Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Differential virial analysis: a new technique to determine the dynamical state of molecular clouds

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes differential virial analysis, which reads a molecular cloud's dynamical state from how its virial ratio changes with surface density, and uses it to show that most giant molecular clouds in Andromeda are inconsistent…

desk verdict A genuinely new diagnostic for GMC dynamical state, well demonstrated in principle; the M31 conclusion is plausible but not yet robust to the CO-to-mass bias the paper itself identifies. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16474 v2 pith:TVNB63L7 submitted 2025-01-27 astro-ph.GA

Mark R. Krumholz , Charles J. Lada , Jan Forbrich This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords differentialvirialanalysisgiantmolecularcloudstheoremcloudcollapsestarformationAndromedagalaxyCOlineobservationssurfacedensity
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 introduces differential virial analysis, a way to tell whether a giant molecular cloud is collapsing globally or is supported against collapse, by looking at how the cloud's virial ratio changes as one moves from its outer edge to its dense interior. The absolute virial ratio is too polluted by unknown geometry, magnetic fields, and calibration to distinguish collapse (virial ratio near 2) from equilibrium (near 1), but the shape of the virial-ratio-versus-surface-density curve is not. In analytic models and in three-dimensional simulations, supported clouds curve upward at high surface density, while collapsing clouds stay flat or curve downward. Applied to Andromeda cloud observations, the method finds that most clouds show the upward curve, meaning most are not undergoing global collapse. This would settle a long-standing debate about whether star-forming clouds collapse wholesale or only in small local patches.

What carries the argument

The central object is the differential virial diagram: a plot of σ²/R against mean surface density Σ for nested contour levels within one cloud, where the observer's virial parameter is αvir,obs = 5σ²/(πGΣR) and the line αvir,obs = 1 has unit slope. The diagnostic feature is the 'hook'—a systematic upward turn of αvir,obs at the highest surface densities, which the paper finds in analytic hydrostatic polytropes and in the supported phase of numerical simulations, and which is absent in singular and collapsing configurations. The mechanism is that pressure confinement of small interior substructures raises their kinetic-to-gravitational energy ratio, while in collapse gravity alone sets the energy balance at all scales. The paper also uses simulated CO line observations to show that tracer bias can flatten or steepen the curve, but cannot turn a collapsing cloud into a supported one when dust-calibrated masses are used.

What would settle it

A concrete test: take a cloud that independent observations show is collapsing—for example, one with large-scale inward motion or a singular density profile traced by dust—and measure its differential virial curve with the same contour method; if the curve rises at high surface density instead of staying flat or falling, the claimed hook would no longer be a unique marker of support.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the differential change of the virial parameter with scale is a reliable dynamical probe even where the absolute virial parameter is not. Around one, the virial ratio αvir ≈ 2T/|W| is about 2 for free-fall collapse and 1 for virial equilibrium, but systematic uncertainties swamp the factor-of-two difference. The paper argues that as nested regions of a single cloud are examined at increasing surface density, a supported cloud shows a rising virial ratio—an upward 'hook' in the virial diagram of σ²/R versus Σ—because small interior regions are unbound and pressure-confined, whereas a globally collapsing cloud has gravity-driven motions on every scale and a virial ratio that stays nearly constant. The paper validates this signature with hydrostatic polytropes and with magnetohydrodynamic simulations that first support then collapse, and it applies the method to 50 Andromeda clouds, finding 32 of 50 (from ¹²CO) and 17 of 26 (from ¹³CO) show the rising signature. It concludes that most Andromeda GMCs cannot be in global collapse, and if global collapse occurs it occupies only a small fraction of cloud lifetimes.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the internal mass distribution, the viewing geometry, and the importance of magnetic fields do not change systematically with scale within a single cloud, so they shift a cloud's absolute virial ratio but not the shape of its virial curve.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Most giant molecular clouds in Andromeda are supported against global collapse, with collapse, if it occurs, confined to brief or local episodes.
  • The shape of the virial curve can be measured from any sufficiently deep extragalactic cloud survey, making the method a general tool for dynamical classification.
  • Clouds that currently appear flat or falling often show hints of an upturn at the highest densities, so deeper observations should reveal more hooks.
  • Agreement between ¹²CO and ¹³CO curve shapes, despite offsets in absolute virial ratio, confirms that differential analysis suppresses the main systematic errors.
  • The technique separates local from global collapse within an individual cloud, something population averages and morphology alone cannot do.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the criterion holds, the hook should be absent or inverted in clouds caught during the brief collapse phase; forthcoming surveys could measure the fraction of collapsing clouds as a function of galactic environment and test what triggers collapse.
  • Applying the same differential analysis to optically thin dense-gas tracers or dust-inferred cores should show the hook turning over at the scale of individual prestellar cores, where local collapse begins.
  • A testable extension: within a cloud, the strength of the upward hook should anticorrelate with the presence of large-scale infall signatures, such as blue-asymmetric line profiles, if the picture is correct.
  • Because the method is shape-based, it may transfer to other self-gravitating systems, such as clumps in high-redshift galaxies, where distance and geometry uncertainties are even larger.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new observational technique, 'differential virial analysis,' for determining whether molecular clouds are in a state of global collapse. The key idea is that while the absolute virial ratio is too uncertain to distinguish supported from collapsing clouds, the shape of the virial-parameter versus surface-density curve is diagnostic: supported clouds show an upward 'hook' at high surface density, whereas collapsing clouds have flat or downward-curving profiles. The method is demonstrated on analytic hydrostatic and collapsing polytropes, tested on one set of 3D MHD simulations (Collins et al. 2012) that progresses from supported to collapsing states, and then applied to a sample of GMCs in Andromeda from Lada et al. (2024). The authors find that 32/50 (12CO) and 17/26 (13CO) measured clouds show the rising signature, and conclude that most GMCs in Andromeda are not in a state of global collapse.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the method offers a genuinely useful way around the long-standing factor-of-two systematic uncertainties in absolute virial measurements, because differential shapes within a single cloud are less affected by unknown geometry, distance, and mass-calibration offsets. The paper has clear strengths: the analytic polytrope calculations are exact and cover both supported and collapsing cases; the simulation test uses a realistic MHD simulation that transitions between the two dynamical states; the synthetic-observation analysis in Section 4.3 directly addresses kinematic and line-formation biases; and the authors release their analysis software and data, which will facilitate independent checks. The application to M31 is also a concrete, falsifiable prediction about a real cloud population. However, the M31 conclusion depends on an unquantified systematic bias that the paper itself identifies in Section 4.1, and the numerical validation rests on a single simulation suite; these issues need to be addressed before the strong concluding statement about the Andromeda clouds can be regarded as secure.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5, Eq. (12), and Section 4.1] The central M31 conclusion is not yet protected against the scale-dependent CO-to-mass bias that the paper itself identifies. Because Eq. (12) gives alpha_vir,obs proportional to Sigma^{-1} at fixed sigma^2/R, any systematic underestimation of column density preferentially at high Sigma will steepen the observed virial diagram and can turn a flat or falling collapse profile into a rising 'supported' profile. Section 4.1 explicitly states that if alpha_CO increases toward denser cloud parts, assuming constant alpha_CO will underestimate high-Sigma column densities, 'steepening the virial diagram and pushing collapsing clouds in the direction of appearing supported.' The authors note that M31 velocity dispersions are flat or weakly decreasing with column density, which suggests exactly this regime, but they label this a 'preliminary speculation' and do not correct for it or bound its magnitude. Since the Section 5 surface densities are CO-based and only calibrated against dust for a subset of clouds, the method sits between the paper's 'mixed' and 'line-only' cases, where the bias has not been quantified. The reported counts 32/50 and 17/26, and the conclusion that most M31 GMCs are not globally collapsing, are therefore not yet robust against a systematic the paper itself names.
  2. [Section 5, classification criteria] The binary classification of clouds as 'rising' versus 'flat/falling' relies on hand-chosen thresholds: alpha_vir must be strictly increasing over the five highest available contour levels, and the value at the highest contour must exceed the mean alpha_vir over all contour levels. No sensitivity analysis is provided, so it is unclear how stable the reported fractions (32/50 and 17/26) are to plausible variations in these criteria. The same applies to the 13CO detection SNR threshold (>=15) used to select contour levels. Because the paper's central observational claim is a numerical statement about the majority of Andromeda GMCs, the authors should quantify how the classification changes when these criteria are varied, or at minimum state the range of fractions obtained under conservative alternatives.
  3. [Section 6, concluding paragraph] The final paragraph states that in the simulations 'the hook feature is absent at times prior to the onset of global collapse but then appears as collapse begins.' This is the reverse of what Figure 4 shows. In Figure 4 the upward hook is present at t/tff = 0 and 0.1, when the simulation is supported, and flattens at t/tff = 0.3 and 0.6, when collapse has set in. As written, the conclusion asserts the opposite of the demonstrated result and must be corrected to avoid misleading readers about the direction of the diagnostic.
  4. [Section 3.2 and Section 6] The numerical validation of the method is based on a single simulation suite (Collins et al. 2012, plasma beta = 0.2) at 256^3 effective resolution. The authors acknowledge this limitation ('we have tested only a single particular set of simulations'), but the Section 6 conclusion that differential virial analysis 'can separate these two evolutionary phases' is stated generically. Because the proposed method is intended to be widely applicable, the generality of the numerical demonstration is not yet established. The paper should either add at least one independent simulation with different driving, magnetization, or feedback physics, or explicitly frame the simulation test as a single proof-of-concept case and soften the generalizing language.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (36)] Equation (36) contains a sign error: the integrand shows 1 - (vx - <vx>_L)^2, but it should be 1 + (vx - <vx>_L)^2 to match the definition in Eq. (29). As written, the formula could produce negative squared dispersions.
  2. [Figure 6 caption] The caption says '12CO J = 1 -> 0 (dashed) and 12CO J = 1 -> 0 (dotted)'; the second tracer should be 13CO, not 12CO.
  3. [Section 5, first paragraph] The phrase 'the 3 sigma_noise noise level' should be 'the 3-sigma noise level'.
  4. [Figures 7-9, notation] The use of 'alpha_vir/alpha_vir' for the normalized virial ratio is confusing because the same symbol appears in numerator and denominator; using a distinct notation such as <alpha_vir> for the mean would make the figures and text clearer.
  5. [Section 4.3, line labeling] In the text describing Figure 6, the dashed and dotted curves are said to correspond to '12CO' and '12CO', respectively; the second should be 13CO to match the actual comparison.
  6. [Section 2.1] The phrase 'commonly-expressed' has an unnecessary hyphen; it should be 'commonly expressed.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the differential virial signature is derived from the virial theorem, tested on independent analytic and simulation models, and applied to M31 without fitting the classification to the data.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the shape of the virial-ratio versus surface-density curve distinguishes supported from collapsing clouds. This is not circular. Equation (12), αvir,obs = 5σ^2/R / (πGΣ), defines an observable quantity, but the predicted shape is an additional physical assertion: it is derived from the virial theorem in Section 2.2, demonstrated explicitly for hydrostatic and collapsing polytropes in Section 3.1, and tested against the Collins et al. (2012) simulations in Section 3.2. These analytic solutions and simulations were not constructed to produce the virial-diagram hook; the hook emerges from the calculations. The synthetic-observation tests in Section 4.3 use radiative-transfer modeling to check that plausible observational biases do not erase the signature, again without fitting the signature into the data. In the M31 application (Section 5), the classification of clouds as rising versus flat/falling is a measurement based on predefined criteria (strictly increasing αvir over the highest contours and αvir,N > mean), not a parameter fitted to reproduce the conclusion. The data come from the companion paper Lada et al. (2025) by overlapping authors, but that is a data source, not a load-bearing theoretical premise; the citation does not itself assert the dynamical conclusion. Section 4.1 identifies a real systematic concern—if αCO increases toward high column density, constant-αCO assumptions would steepen the virial diagram and make collapsing clouds appear supported—but the paper labels the relevant counterargument as 'preliminary speculation' and does not hide the limitation. That is an unresolved systematic uncertainty, not a circular reduction of the prediction to its inputs. No uniqueness theorem is imported from prior work by the same authors, no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation, and no known result is merely renamed. The strongest caveat is that the M31 mass calibration is intermediate between the 'mixed' and 'line-only' cases, leaving the rising-fraction conclusion vulnerable to the Section 4.1 bias; however, this affects robustness and correctness risk, not circularity. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against independent external checks, so a low circularity score is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method itself introduces no fitted parameters; the free parameters listed are hand-chosen analysis thresholds that affect the reported classification fractions. The axioms are standard virial-theorem assumptions plus the scale-invariance premise that is the paper's load-bearing bet. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • Minimum contour levels for rising classification = 5
    Section 5: a GMC is classified as rising only if alpha_vir is strictly increasing over the five highest available contour levels and the highest value exceeds the mean. This hand-chosen threshold directly sets the reported fractions (32/50 and 17/26).
  • 13CO detection SNR threshold = 15
    Section 5: 13CO velocity dispersions are measured only where the peak SNR averaged over the contour is at least 15, reducing the analyzable sample from 50 to 26 clouds.
  • Simulation region size cutoff = 30 pixels
    Section 3.2: regions containing fewer than 30 pixels are discarded as unresolved, which limits the dynamic range of alpha_vir in the simulation analysis.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Eulerian virial theorem with magnetic and radiation terms dropped, plus assumptions of isothermal gas, spherical virial surface, and negligible mass flux across the surface.
    Section 2.1, Equation 1 and subsequent simplifications: these assumptions define the observable virial parameter alpha_vir,obs and the method compares shapes under the same assumptions across scales.
  • domain assumption Systematic uncertainties in geometry, mass distribution, and magnetic fields do not vary dramatically with scale within a single cloud, so they affect the location but not the shape of the virial diagram.
    Section 2.2: 'unless there is reason to believe that the internal mass distribution, geometry, or relative importance of magnetic fields change dramatically with scale, such effects should not systematically change the shape traced out in the virial plot'. This is the load-bearing premise that makes differential virial analysis robust.
  • ad hoc to paper The chosen analytic models and the single simulation suite (Collins et al. 2012, beta=0.2) are representative of supported and collapsing cloud states in general.
    Section 3.2 and conclusion: 'we have tested only a single particular set of simulations. It would be useful to repeat the analysis on a broader set'; generality is assumed.
  • domain assumption In the M31 application, line-based velocity dispersions and dust-calibrated masses reflect the true kinematic and column-density structure sufficiently for shape classification.
    Section 5: measurements use 12CO and 13CO lines with SNR cuts; the paper argues biases are small and tend to flatten supported curves rather than create false collapse signatures.
  • domain assumption The flood-fill contour method and the choice to group all area within a contour into one object do not bias the shape classification.
    Section 3.2 and footnote 7: the authors state that splitting disconnected contours has relatively little effect on the virial diagram and makes upturns more prominent, so their choice is conservative.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Differential virial analysis: a new technique to determine the dynamical state of molecular clouds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TVNB63L7

@misc{pith2026250116474,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Differential virial analysis: a new technique to determine the dynamical state of molecular clouds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TVNB63L7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16474}
}
read the original abstract

Since molecular clouds form stars, at least some parts of them must be in a state of collapse. However, there is a long-standing debate as to whether that collapse is local, involving only a small fraction of the cloud mass, or global, with most mass in a state of collapse up to the moment when it is dispersed by stellar feedback. In principle it is possible to distinguish these possibilities from clouds' virial ratios, which should be a factor of two larger for collapse than for equilibrium, but systematic uncertainties have thus far prevented such measurements. Here we propose a new analysis method to overcome this limitation: while the absolute value of a cloud's virial ratio is too uncertain to distinguish global from local collapse, the differential change in virial ratio as a function of surface density is also diagnostic of clouds' dynamical state, and can be measured with far fewer systematic uncertainties. We demonstrate the basic principles of the method using simple analytic models of supported and collapsing clouds, validate it from full 3D simulations, and discuss possible challenges in applying the method to real data. We then provide a preliminary application of the technique to recent observations of the molecular clouds in Andromeda, showing that most of them are inconsistent with being in a state of global collapse.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16474 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. — Results for hydrostatic polytropes. Panels show, from top to bottom, the true virial parameter αvir (Equation 10), ob￾server’s virial parameter αvir,obs (Equation 12), and vertical axis of the virial diagram (⟨σ 2 ⟩/R, Equation 20) as a function of pro￾jected column density Σ (Equation 19). Lines from dark to light show γp = 0.6 to 1.0 in steps of 0.1; solid lines show critically sta￾ble non-singular polytropes, d… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. — Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. — Differential virial analysis for the simulations of Collins et al. (2012), which are supported at early times but transition to globally collapsing at later times. Lines show simulation times t/tff = 0, 0.1, 0.3, and 0.6, as indicated, progressing from sup￾ported to collapsing. The top panel shows the observer’s virial parameter αvir, while the bottom panel shows the virial diagram σ 2/R versus Σ. All quantities a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: — Histogram of ratios Σ/ΣL and σL/σ, where Σ and σ are the column density and velocity dispersion in projected pixels, quantities subscripted by L are those derived from synthetic 12CO J = 1 → 0 (blue) or 13CO J = 1 → 0 (orange), and those with no subscripts are true v…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: — Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: — Differential virial analysis for GMCs in M31. The top row shows the virial diagram σ 2/R versus Σ, with the loci corre￾sponding to αvir = 1 and 2 shown as the gray dashed lines. The second row shows the observer’s virial parameter αvir as a func￾tion of Σ, while in t…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: — Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Searching for star formation towards the Eos molecular cloud

    astro-ph.GA 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    No young stellar population or kinematic clustering is found toward the Eos cloud, indicating it has not recently formed stars.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    F., Lada, C

    Alves, J. F., Lada, C. J., & Lada, E. A. 2001, Nature, 409, 159, doi: 10.1038/35051509

    doi:10.1038/35051509 2001

  2. [2]

    E., et al

    Anderson, M., Peretto, N., Ragan, S. E., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 2964, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2674 Andr´ e, P., Belloche, A., Motte, F., & Peretto, N. 2007, A&A, 472, 519, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077422

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2674 2021

  3. [3]

    R., & Fujimoto, Y

    Armillotta, L., Krumholz, M. R., & Fujimoto, Y. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 5000, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2625 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboratio...

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2625 2018

  4. [4]

    2006, MNRAS, 372, 443, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10880.x

    Ballesteros-Paredes, J. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 443, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10880.x

    arXiv 2006

  5. [5]

    Heitsch, F., & Zamora-Avil´ es, M. A. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 65, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17657.x

    arXiv 2011

  6. [6]

    2024, MNRAS, 534, 1043, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2036

    Ballesteros-Paredes, J., Zamora-Avil´ es, M., Rom´ an-Z´ u˜ niga, C., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 1043, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2036

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2036 2024

  7. [7]

    Bertoldi, F., & McKee, C. F. 1992, ApJ, 395, 140, doi: 10.1086/171638

    doi:10.1086/171638 1992

  8. [8]

    N., Evans, N

    Blair, G. N., Evans, N. J., I., Vanden Bout, P. A., & Peters, W. L., I. 1978, ApJ, 219, 896, doi: 10.1086/155853

    work page doi:10.1086/155853 1978

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    1980, ApJ, 241, 676, doi: 10.1086/158379

    Blitz, L., & Thaddeus, P. 1980, ApJ, 241, 676, doi: 10.1086/158379

    1980 doi

  2. [10]

    D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A

    Bolatto, A. D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A. K. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 207, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    Bonnor, W. B. 1956, MNRAS, 116, 351, doi: 10.1093/mnras/116.3.351

    1956 doi

  4. [12]

    J., et al

    Bosomworth, C., Forbrich, J., Lada, C. J., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 3803, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2805

    2025 doi

  5. [13]

    C., & Lazarian, A

    Burkhart, B., Collins, D. C., & Lazarian, A. 2015, ApJ, 808, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/48

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    M., Bialy, S., et al

    Burkhart, B., Appel, S. M., Bialy, S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc484

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    2020, ApJ, 903, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb8d4

    Camacho, V., V´ azquez-Semadeni, E., Palau, A., Busquet, G., & Zamora-Avil´ es, M. 2020, ApJ, 903, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb8d4

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 3376, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1581 16

    Camacho, V., V´ azquez-Semadeni, E., Palau, A., & Zamora-Avil´ es, M. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3376, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1581 16

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    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, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09570

    2023 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    Chevance, M., Kruijssen, J. M. D., Hygate, A. P. S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 2872, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3525

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    C., Kritsuk, A

    Collins, D. C., Kritsuk, A. G., Padoan, P., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 13, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/13

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

    L., Krumholz, M

    Dobbs, C. L., Krumholz, M. R., Ballesteros-Paredes, J., et al. 2014, Protostars and Planets VI, 3, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816531240-ch001

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

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

    Evans, N. J., Kim, J.-G., & Ostriker, E. C. 2022, ApJ, 929, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6427

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    J., Heiderman, A., & Vutisalchavakul, N

    Evans, II, N. J., Heiderman, A., & Vutisalchavakul, N. 2014, ApJ, 782, 114, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/114

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    M., Lada, C

    Faesi, C. M., Lada, C. J., & Forbrich, J. 2018, ApJ, 857, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaad60

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    Federrath, C., & Klessen, R. S. 2012, ApJ, 761, 156, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/156

    2012 doi

  17. [25]

    Feng, Y., & Krumholz, M. R. 2014, Nature, 513, 523, doi: 10.1038/nature13662

    2014 doi

  18. [27]

    J., Viaene, S., & Petitpas, G

    Forbrich, J., Lada, C. J., Viaene, S., & Petitpas, G. 2020, ApJ, 890, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab68de

    2020 doi

  19. [28]

    1974, ApJ, 189, 441, doi: 10.1086/152821

    Goldreich, P., & Kwan, J. 1974, ApJ, 189, 441, doi: 10.1086/152821

    1974 doi

  20. [29]

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

    Gong, M., Ostriker, E. C., Kim, C.-G., & Kim, J.-G. 2020, ApJ, 903, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbdab

    2020 doi

  21. [30]

    2016, A&A, 591, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527319

    Hacar, A., Alves, J., Burkert, A., & Goldsmith, P. 2016, A&A, 591, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527319

    2016 doi

  22. [31]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  23. [32]

    2011, ApJ, 743, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/743/2/L29

    Hennebelle, P., & Chabrier, G. 2011, ApJ, 743, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/743/2/L29

    2011 doi

  24. [33]

    S., et al

    Heyer, M., Gutermuth, R., Urquhart, J. S., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, A29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527681

    2016 doi

  25. [34]

    Heyer, M., Krawczyk, C., Duval, J., & Jackson, J. M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 1092, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1092

    2009 doi

  26. [35]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 1653, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts704

    2013 doi

  27. [36]

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

    doi

  28. [37]

    R., Pokhrel, R., & Gutermuth, R

    Hu, Z., Krumholz, M. R., Pokhrel, R., & Gutermuth, R. A. 2022b, MNRAS, 511, 1431, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac174

    doi

  29. [38]

    1962, ApJ, 136, 594, doi: 10.1086/147410

    Hunter, C. 1962, ApJ, 136, 594, doi: 10.1086/147410

    1962 doi

  30. [39]

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

    2007 doi

  31. [40]

    Jeffreson, S. M. R., Semenov, V. A., & Krumholz, M. R. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 7093, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3550

    2024 doi

  32. [41]

    R., & Myers, P

    Keto, E. R., & Myers, P. C. 1986, ApJ, 304, 466, doi: 10.1086/164181

    1986 doi

  33. [42]

    2007, ApJ, 668, 1042, doi: 10.1086/521395

    Kirk, H., Johnstone, D., & Tafalla, M. 2007, ApJ, 668, 1042, doi: 10.1086/521395

    2007 doi

  34. [43]

    Krumholz, M. R. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 1662, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2000

    2014 doi

  35. [44]

    R., Dekel, A., & McKee, C

    Krumholz, M. R., Dekel, A., & McKee, C. F. 2012, ApJ, 745, 69, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/69

    2012 doi

  36. [45]

    R., & McKee, C

    Krumholz, M. R., & McKee, C. F. 2005, ApJ, 630, 250, doi: 10.1086/431734

    2005 doi

  37. [46]

    R., McKee, C

    Krumholz, M. R., McKee, C. F., & Bland -Hawthorn, J. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 227, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104430

    2019 doi

  38. [47]

    R., & Tan, J

    Krumholz, M. R., & Tan, J. C. 2007, ApJ, 654, 304, doi: 10.1086/509101

    2007 doi

  39. [48]

    Lada, C. J. 1976, ApJS, 32, 603, doi: 10.1086/190409

    1976 doi

  40. [49]

    J., & Dame, T

    Lada, C. J., & Dame, T. M. 2020, ApJ, 898, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9bfb

    2020 doi

  41. [50]

    J., Forbrich, J., Krumholz, M

    Lada, C. J., Forbrich, J., Krumholz, M. R., & Keto, E. 2025, ApJ in press, arXiv:2501.16447, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.16447

    2025 doi arXiv

  42. [51]

    J., Forbrich, J., Petitpas, G., & Viaene, S

    Lada, C. J., Forbrich, J., Petitpas, G., & Viaene, S. 2024, ApJ, 966, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad38bf

    2024 doi

  43. [52]

    Larson, R. B. 1969, MNRAS, 145, 271, doi: 10.1093/mnras/145.3.271

    1969 doi

  44. [53]

    A., Lada, C

    Lewis, J. A., Lada, C. J., Bieging, J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc41f

    2021 doi

  45. [54]

    Lombardi, M., Bouy, H., Alves, J., & Lada, C. J. 2014, A&A, 566, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323293 Mac Low, M.-M., & Klessen, R. S. 2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 125, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.76.125

    2014 doi

  46. [55]

    F., & Holliman, John H., I

    McKee, C. F., & Holliman, John H., I. 1999, ApJ, 522, 313, doi: 10.1086/307613

    1999 doi

  47. [56]

    F., & Zweibel, E

    McKee, C. F., & Zweibel, E. G. 1992, ApJ, 399, 551, doi: 10.1086/171946

    1992 doi

  48. [57]

    E., & Pudritz, R

    McLaughlin, D. E., & Pudritz, R. E. 1997, ApJ, 476, 750, doi: 10.1086/303657

    1997 doi

  49. [58]

    J., & Solomon, P

    Mooney, T. J., & Solomon, P. M. 1988, ApJ, 334, L51, doi: 10.1086/185310

    1988 doi

  50. [59]

    2007, ApJ, 671, 1820, doi: 10.1086/523265

    Lombardi, M. 2007, ApJ, 671, 1820, doi: 10.1086/523265

    2007 doi

  51. [60]

    C., & Hernquist, L

    Narayanan, D., Krumholz, M., Ostriker, E. C., & Hernquist, L. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 664, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19516.x

    2011

  52. [61]

    R., Ostriker, E

    Narayanan, D., Krumholz, M. R., Ostriker, E. C., & Hernquist, L. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 3127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20536.x

    2012

  53. [62]

    Noriega-Mendoza, H., & Aguilar, L. A. 2018, Rev. Mexicana Astron. Astrofis., 54, 179

    2018

  54. [63]

    Offner, S. S. R., Krumholz, M. R., Klein, R. I., & McKee, C. F. 2008, AJ, 136, 404, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/1/404

    2008 doi

  55. [64]

    R., & Federrath, C

    Onus, A., Krumholz, M. R., & Federrath, C. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 1702, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1662

    2018 doi

  56. [65]

    Penston, M. V. 1969a, MNRAS, 144, 425, doi: 10.1093/mnras/144.4.425 —. 1969b, MNRAS, 145, 457, doi: 10.1093/mnras/145.4.457

    doi

  57. [66]

    J., Louvet, F., et al

    Peretto, N., Rigby, A. J., Louvet, F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2935, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2453

    2023 doi

  58. [67]

    A., Krumholz, M

    Pokhrel, R., Gutermuth, R. A., Krumholz, M. R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abf564

    2021 doi

  59. [68]

    W., Pineda, J

    Rosolowsky, E. W., Pineda, J. E., Kauffmann, J., & Goodman, A. A. 2008, ApJ, 679, 1338, doi: 10.1086/587685 Sch¨ oier, F. L., van der Tak, F. F. S., van Dishoeck, E. F., & Black, J. H. 2005, A&A, 432, 369, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041729

    2008 doi

  60. [69]

    Shu, F. H. 1977, ApJ, 214, 488, doi: 10.1086/155274

    1977 doi

  61. [70]

    M., Sun, J., et al

    Teng, Y.-H., Sandstrom, K. M., Sun, J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accb86 van der Walt, S., Sch¨ onberger, J. L., Nunez-Iglesias, J., et al. 2014, PeerJ, 2, e453, doi: 10.7717/peerj.453 V´ azquez-Semadeni, E., G´ omez, G. C., Jappsen, A. K., et al. 2007...

    2023 doi

  62. [71]

    J., Petitpas, G., & Faesi, C

    Viaene, S., Forbrich, J., Lada, C. J., Petitpas, G., & Faesi, C. 2021, ApJ, 912, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe629

    2021 doi

  63. [72]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  64. [73]

    C., Balakrishnan, N., & Forrey, R

    Yang, B., Stancil, P. C., Balakrishnan, N., & Forrey, R. C. 2010, ApJ, 718, 1062, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/718/2/1062

    2010 doi

  65. [74]

    R., & Burkhart, B

    Yuan, Y., Krumholz, M. R., & Burkhart, B. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 2440, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2432

    2020 doi

  66. [75]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.11588, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.11588

    Zamora-Aviles, M., Camacho, V., Ballesteros-Paredes, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.11588, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.11588

    2024 doi arXiv

  67. [76]

    Zuckerman, B., & Evans, II, N. J. 1974, ApJ, 192, L149, doi: 10.1086/181613 This paper was built using the Open Journal of As- trophysics LATEX template. The OJA is a journal which provides fast and easy peer review for new papers in the astro-ph section of the arXiv, making t...

    1974 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.