kritsuk A. G., Padoan P., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 13

    2012

  11. [19]

    A., Young, L

    Davis, T. A., Young, L. M., Crocker, A. F. et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3427

    2014

  12. [20]

    Dessauges-Zavadsky, M., Richard, J., Combes, F., 2023, MNRAS, 519, 6222

    2023

  13. [21]

    Schneider, N

    Dib S., Bontemps, S. Schneider, N. et al., 2020, A&A, 642, 177

    2020

  14. [22]

    Dobbs, C., Burkert, A., Pringle, J. E. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 2935

    2011

  15. [23]

    Dobbs, C., & Pringle, J. E. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 653

    2013

  16. [24]

    Pettitt, A

    Dobbs, C., Rosolowsky, E. Pettitt, A. et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4997

    2019

  17. [25]

    Z., Veltchev, T

    Donkov, S., Stefanov, I. Z., Veltchev, T. V. & Klessen, R. S. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 3655

    2021

  18. [26]

    Z., Veltchev, T

    Donkov, S., Stefanov, I. Z., Veltchev, T. V. & Klessen, R. S. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 5726

    2022

  19. [27]

    & Dobbs, C

    Duarte-Cabral, A. & Dobbs, C. L. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3667

    2016

  20. [28]

    a rn T., Agertz O., \

    Ejdetj \"a rn T., Agertz O., \"O stlin G., Renaud F., Romeo A. B., 2022, MNRAS, 514, 480

    2022

  21. [29]

    L., Evans, N

    Enoch, M. L., Evans, N. J., Sargent, A. I., Glenn, J., Rosolowsky, E., & Myers, P.\ 2008, ApJ, 684, 1240

    2008

  22. [30]

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

    Evans, N. J., Kim, J.-G., & Ostriker, E. 2022, ApJL, 929, 18

    2022

  23. [31]

    S., & Schmidt, W

    Federrath C., Klessen R. S., & Schmidt, W. 2008, ApJ, 688, 79

    2008

  24. [32]

    & Klessen R

    Federrath C. & Klessen R. S., 2012, ApJ, 761, 156

    2012

  25. [33]

    & Klessen R

    Federrath C. & Klessen R. S., 2013, ApJ, 763, 51

    2013

  26. [34]

    Federrath C., 2015, MNRAS, 450, 4035

    2015

  27. [35]

    S., Iapichino, L., & Beattie, J

    Federrath C., Klessen R. S., Iapichino, L., & Beattie, J. R., 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 365

    2021

  28. [36]

    B., Blackman, E

    Field, G. B., Blackman, E. G., & Keto, E. R., 2011, MNRAS, 416, 710

    2011

  29. [37]

    Gallagher, M., Leroy, A. et al. 2018, ApJ, 868, L38

    2018

  30. [38]

    Gensior, J., Kruijssen, J. M. D., Keller, B. W., 2020, MNRAS, 495, 199

    2020

  31. [39]

    & Kruijssen, J

    Gensior, J. & Kruijssen, J. M. D., 2021, MNRAS, 500, 2000

    2021

  32. [40]

    A., Bureau, M

    Gensior, J., Davis, T. A., Bureau, M. et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 5590

    2023

  33. [41]

    Girichidis, P., Federrath, C., Banerjee, R., Klessen, R. S. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 613

    2012

  34. [42]

    Konstandin, L., Whitworth, A

    Girichidis, P. Konstandin, L., Whitworth, A. & Klessen R., 2014, ApJ, 781, 91

    2014

  35. [43]

    Offner, S

    Girichidis, P. Offner, S. S. R., Kritsuk, A. G. et al. 2020, Space Science Reviews, Volume 216, Issue 4, article id.68

    2020

  36. [44]

    B., Devriendt J., Slyz A., 2019, MNRAS, 486, 5482

    Grisdale K., Agertz O., Renaud F., Romeo A. B., Devriendt J., Slyz A., 2019, MNRAS, 486, 5482

    2019

  37. [45]

    Y., Hopkins, P

    Grudi\'c, M. Y., Hopkins, P. F. , Lee, E. J. et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 1501

    2019

  38. [46]

    Heitsch, F

    Hartmann, L., Ballesteros-Paredes, J. Heitsch, F. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 1457

    2012

  39. [47]

    D., Kruijssen, J

    Henshaw, J. D., Kruijssen, J. M. D., Longmore, S. N. et al. 2020, NatAs, 4, 1064

    2020

  40. [48]

    D., et al

    Henshaw, J. D., et al. in prep

  41. [49]

    Heyer, M., Krawczyk, C., Duval, J., Jackson, J. M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 1092

    2009

  42. [50]

    Heyer, M., Dame, T. M. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 583

    2015

  43. [51]

    & Chabrier, G

    Hennebelle, P. & Chabrier, G. 2011, ApJ, 743, 29\\

    2011

  44. [52]

    E., Colombo D., et al

    Hughes, A., Meidt, S. E., Colombo D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 46

    2013

  45. [53]

    C., Mac Low, M.-M., Klessen, R

    Ibanez-Mejia, J. C., Mac Low, M.-M., Klessen, R. S. & Baczynski, C. 2016, ApJ, 824, 41

    2016

  46. [54]

    & Chabrier, G., 2020, ApJ, 903, 2

    Jaupart, E. & Chabrier, G., 2020, ApJ, 903, 2

    2020

  47. [55]

    J., Bigiel, F., Leroy, A

    Jiménez-Donaire, M. J., Bigiel, F., Leroy, A. K., et al. 2019, ApJ, 880, 127

    2019

  48. [56]

    2009, A&A, 508, 35

    Kainulainen, J., Beuther, H., Henning, T., Plume, R. 2009, A&A, 508, 35

    2009

  49. [57]

    Kainulainen, J., Beuther, H., Banerjee, R. et al. 2011, A&A, 530, A64

    2011

  50. [58]

    Kainulainen, J., Federrath, C., & Henning, T.\ 2014, Science, 344, 183

    2014

  51. [59]

    Khullar, S., Federrath, C., Krumholz, M. R. & Matzner, C. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 4335

    2021

  52. [60]

    2018, ApJ, 859, 68

    Kim, J.-G., Kim, W.-T., & Ostriker, E.C. 2018, ApJ, 859, 68

    2018

  53. [61]

    Kim, J., Chevance, M., Kruijssen, D. et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, L20

    2023

  54. [62]

    Klessen, R. S. 2000 ApJ, 535, 869

    2000

  55. [63]

    Klessen, R. S. & Burkert, A. 2001, ApJ, 549, 386

    2001

  56. [64]

    Klessen, R. S. & Glover, S. C. O., Star Formation in Galaxy Evolution: Connecting Numerical Models to Reality, Saas-Fee Advanced Course, Volume 43. ISBN 978-3-662-47889-9. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2016, p. 85

    2016

  57. [65]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 5233

    K\"ortgen, B., Federrath, C., Banerjee, R. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 5233

    2019

  58. [66]

    & Teyssier, R

    Kretschmer, N. & Teyssier, R. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1385

    2020

  59. [67]

    G., Norman, M

    Kritsuk, A. G., Norman, M. L., Wagner, R. 2011, ApJ, 727, 20K

    2011

  60. [68]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D., & Longmore, S. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 3239

    2014

  61. [69]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D., Schruba, A., Chevance, M. et al. 2019, Nature, 569, 519

    2019

  62. [70]

    Krumholz M. R. & McKee C. F., 2005, ApJ, 630, 250

    2005

  63. [71]

    J., et al., 2010, ApJ, 724, 687

    Lada C. J., et al., 2010, ApJ, 724, 687

    2010

  64. [72]

    E., Rosolowsky, E

    Lang, P., Meidt, S. E., Rosolowsky, E. et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, 122

    2020

  65. [73]

    Larson, R. B. 1969, MNRAS, 145, 271

    1969

  66. [74]

    J., Chang P., Murray N., 2015, ApJ, 800, 49

    Lee E. J., Chang P., Murray N., 2015, ApJ, 800, 49

    2015

  67. [75]

    K., Walter, F., Brinks, E

    Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., Brinks, E. 2008, AJ, 136, 2782

    2008

  68. [76]

    K., Walter, F., Sandstrom, K

    Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., Sandstrom, K. et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 19

    2013

  69. [77]

    K., Usero, A

    Leroy, A. K., Usero, A. Schruba, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 217

    2017

  70. [78]

    K., Schinnerer, E., Hughes, A

    Leroy, A. K., Schinnerer, E., Hughes, A. et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, 71

    2017

  71. [79]

    K., Schinnerer, E., Hughes, A

    Leroy, A. K., Schinnerer, E., Hughes, A. et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 43

    2021

  72. [80]

    K., Sun, J., Meidt, S

    Leroy, A. K., Sun, J., Meidt, S. E. et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 14

    2025

  73. [81]

    A., Onishi K., Smith M., North E., Iguchi S., 2021, MNRAS, 505, 4048

    Liu L., Bureau M., Blitz L., Davis T. A., Onishi K., Smith M., North E., Iguchi S., 2021, MNRAS, 505, 4048

    2021

  74. [82]

    & Lada, C

    Lombardi, M., Alves, J. & Lada, C. 2010, A&A, 519, 7

    2010

  75. [83]

    & Lada, C

    Lombardi, M., Alves, J. & Lada, C. 2015, A&A, 576, 1

    2015

  76. [84]

    et al., 2024, MNRAS, 531, 3888

    Lu, A., Haggard, D., Bureau, M. et al., 2024, MNRAS, 531, 3888

    2024

  77. [85]

    Mac Low M.-M., & Klessen R. S. 2004, Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys., 76, 125

    2004

  78. [86]

    Matzner, C. D. & McKee, C. 2000, ApJ, 545, 364

    2000

  79. [87]

    McKee, C., & Ostriker E. C. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 565

    2007

  80. [88]

    E., Rosolowsky, E., Sun, J

    Meidt, S. E., Rosolowsky, E., Sun, J. et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, L18

    2023

  81. [89]

    E., Leroy, A., Querejeta, M., et al

    Meidt, S. E., Leroy, A., Querejeta, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 113

    2021

  82. [90]

    E., Glover, S

    Meidt, S. E., Glover, S. C. O. Kruijssen, J. M. D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 892, 73

    2020

  83. [91]

    E., Leroy, A., Rosolowsky, E., et al

    Meidt, S. E., Leroy, A., Rosolowsky, E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 100

    2018

  84. [92]

    E., Hughes, A., Dobbs, C

    Meidt, S. E., Hughes, A., Dobbs, C. et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 72

    2015

  85. [93]

    E., Schinnerer, E., van de Ven, G

    Meidt, S. E., Schinnerer, E., van de Ven, G. et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 144

    2014

  86. [94]

    E., Hughes, A., Schinnerer, E

    Meidt, S. E., Hughes, A., Schinnerer, E. et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 45

    2013

  87. [95]

    Z., Glover, S

    Molina, F. Z., Glover, S. C. O., Federrath, C., & Klessen, R. S. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 2680

    2012

  88. [96]

    & Chang, P

    Murray, N. & Chang, P. 2015, ApJ, 804, 44

    2015

  89. [97]

    R., Colombo, D., Duarte-Cabral, A

    Neralwar, K. R., Colombo, D., Duarte-Cabral, A. et al., 2022, A&A, 664, 84

    2022

  90. [98]

    J., Bigiel, F., et al

    Neumann, L., Gallagher, M. J., Bigiel, F., et al. 2023b, MNRAS, 521, 3348

  91. [99]

    J., Leroy, A

    Neumann, L., Jimenez-Donaire, M. J., Leroy, A. K. et al. 2023, 2024arXiv241210506N

    2023

  92. [100]

    C., Stone, J

    Ostriker, E. C., Stone, J. M., Gammie, C. F.\ 2001, ApJ, 546, 980

    2001

  93. [101]

    C., McKee, C

    Ostriker, E. C., McKee, C. & Leroy, A. K. 2010, ApJ, 721, 975

    2010

  94. [102]

    B., Semenov, V

    Segovia Otero, A., Agertz, O., Renaud, F., Kraljic, K., Romeo, A. B., Semenov, V. A. 2024, arXiv241008266

    2024

  95. [103]

    & Nordlund, A

    Padoan, P. & Nordlund, A. 2011, ApJ, 730, 40

    2011

  96. [104]

    & Nordlund, A

    Padoan, P., Haugbølle, T. & Nordlund, A. 2012, ApJ, 759, L27

    2012

  97. [105]

    & Nordlund, A

    Padoan, P., Pan, L., Haugbølle, T. & Nordlund, A. 2016, ApJ, 822, 11

    2016

  98. [106]

    C., Chabrier, G

    Padoan, P., Federrath. C., Chabrier, G. et al. 2014, Protostars and Planets VI, Henrik Beuther, Ralf S. Klessen, Cornelis P. Dullemond, and Thomas Henning (eds.), University of Arizona Press, Tucson, p.77-100

    2014

  99. [107]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 179

    Parmentier, G. 2019, ApJ, 887, 179

    2019

  100. [108]

    Pasquali, A

    Parmentier, G. Pasquali, A. 2020, ApJ, 903, 56

    2020

  101. [109]

    Querejeta, M., Schinnerer, E., Schruba, A. et al. 2019, A&A, 625A, 19

    2019

  102. [110]

    Querejeta, M., Schinnerer, E., Meidt, S. et al. 2021, A&A, 656, 133

    2021

  103. [111]

    H., Clark, P

    Penaloza, C. H., Clark, P. C., Glover, S. C. O. & Klessen, R. S., MNRAS, 475, 1508

  104. [112]

    Penston, M. V. 1969, MNRAS, 144, 425

    1969

  105. [113]

    L., Baba, J

    Pettitt, A., Dobbs, C. L., Baba, J. et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 1159

    2020

  106. [114]

    Renaud, F., Agertz, O., Read, J. I. et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 5846

    2021

  107. [115]

    Renaud, F., Agertz, O., Andersson, E. P. et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 5868

    2021

  108. [116]

    B., 2024, A&A, 687, A91

    Renaud F., Agertz O., Romeo A. B., 2024, A&A, 687, A91

    2024

  109. [117]

    Rosolowsky E., Leroy A., 2006, PASP, 118, 590

    2006

  110. [118]

    Rosolowsky, E., Hughes, A., Leroy, A. K. et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 1218

    2021

  111. [119]

    I., et al.\ 2010, ApJ, 710, 1247

    Sadavoy, S. I., et al.\ 2010, ApJ, 710, 1247

    2010

  112. [120]

    M., Federrath, C., Kewley, L

    Salim, D. M., Federrath, C., Kewley, L. J. 2015, ApJ, 806, 36

    2015

  113. [121]

    Meidt, S

    Schinnerer, E. Meidt, S. E., Pety, J. et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 42

    2013

  114. [122]

    Schinnerer, E., & Leroy, A. K. 2024, ARA&A, 62, 369

    2024

  115. [123]

    Schneider, N., Ossenkopf, V., Csengeri, T. et al. 2015, A&A, 575, A79

    2015

  116. [124]

    Schneider, N., Ossenkopf-Okada, V., Clarke, S. et al. 2022,A&A, 666, A165

    2022

  117. [125]

    Schruba, A., Kruijssen, J. M. D., Leroy, A. K. 2019, ApJ, 883, 2

    2019

  118. [126]

    Segovia Otero \'A ., Renaud F., Agertz O., 2022, MNRAS, 516, 2272

    2022

  119. [127]

    A., Kravtsov, A

    Semenov, V. A., Kravtsov, A. V., Gnedin, N. Y. 2017, ApJ, 845, 133

    2017

  120. [128]

    A., Kravtsov, A

    Semenov, V. A., Kravtsov, A. V., Gnedin, N. Y. 2018, ApJ, 861, 4

    2018

  121. [129]

    A., Conroy, C., & Hernquist, L

    Semenov, V. A., Conroy, C., & Hernquist, L. arXiv:2410.09205

    arXiv

  122. [130]

    Shu F. H. 1977, ApJ, 214, 488

    1977

  123. [131]

    C., Klessen, R

    Shetty, R., Clark, P. C., Klessen, R. S. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 2208

    2014

  124. [132]

    2020, MNRAS 492, 1594

    Smith, R., Tress, R., Sormani, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS 492, 1594

    2020

  125. [133]

    M., Rivolo A

    Solomon P. M., Rivolo A. R., Barrett J., Yahil A., 1987, ApJ, 319, 730

    1987

  126. [134]

    & Orkisz, J

    Spilker, A., Kainulainen, J. & Orkisz, J. 2021, A&A, 653, 63

    2021

  127. [135]

    Sun, J., Leroy A., Schruba, A. et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 172

    2018

  128. [136]

    Sun, J., Leroy A., Ostriker, E. et al. 2020, ApJ, 892, 148

    2020

  129. [137]

    Sun, J., Leroy A., Schinnerer, E. et al. 2020, ApJL, 901, L8

    2020

  130. [138]

    Sun, J., Leroy A., Schruba, A. et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 43

    2022

  131. [139]

    Sun, J., Leroy A., Ostriker, E. et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 19

    2023

  132. [140]

    & McKeae, C.F

    Tan, J.C., Krumholz, M.R. & McKeae, C.F. 2006, ApJ, 641, L121

    2006

  133. [141]

    G., Smith, R

    Tress, R. G., Smith, R. J., Sormani, M. et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 297

    2020

  134. [142]

    K., Walter, F

    Usero, A., Leroy, A. K., Walter, F. et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 115

    2015

  135. [143]

    D., Wong, T

    Utomo, D., Bolatto, A. D., Wong, T. et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, L26

    2017

  136. [144]

    Utomo, D., Sun, J., Leroy, A. et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, L18

    2018

  137. [145]

    L., Wadsley, J., & Sills, A

    Ward, R. L., Wadsley, J., & Sills, A. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 1575

    2014

  138. [146]

    et al.(2023), MNRAS, 522, 4078

    Choi, W., Liu, L., Bureau, M. et al.(2023), MNRAS, 522, 4078

    2023

  139. [147]

    Choi, W., Bureau, M., Liu, L., et al.(2024), 2024, MNRAS, 531, 4045

    2024

  140. [148]

    van der Wel , A., et al., 2014, ApJ, 792, L6

    2014

  141. [149]

    & Lazarian, A

    Xu, S. & Lazarian, A. 2020, ApJ, 890, 157

    2020

  142. [150]

    & Evans, N

    Zuckerman, B. & Evans, N. J. 1974, ApJ, 192, L149

    1974

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.