Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 97 references

The GHOSDT Simulations (Galaxy Hydrodynamical Simulations with Supernova-Driven Turbulence) -- I. Magnetic Support in Gas Rich Disks

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In gas-rich disks, supernova-driven turbulence, not initial conditions, sets the magnetic field of dense star-forming gas to 10-40 microgauss, following roughly B proportional to the square root of gas surface density.

desk verdict Strong simulation paper with a likely-robust B-Sigma slope and a normalization that is not yet converged; worth refereeing seriously, but the dynamo saturation tests need to be addressed before the 10-40 microgauss claim is quoted. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10514 v2 pith:4ULIHUZW submitted 2024-11-15 astro-ph.GA

Alon Gurman , Ulrich P. Steinwandel , Chia-Yu Hu , Amiel Sterberg This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords interstellarmediummagnetohydrodynamicssmall-scaleturbulentdynamosupernovafeedbackgalacticpatchsimulationsKennicutt-Schmidtrelationmagneticfieldsingalaxiescoldgasfraction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper presents GHOSDT, a suite of high-resolution magnetohydrodynamic simulations of a one-kiloparsec patch of a gas-rich star-forming disk, spanning gas surface densities from 4 to 100 solar masses per square parsec. The authors set out to show that magnetic fields shape the interstellar medium of such disks: magnetic pressure supports the dense gas, and the field strength in star-forming gas is set locally by supernova-driven turbulence rather than by initial conditions or cosmic processes. They find a quasi-steady dense-gas field of 10--40 microgauss that follows roughly $B \propto \Sigma_{\rm gas}^{0.5}$, insensitive to a four-orders-of-magnitude range of seed fields. If the claim holds, magnetic fields in star-forming gas become a predictable function of local column density, and any simulation of gas-rich, high-redshift disks must include them to keep the disk from blowing itself apart.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is the supernova-driven small-scale turbulent dynamo embedded in a self-regulated feedback cycle: supernovae inject kinetic energy, turbulence stretches and amplifies a weak seed field, and magnetic energy saturates at a level set by the rate of turbulent injection, which is in turn set by the gas surface density through the star formation rate. The numerical machinery is the GHOSDT suite itself, built on the Gizmo meshless finite-mass method with ideal MHD and Powell plus Dedner divergence cleaning, time-dependent hydrogen chemistry, a Jeans-based stochastic star formation recipe over a Kroupa IMF, and star-by-star supernova and photoionization feedback. The load-bearing test inside the machinery is dynamo convergence: the saturated dense-gas field must be independent of the value and geometry of the initial field, and the paper argues it is, to within a factor of about two across four orders of magnitude in seed strength.

What would settle it

Rerun a fixed-surface-density case such as M40 or M60 with progressively more accurate magnetic-field treatment: the constrained-gradient divergence cleaning already tested in Appendix C, higher resolution, and possibly non-ideal resistivity, then check whether the saturated dense-gas field stays near 10--40 microgauss; the paper already reports that divergence cleaning alone lowers $B_{100}$ by a factor of about two, so a continued decline would refute convergence. Observationally, Zeeman or dust-polarization measurements of molecular clouds across galaxies spanning a decade in gas surface density would test the predicted $B \propto \Sigma_{\rm gas}^{0.5}$ trend directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a magnetized, self-regulated interstellar medium settles into a quasi-steady state in which the magnetic field of dense star-forming gas is set by the gas surface density. Varying the initial field strength by up to four orders of magnitude, and replacing the uniform seed field with a randomized one, changes the saturated field in gas denser than $100\;\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$ by less than a factor of about two. The saturated field follows approximately $B \propto \Sigma_{\rm gas}^{0.5}$, rising from roughly $7\;\mu$G at $\Sigma_{\rm gas}\approx 4\;M_\odot\,\mathrm{pc}^{-2}$ to roughly $30\;\mu$G at $\Sigma_{\rm gas}\approx 60\;M_\odot\,\mathrm{pc}^{-2}$, with 10--40 microgauss across the suite, comparable to fields measured in Galactic molecular clouds. The authors interpret this as the signature of a supernova-driven small-scale dynamo, in which turbulence stretches and amplifies a weak seed field. The amplified field feeds back on the gas: relative to pure-hydrodynamical runs at the same column density, it raises the cold gas fraction by up to 40 percent, halves the disk scale height, smooths the burstiness of star formation, and lets a quasi-steady disk form where hydrodynamics alone blows most of the gas out of the box.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim depends on the saturation level of the simulated small-scale dynamo being physical and numerically converged; the authors themselves flag that magnetic energy reaches up to 40 percent of kinetic energy, well above the few percent seen in comparable dynamo simulations, and call for a dedicated follow-up study.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At surface densities above roughly $40\;M_\odot\,\mathrm{pc}^{-2}$, magnetic fields are required for a quasi-steady star-forming disk to exist; pure-hydrodynamical runs blow out most of their gas unless the initial conditions are deliberately made turbulent.
  • The dense-gas magnetic field becomes a predicted function of local gas surface density, roughly $B \propto \Sigma_{\rm gas}^{0.5}$, directly comparable to field measurements in molecular clouds across galaxies.
  • Because magnetic support raises the cold gas fraction by up to 40 percent and halves the disk scale height, interpreting cold-gas tracers such as CO, [C I], and [C II] in gas-rich galaxies requires MHD modeling rather than hydrodynamics alone.
  • Time-averaged star formation stays on the observed Kennicutt--Schmidt relation, and the disks sit in vertical pressure equilibrium consistent with the pressure-regulated, feedback-modulated theory of star formation.
  • Star formation becomes less bursty when magnetic fields are present, so the observed burstiness of gas-rich galaxies carries information about the magnetization of their interstellar medium.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: if the dense-gas field is set locally by surface density within a few hundred megayears, galaxy-scale and cosmological simulations could adopt a local magnetic-field closure rather than evolving a global seed field, since initial memory is erased on that timescale.
  • Editorial extension: the paper's Appendix C reports that a more accurate divergence-cleaning scheme lowers the saturated dense-gas field by a factor of about two, so the quoted 10--40 microgauss values are best read as an upper envelope until convergence of the $\nabla\cdot B$ treatment is demonstrated.
  • Editorial extension: if the dynamo interpretation survives, magnetic-field observations of molecular clouds become an indirect measure of turbulent energy injection, effectively a probe of the local supernova rate in galaxies that are too distant to resolve into individual supernovae.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper introduces GHOSDT, a suite of galactic-patch magnetohydrodynamical simulations with star-by-star SN feedback, spanning initial gas surface densities of 4-100 M_sun pc^-2. The authors report that magnetic fields stabilize high-column-density disks against strong initial collapse, increase cold gas fractions by up to 40%, reduce disk scale height and star-formation burstiness, and produce a steady-state magnetic field in dense gas (n > 100 cm^-3) of 10-40 microG that is insensitive to the initial field strength and roughly follows B proportional to Sigma_gas^0.5. They also compare their Sigma_SFR versus P_DE relation with the PRFM framework of Ostriker and Kim (2022) and find consistency within about 30% for the equilibrium runs.

Significance. If the dynamo saturation is physical, the paper provides a plausible local, turbulence-based origin for magnetic fields in dense gas of high-redshift disk galaxies, with concrete predictions (10-40 microG, B-Sigma_gas dependence) that can be tested against Zeeman and dust-polarization observations. Strengths include the wide range of gas surface densities, simulation times of 0.5-1 Gyr, explicit variation of the initial magnetic field B0 over up to four orders of magnitude, and the external PRFM benchmark against observations and TIGRESS-NCR. The main weakness is that the saturated field strength is not yet shown to be numerically converged: the constrained-gradient test in Appendix C changes B100 by a factor of about two at fixed resolution, and the magnetic-to-kinetic energy ratio reaches 40%, in tension with other SN-driven dynamo simulations as the authors acknowledge. The significance of the central claims is therefore conditional on establishing numerical convergence of the dynamo saturation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix C, Fig. 15] The central claim that B100 is a physical quasi-steady state set by SN-driven small-scale dynamo is not yet established, because the saturated value is scheme-dependent: replacing the default Powell/Dedner cleaning with the constrained-gradient reconstruction reduces B100 by a factor of approximately two at identical resolution in the M10 test (Fig. 15, right column). Since magnetic pressure enters as B^2, this factor-of-two change alters beta_th,100 by roughly a factor of four and directly affects the magnetic-support statements in Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3, as well as the normalization of the B100-Sigma_gas relation in Fig. 10. The insensitivity to B0 shown in Section 4.1 is necessary but not sufficient; the authors should demonstrate that the saturation is converged with respect to resolution and divergence-control method, for example by running CG variants for several Sigma_gas,0 values and by a resolution study of B100 and of the magnetic-to-kinetic energy ratio in Fig. 13.
  2. [Sec. 4.2, Fig. 10] The abstract and Section 5 claim an approximately B proportional to Sigma_gas^0.5 relation, but no quantitative fit is reported: the power-law index, normalization, and scatter are not given, and Fig. 10 shows only a visual guide. Given the factor-of-about-two scatter in B100 visible in Table 2 and Fig. 9, the authors should provide a fitted slope with uncertainty, separate fits for the 1-4 M_sun and 10 M_sun resolution samples, and a comparison with observational B-Sigma_gas constraints. Without this, the scaling claim is not testable and its uncertainty cannot be assessed.
  3. [Sec. 3.3.2, Fig. 5] The resolution trend in beta_th,100 and beta_turb is in the direction of increasing magnetic importance at higher resolution, which means the conclusion that magnetic pressure is dynamically important in dense gas is not yet converged. The paper notes the trend but does not quantify it or demonstrate that it saturates; a convergence study, or at least an explicit statement of the systematic uncertainty on beta_th,100 arising from resolution, is needed before the magnetic-support claim can be considered robust.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Fig. 3] The text says that for the 2D histogram the runs with Sigma_gas,0 >= 40 M_sun pc^-2 are substituted with group HV runs, but the caption of Fig. 3 states that groups H and M are used; please clarify which runs are actually plotted.
  2. [Appendix A, Fig. 13] The caption reads 'the ratio median ratio between the total magnetic and kinetic energy'; the duplicated word should be corrected.
  3. [Sec. 2.4] The phrase 'we supplement the simulations in Table 1 with an additional set of simulations' is redundant and could be shortened.
  4. [Table 1] The M60 model is run with m_g = 4 M_sun and is grouped with the 1 M_sun models in the analysis; please state explicitly how this affects the resolution comparisons, since Fig. 10 and Fig. 5 plot the 1-4 M_sun and 10 M_sun samples separately.
  5. [Sec. 2.3] The convergence criterion for a quasi-steady magnetic field is described as a visual check with a 200 Myr moving average; it would be more reproducible to specify a quantitative threshold, for example on the time derivative of the moving average relative to its mean.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: B100–Sigma is a measured emergent relation, B0 is varied by orders of magnitude, and the PRFM comparison is an external benchmark.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The central result—a quasi-steady dense-gas magnetic field B100 that tracks gas surface density roughly as B ∝ Sigma^0.5—is measured from the simulations, not imposed by the input constants. The initial field B0 is varied by up to four orders of magnitude at fixed gas surface density (Section 4.1, Fig. 9, Table 2), and B100 converges to within a factor of about 2, so the B–Sigma relation is not a re-expression of the chosen B0 values. The densest-gas magnetic field and the plasma-beta diagnostics are outputs of the MHD calculation, not fitted targets. The PRFM comparison (Figs. 4 and 12) is benchmarked against the external Ostriker & Kim (2022) and Kim et al. (2024) formalism, not fitted to it. The only load-bearing inherited framework is the HSvD21 (Hu et al. 2021) ISM, chemistry, and feedback module, which is prior published methodology and does not already contain the magnetic-support conclusion. The paper's own caveats—resolution dependence of beta_th,100 (Fig. 5), a factor-of-two lower B100 with constrained-gradient cleaning (Fig. 15), and magnetic-to-kinetic ratios up to 40% (Fig. 13)—are numerical-convergence and physical-saturation risks, but they do not make any claimed result equivalent to its input by construction. No circular step can be exhibited from the text or equations.

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

The central claims rest primarily on the simulation setup inherited from Hu et al. (2021) plus the assumption that SN-driven turbulence amplifies magnetic fields to the observed saturation. No new physical entities are introduced. The main free parameters are initial conditions and feedback efficiencies, none of which are fitted to the specific results claimed.

free parameters (4)
  • Initial magnetic field strength B0 = 0.05-40 microG depending on Sigma_gas,0 (Table 1)
    Chosen by hand to satisfy convergence criteria (quasi-steady disk, B100 convergence, component equipartition) for each surface density. The paper shows B100 is insensitive to B0 varied by orders of magnitude, so this parameter is not load-bearing for the central claim.
  • Star formation efficiency epsilon_sf = 0.5
    Assumed from Hu et al. (2021) star-by-star recipe; sets SN rate and thus the turbulent driving that amplifies magnetic fields.
  • Instantaneous star formation density threshold n_isf = 1e5 cm^-3
    Assumed threshold for immediate star formation; affects clustering of SN feedback.
  • Fixed stellar disk surface density Sigma_* = 40 Msun pc^-2
    Set to solar neighborhood value and held fixed for all gas surface densities; affects gas weight and vertical equilibrium, hence the PRFM comparison.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Ideal MHD approximation with flux freezing holds throughout the simulated ISM.
    The code solves ideal MHD equations (Section 2.1); any non-ideal effects or numerical resistivity could alter dynamo saturation and B-n relations.
  • domain assumption The small-scale dynamo is captured adequately at the numerical resolution used.
    The interpretation that B100 is set by SN-driven turbulence assumes the turbulent dynamo is resolved and converges; Appendix C shows divergence errors ~0.1 but the dynamo saturation is not demonstrated to be resolution-converged.
  • domain assumption The fixed external stellar and dark matter potential is representative for all gas surface densities.
    Sigma_* and H_* are taken at solar circle values and not scaled with Sigma_gas, differing from TIGRESS (Section 3.2); this affects the gas weight and hence the comparisons.
  • domain assumption Star-by-star SN feedback with thermal injection is sufficient to capture the momentum feedback of clustered SNe.
    Relies on Hu et al. (2019) and Steinwandel et al. (2020) for the thermal injection accuracy at 1-10 Msun resolution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The GHOSDT Simulations (Galaxy Hydrodynamical Simulations with Supernova-Driven Turbulence) -- I. Magnetic Support in Gas Rich Disks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4ULIHUZW

@misc{pith2026241110514,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The GHOSDT Simulations (Galaxy Hydrodynamical Simulations with Supernova-Driven Turbulence) -- I. Magnetic Support in Gas Rich Disks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4ULIHUZW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10514}
}
abstract

Galaxies at redshift $z\sim 1-2$ display high star formation rates (SFRs) with elevated cold gas fractions and column densities. Simulating a self-regulated ISM in a hydrodynamical, self-consistent context, has proven challenging due to strong outflows triggered by supernova (SN) feedback. At sufficiently high gas column densities, if magnetic fields or other mitigating measures are not implemented, these outflows can prevent a quasi-steady disk from forming for several 100 Myr. To this end, we present GHOSDT, a suite of magneto-hydrodynamical simulations that implement ISM physics at high resolution. We demonstrate that magnetic pressure is important in the dense ISM of gas-rich star-forming disks. We show that a relation between the magnetic field and gas surface density emerges naturally from our simulations. We argue that the magnetic field in the dense, star-forming gas, may be set by the SN-driven turbulent gas motions. When compared to pure hydrodynamical runs, we find that the inclusion of magnetic fields increases the cold gas fraction by up to 40\%, reduces the disc scale height by up to a factor of $\sim 2$, and reduces the star formation burstiness. In dense ($n>100\;\rm{cm}^{-3}$) gas, we find steady-state magnetic field strengths of 10--40 $\mu$G, comparable to those observed in Galactic molecular clouds. Finally, we demonstrate that our simulation framework is consistent with the Ostriker et al. (2022) Pressure Regulated Feedback Modulated Theory of star formation and stellar feedback.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10514 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Median (top panel) and mean (bottom panel) binned values of ΣSFR as a function of ⟨Σgas⟩ for groups H, M, and HV. Also plotted are observations from Leroy et al. (2008) and theoretical results from TIGRESS (Kim et al. 2020a), SILCC (Rathjen et al. 2023), and Brucy et al. (2023a). gas, as measured by adding up the mid-plane averages of the thermal pressure Pth, vertical magnetic stress ΠB, and Pturb, when restricted … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Edge-on gas surface density maps for snapshots at different times for simulations H80 (top row) and M80 (bottom row). Time is given in Myr. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Top panel: mid-plane gas pressure in the two￾phase gas as a function of the gas weight estimator PDE for our different simulations. The dashed line shows the ex￾pected 1-to-1 relation, while the gray shaded region shows the ±30% range. Bottom panel: star formation rate surface density as a function of PDE. The dashed line shows the fit to Kim et al. (2024). Points show observational data from the EDGE-CALIFA (Barrer… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Time-resolved KS relation for our different sim￾ulation groups. We also plot the median and mean values of ΣSFR binned along the Σgas axis, as well as a power law of the form Σ1.7 gas for visual reference. formation, allowing a quasi-steady disk to form. Thus, simulati…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top panel: βth,100 in our M models, defined as the mass-weighted plasma β parameter averaged over gas particles with volume density n > 100 cm−3 , as a function of the time averaged gas surface density ⟨Σgas⟩. Bottom panel: same as top panel, but for βturb, the ratio b…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Burstiness parameter, defined as σ(SFR) <SFR> , as a function of the time average ⟨Σgas⟩, for our low-resolution models. 200-500 Myr, and σ (SFR) is the standard deviation of the SFR in that period. We compare groups M, H, and HV, and find that simulations from groups …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mass-weighted mean B100 as a function of time. Each panel shows simulations with a single value of Σgas,0 indicated in the upper left corner of each panel. The value of B0 is given in the legend in µG. B100 is smoothed using a 200 Myr window in order to visually demons…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Mean magnetic field as a function of gas density for simulations in group M. Mass resolution is specified in the upper left of each panel, and Σgas,0 is specified by the color of the curve. In addition, we plot the broken power law fit to observations of Crutcher et a…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Feedback yields as a function of gas weight as estimated by PDE for our different simulation groups. Dotted black lines show fits to the results of Kim et al. (2024). Reported values are medians taken over the period 200-500 Myr and error bars show the interquartile r…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The ratio of magnetic and kinetic energy in our entire box averaged over time, as a function of average gas surface density, taken over the period 200-500 Myr. Mass resolution is indicated in the title of each panel. simulations of SN-driven small-scale dynamo on eith…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Time dependence of the relative strength of the x-component of the magnetic field, as represented by (Bx/B) 2 . Each panel consists of simulations with Σgas,0 specified in its top right corner. Red lines are simulations from group M, blue line are simulations from gro…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Left column: relative errors in ∇ · B as a function of time for a subset of our simulations. The initial gas surface density is indicated in the top left corner of each panel, with the value of B0 and resolution indicated in the legend. Right column: as for the left c…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    2019

  4. [4]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid.sentence := #2 '...

  5. [5]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  6. [6]

    P., Agertz, O., & Renaud, F

    Andersson, E. P., Agertz, O., & Renaud, F. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 494, 3328, 10.1093/mnras/staa889

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa889 2020

  7. [7]

    1986, , 324, 446, 10.1038/324446a0

    Barnes , J., & Hut , P. 1986, , 324, 446, 10.1038/324446a0

    doi:10.1038/324446a0 1986

  8. [8]

    K., S \'a nchez , S

    Barrera-Ballesteros , J. K., S \'a nchez , S. F., Heckman , T., et al. 2021, , 503, 3643, 10.1093/mnras/stab755

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab755 2021

Show all 97 references
  1. [9]

    2019, ApJ, 881, 160, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2fd1

    Bialy, S., & Sternberg, A. 2019, ApJ, 881, 160, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2fd1

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    2008, AJ, 136, 2846, 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2846

    Bigiel, F., Leroy, A., Walter, F., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2846, 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2846

    2008 doi

  3. [12]

    2023 b , , 675, A144, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244915

    ---. 2023 b , , 675, A144, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244915

    2023 doi

  4. [13]

    A., Meyer, D

    Cardelli, J. A., Meyer, D. M., Jura, M., & Savage, B. D. 1996, ApJ, 467, 334, 10.1086/177608

    1996 doi

  5. [14]

    R., McLeod , A

    Chevance , M., Krumholz , M. R., McLeod , A. F., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 1, 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09570

    2023 doi arXiv

  6. [15]

    V., Smith , J

    Croxall , K. V., Smith , J. D., Pellegrini , E., et al. 2017, , 845, 96, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8035

    2017 doi

  7. [16]

    M., Wandelt , B., Heiles , C., Falgarone , E., & Troland , T

    Crutcher , R. M., Wandelt , B., Heiles , C., Falgarone , E., & Troland , T. H. 2010, , 725, 466, 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/466

    2010 doi

  8. [17]

    2004, , 289, 479, 10.1023/B:ASTR.0000014981.50094.8f

    de Avillez , M., & Breitschwerdt , D. 2004, , 289, 479, 10.1023/B:ASTR.0000014981.50094.8f

    2004

  9. [18]

    2002, Journal of Computational Physics, 175, 645, 10.1006/jcph.2001.6961

    Dedner , A., Kemm , F., Kr \"o ner , D., et al. 2002, Journal of Computational Physics, 175, 645, 10.1006/jcph.2001.6961

    2002

  10. [19]

    L., & Mac Low , M.-M

    Emerick , A., Bryan , G. L., & Mac Low , M.-M. 2019, , 482, 1304, 10.1093/mnras/sty2689

    2019 doi

  11. [20]

    M., & Wuyts , S

    F \"o rster Schreiber , N. M., & Wuyts , S. 2020, , 58, 661, 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021910

    2020 doi

  12. [21]

    2009, , 137, 266, 10.1088/0004-6256/137/1/266

    Fuchs , B., Jahrei , H., & Flynn , C. 2009, , 137, 266, 10.1088/0004-6256/137/1/266

    2009 doi

  13. [23]

    A., Mac Low , M.-M., K \"a pyl \"a , M

    Gent , F. A., Mac Low , M.-M., K \"a pyl \"a , M. J., & Singh , N. K. 2021, , 910, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/abed59

    2021 doi

  14. [24]

    A., Mac Low , M.-M., Korpi-Lagg , M

    Gent , F. A., Mac Low , M.-M., Korpi-Lagg , M. J., & Singh , N. K. 2023, , 943, 176, 10.3847/1538-4357/acac20

    2023 doi

  15. [25]

    2018, , 480, 3511, 10.1093/mnras/sty2016

    Girichidis , P., Seifried , D., Naab , T., et al. 2018, , 480, 3511, 10.1093/mnras/sty2016

    2018 doi

  16. [26]

    2015, eprint arXiv:1508.06646

    Girichidis, P., Walch, S., Naab, T., et al. 2015, eprint arXiv:1508.06646. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015arXiv150806646G

    2015 arXiv

  17. [27]

    Glover , S. C. O., & Clark , P. C. 2012, , 421, 116, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20260.x

    2012

  18. [28]

    Glover, S. C. O., & Mac Low , M. 2007, ApJS, 169, 239, 10.1086/512238

    2007 doi

  19. [29]

    M., & Hivon , E

    G \'o rski , K. M., & Hivon , E. 2011, HEALPix: Hierarchical Equal Area isoLatitude Pixelization of a sphere , Astrophysics Source Code Library. 1107.018

    2011

  20. [30]

    2008, , 486, L35, 10.1051/0004-6361:200810195

    Gressel , O., Elstner , D., Ziegler , U., & R \"u diger , G. 2008, , 486, L35, 10.1051/0004-6361:200810195

    2008 doi

  21. [31]

    Y., Guszejnov , D., Hopkins , P

    Grudi \'c , M. Y., Guszejnov , D., Hopkins , P. F., Offner , S. S. R., & Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A. 2021, , 506, 2199, 10.1093/mnras/stab1347

    2021 doi

  22. [32]

    Y., Guszejnov , D., Offner , S

    Grudi \'c , M. Y., Guszejnov , D., Offner , S. S. R., et al. 2022, , 512, 216, 10.1093/mnras/stac526

    2022 doi

  23. [33]

    Gurman , A., Hu , C.-Y., Sternberg , A., & van Dishoeck , E. F. 2024, , 965, 179, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2eac

    2024 doi

  24. [34]

    2018, , 478, 4799, 10.1093/mnras/sty1315

    Haid , S., Walch , S., Seifried , D., et al. 2018, , 478, 4799, 10.1093/mnras/sty1315

    2018 doi

  25. [35]

    2014, , 570, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423392

    Hennebelle , P., & Iffrig , O. 2014, , 570, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423392

    2014 doi

  26. [36]

    S., Joung , M

    Hill , A. S., Joung , M. R., Mac Low , M.-M., et al. 2012, , 750, 104, 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/104

    2012 doi

  27. [37]

    S., & Saitoh , T

    Hirai , Y., Fujii , M. S., & Saitoh , T. R. 2021, , 73, 1036, 10.1093/pasj/psab038

    2021 doi

  28. [38]

    Hopkins , P. F. 2015, , 450, 53, 10.1093/mnras/stv195

    2015 doi

  29. [39]

    2016, , 462, 576, 10.1093/mnras/stw1578

    ---. 2016, , 462, 576, 10.1093/mnras/stw1578

    2016 doi

  30. [40]

    F., & Raives , M

    Hopkins , P. F., & Raives , M. J. 2016, , 455, 51, 10.1093/mnras/stv2180

    2016 doi

  31. [41]

    2019, , 483, 3363, 10.1093/mnras/sty3252

    Hu , C.-Y. 2019, , 483, 3363, 10.1093/mnras/sty3252

    2019 doi

  32. [42]

    2021, huchiayu/AstroChemistry.jl:, v0.2.2, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.4775808

    Hu, C.-Y. 2021, huchiayu/AstroChemistry.jl:, v0.2.2, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.4775808

    2021 doi

  33. [43]

    Hu , C.-Y., Naab , T., Glover , S. C. O., Walch , S., & Clark , P. C. 2017, , 471, 2151, 10.1093/mnras/stx1773

    2017 doi

  34. [44]

    Hu , C.-Y., Naab , T., Walch , S., Glover , S. C. O., & Clark , P. C. 2016, , 458, 3528, 10.1093/mnras/stw544

    2016 doi

  35. [45]

    Hu , C.-Y., Schruba , A., Sternberg , A., & van Dishoeck , E. F. 2022, , 931, 28, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac65fd

    2022 doi

  36. [46]

    Hu , C.-Y., Sternberg , A., & van Dishoeck , E. F. 2021, , 920, 44, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0dbd

    2021 doi

  37. [47]

    C., Teyssier , R., et al

    Hu , C.-Y., Smith , M. C., Teyssier , R., et al. 2023, , 950, 132, 10.3847/1538-4357/accf9e

    2023 doi

  38. [48]

    2017, , 604, A70, 10.1051/0004-6361/201630290

    Iffrig , O., & Hennebelle , P. 2017, , 604, A70, 10.1051/0004-6361/201630290

    2017 doi

  39. [49]

    Joung , M. K. R., & Mac Low , M.-M. 2006, , 653, 1266, 10.1086/508795

    2006 doi

  40. [50]

    M., Glover , S

    Kannan , R., Marinacci , F., Simpson , C. M., Glover , S. C. O., & Hernquist , L. 2020, , 491, 2088, 10.1093/mnras/stz3078

    2020 doi

  41. [51]

    1998, , 498, 541, 10.1086/305588

    Kennicutt , Robert C., J. 1998, , 498, 541, 10.1086/305588

    1998 doi

  42. [52]

    G., & Ostriker, E

    Kim, C. G., & Ostriker, E. C. 2015, ApJ, 802, 99, 10.1088/0004-637X/802/2/99

    2015 doi

  43. [53]

    Kim, C.-G., & Ostriker, E. C. 2017, ApJ, 846, 133, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8599

    2017 doi

  44. [54]

    Kim , C.-G., & Ostriker , E. C. 2018, , 853, 173, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa5ff

    2018 doi

  45. [55]

    C., Fielding , D

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

    2020 doi

  46. [56]

    C., Somerville , R

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

    2020 doi

  47. [57]

    C., Kim , J.-G., et al

    Kim , C.-G., Ostriker , E. C., Kim , J.-G., et al. 2024, , 972, 67, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad59ab

    2024 doi

  48. [58]

    S., & Glover , S

    Klessen , R. S., & Glover , S. C. O. 2016, Saas-Fee Advanced Course, 43, 85, 10.1007/978-3-662-47890-5_2

    2016 doi

  49. [59]

    2002, Sci

    Kroupa, P. 2002, Sci. (New York, N.Y.), 295, 82, 10.1126/science.1067524

    2002 doi

  50. [60]

    H., et al

    Lah \'e n , N., Naab , T., Johansson , P. H., et al. 2020, , 891, 2, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7190

    2020 doi

  51. [61]

    C., Kim , J.-G., & Kim , C.-G

    Lancaster , L., Ostriker , E. C., Kim , J.-G., & Kim , C.-G. 2021 a , , 914, 89, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf8ab

    2021 doi

  52. [62]

    2021 b , , 914, 90, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf8ac

    ---. 2021 b , , 914, 90, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf8ac

    2021 doi

  53. [63]

    K., Walter, F., Brinks, E., et al

    Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., Brinks, E., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2782, 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2782

    2008 doi

  54. [64]

    K., Schinnerer , E., Hughes , A., et al

    Leroy , A. K., Schinnerer , E., Hughes , A., et al. 2021, , 257, 43, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac17f3

    2021 doi

  55. [65]

    2022, , 925, 30, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3911

    Liu , J., Qiu , K., & Zhang , Q. 2022, , 925, 30, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3911

    2022 doi

  56. [66]

    2014, ARA & A, 52, 415, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA & A, 52, 415, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    2014 doi

  57. [67]

    F., & Ostriker, E

    McKee, C. F., & Ostriker, E. C. 2007, ARA & A, 45, 565, 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110602

    2007 arXiv

  58. [68]

    P., Naab , T., & White , S

    Moster , B. P., Naab , T., & White , S. D. M. 2018, , 477, 1822, 10.1093/mnras/sty655

    2018 doi

  59. [69]

    Naab, T., & Ostriker, J. P. 2017, ARA & A, 55, 59, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040019

    2017 doi

  60. [70]

    F., Frenk , C

    Navarro , J. F., Frenk , C. S., & White , S. D. M. 1997, , 490, 493, 10.1086/304888

    1997 doi

  61. [71]

    G., Weiner , B

    Noeske , K. G., Weiner , B. J., Faber , S. M., et al. 2007, , 660, L43, 10.1086/517926

    2007 doi

  62. [72]

    C., & Kim , C.-G

    Ostriker , E. C., & Kim , C.-G. 2022, , 936, 137, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7de2

    2022 doi

  63. [73]

    C., McKee, C

    Ostriker, E. C., McKee, C. F., & Leroy, A. K. 2010, ApJ, 721, 975, 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/975

    2010 doi

  64. [74]

    C., & Shetty, R

    Ostriker, E. C., & Shetty, R. 2011, ApJ, 731, 41, 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/41

    2011 doi

  65. [75]

    1999, , 526, 279, 10.1086/307956

    Padoan , P., & Nordlund , A . 1999, , 526, 279, 10.1086/307956

    1999 doi

  66. [76]

    A., Grand , R

    Pakmor , R., G \'o mez , F. A., Grand , R. J. J., et al. 2017, , 469, 3185, 10.1093/mnras/stx1074

    2017 doi

  67. [77]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.18096, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.18096

    Partmann , C., Naab , T., Lah \'e n , N., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.18096, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.18096

    2024 doi arXiv

  68. [78]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Pattle , K., Fissel , L., Tahani , M., Liu , T., & Ntormousi , E. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 193, 10.48550/arXiv.2203.11179

    2023 doi arXiv

  69. [79]

    L., Langer , W

    Pineda , J. L., Langer , W. D., & Goldsmith , P. F. 2014, , 570, A121, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424054

    2014 doi

  70. [80]

    G., Roe , P

    Powell , K. G., Roe , P. L., Linde , T. J., Gombosi , T. I., & De Zeeuw , D. L. 1999, Journal of Computational Physics, 154, 284, 10.1006/jcph.1999.6299

    1999

  71. [81]

    2023, , 522, 1843, 10.1093/mnras/stad1104

    Rathjen , T.-E., Naab , T., Walch , S., et al. 2023, , 522, 1843, 10.1093/mnras/stad1104

    2023 doi

  72. [82]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.00124, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.00124

    Rathjen , T.-E., Walch , S., Naab , T., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.00124, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.00124

    2024 doi arXiv

  73. [83]

    2017, , 471, 2674, 10.1093/mnras/stx1670

    Rieder , M., & Teyssier , R. 2017, , 471, 2674, 10.1093/mnras/stx1670

    2017 doi

  74. [84]

    R., Howk , J

    Sembach , K. R., Howk , J. C., Ryans , R. S. I., & Keenan , F. P. 2000, , 528, 310, 10.1086/308173

    2000 doi

  75. [85]

    M., Pakmor , R., Marinacci , F., et al

    Simpson , C. M., Pakmor , R., Marinacci , F., et al. 2016, , 827, L29, 10.3847/2041-8205/827/2/L29

    2016 doi

  76. [86]

    Smith , M. C. 2021, , 502, 5417, 10.1093/mnras/stab291

    2021 doi

  77. [87]

    1942, , 95, 329, 10.1086/144407

    Spitzer , Lyman, J. 1942, , 95, 329, 10.1086/144407

    1942 doi

  78. [88]

    2005, , 364, 1105, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x

    Springel , V. 2005, , 364, 1105, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x

    2005

  79. [89]

    P., Moster , B

    Steinwandel , U. P., Moster , B. P., Naab , T., Hu , C.-Y., & Walch , S. 2020, , 495, 1035, 10.1093/mnras/staa821

    2020 doi

  80. [90]

    K., Ostriker , E

    Sun , J., Leroy , A. K., Ostriker , E. C., et al. 2023, , 945, L19, 10.3847/2041-8213/acbd9c

    2023 doi

  81. [91]

    J., Genzel, R., & Sternberg, A

    Tacconi, L. J., Genzel, R., & Sternberg, A. 2020, arXiv:2003.06245, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141034

    2020 arXiv

  82. [92]

    S., & Price , D

    Tricco , T. S., & Price , D. J. 2012, Journal of Computational Physics, 231, 7214, 10.1016/j.jcp.2012.06.039

    2012 doi

  83. [93]

    2015, , 454, 238, 10.1093/mnras/stv1975

    Walch , S., Girichidis , P., Naab , T., et al. 2015, , 454, 238, 10.1093/mnras/stv1975

    2015 doi

  84. [94]

    E., Franx , M., Leja , J., et al

    Whitaker , K. E., Franx , M., Leja , J., et al. 2014, , 795, 104, 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/104

    2014 doi

  85. [95]

    2024, , 271, 35, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad20c9

    Wong , T., Cao , Y., Luo , Y., et al. 2024, , 271, 35, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad20c9

    2024 doi

  86. [96]

    V., Marinacci , F., et al

    Zhang , E., Sales , L. V., Marinacci , F., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.10338, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.10338

    2024 doi arXiv

  87. [97]

    C., Jr., Vishniac, E., & Sneden, C.\ 2006, , 652, 847

    Kennicutt, R. C., Jr., Vishniac, E., & Sneden, C.\ 2006, , 652, 847

    2006

  88. [98]

    J., Eichhorn, G., Accomazzi, A., et al.\ 2000, , 143, 41

    Kurtz, M. J., Eichhorn, G., Accomazzi, A., et al.\ 2000, , 143, 41

    2000

  89. [99]

    T.\ 2012, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#219, 219, 204.04

    Vishniac, E. T.\ 2012, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#219, 219, 204.04

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.