Ambipolar diffusion and the mass-to-flux ratio in a turbulent collapsing cloud

Aris Tritsis

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 83 references

Ambipolar diffusion and the mass-to-flux ratio in a turbulent collapsing cloud

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 This paper shows that in a supercritical turbulent collapsing cloud, the region-averaged true mass-to-flux ratio rises monotonically in time and falls outward, even though the ambipolar drift becomes chaotic; a Zeeman-style observed ratio…

desk verdict Genuinely new antiphase drift finding and a clever but under-validated flux-tube method; the monotonic mass-to-flux claim needs a tangled-field benchmark before it is secure. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20391 v2 pith:WUFCFALY submitted 2025-05-26 astro-ph.GA

Aris Tritsis This is my paper

classification astro-ph.GA

keywords ambipolardiffusionneutral-iondriftvelocitymass-to-fluxrationonidealmagnetohydrodynamicsturbulentmolecularcloudcollapsemagneticfieldlinetracingZeemanobservationsstarformation

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 asks whether turbulence can break the standard ambipolar-diffusion picture of star formation, in which neutrals drift across magnetic field lines and steadily raise the mass-to-flux ratio in the densest gas. The author runs a 3D nonideal magnetohydrodynamic simulation of a supercritical (mass exceeding the magnetic critical value) turbulent collapsing cloud, with resistivities computed self-consistently from a chemical network of 115 species. At early times the neutral-ion drift velocity looks like the classic two-dimensional hourglass picture, with vectors pointing inward; by late times it becomes chaotic, with many vectors pointing outward and the drift above and below the midplane in antiphase, which the paper attributes to helical magnetic loops and the magnetic tension force. The core claim is that the region-averaged true 3D mass-to-flux ratio nevertheless increases monotonically with time and decreases outward, so the central gas keeps accumulating mass relative to magnetic flux. The paper also claims that an idealized Zeeman-style observed mass-to-flux ratio correlates poorly with the true value and with the density structure, meaning projection geometry alone can distort observational profiles.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the neutral-ion drift velocity ${\bf v}_{\rm dr}$ together with a new way of measuring what the paper calls the true (differential) mass-to-flux ratio. The method traces magnetic field lines from each grid cell through the 3D domain using a Runge-Kutta integrator and trilinear interpolation, then constructs 16-vertex convex flux-tube volume elements around each line segment, with scaling factors $f_i$ chosen so the magnetic flux is constant along the tube. Delaunay triangulation gives each volume, trilinear interpolation of the density gives its mass, and the flux is measured at one cross-section, yielding the mass loading per flux tube directly. The work also decomposes the drift velocity, through an expression like ${\bf v}_{\rm dr}\propto -\eta_\perp {\bf j}\times{\bf B}/B^2$, into a magnetic-tension-driven part and a magnetic-pressure-driven part; the tension part dominates and explains the late-time antiphase pattern.

What would settle it

A high-resolution rerun of the same initial cloud would settle it: if the median region-averaged true mass-to-flux ratio stops rising monotonically, or the radial decline disappears, when the smallest cell size is halved (or when a different turbulent seed is used), then the claimed trends are artifacts of the tracing and volume method rather than physics. A direct synthetic test would prescribe a tangled field with a known mass-to-flux profile and ask whether the Appendix B.1 method recovers it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that a region-averaged true mass-to-flux ratio $M/\Phi_B$ in a supercritical turbulent collapsing cloud behaves in exactly the way ambipolar-diffusion theory predicts, even when the underlying drift velocity field stops behaving that way. At $t=1.44\,t_{\rm ff}$ the neutral-ion drift velocity is 'messy': much of it points away from the dense center, and its horizontal components above and below the midplane are approximately in antiphase. The author attributes this to helical magnetic loops that form in high-vorticity regions; the magnetic tension force per unit volume points inward on both sides of the midplane, so the drift, which opposes tension, points one way above and the opposite way below. Nevertheless, when mass and flux are measured along true 3D flux tubes by the paper's new field-line tracing method, the median $M/\Phi_B$ in the central region rises monotonically in time and declines outward in radius. The observed mass-to-flux ratio, computed from the line-of-sight field component as a Zeeman observer would do, does not follow the true profile and correlates poorly with the density, so the paper concludes that projection geometry, not nonideal MHD, can explain part of the scatter seen in observations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the new field-line tracing and flux-tube volume reconstruction measures the true per-flux-tube mass loading accurately even in the tangled, strongly collapsed field at late times; the benchmark is done on a smooth-field ideal MHD run and recovers the initial mass-to-flux ratio only to about 0.2-0.3, while the paper itself notes that tracing becomes harder as the field becomes more complex.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the claim holds, turbulence-induced disorder in the drift velocity does not reverse ambipolar-diffusion-driven mass accumulation in supercritical cores; the central region's mass-to-flux ratio keeps climbing even while individual drift vectors point outward.
The early-time agreement with 2D axisymmetric models supports using simpler axisymmetric calculations to study ambipolar diffusion during the early prestellar phase.
An ideal Zeeman measurement along the mean field direction does not recover the true radial mass-to-flux profile; apparent monotonic or non-monotonic gradients in observed profiles should not be read directly as physical gradients.
The magnetic-tension explanation implies that high-vorticity, filamentary structures in turbulent clouds should show drift velocities perpendicular to their long axes, as neutral gas disperses across the filament spine.
The result preserves the relevance of ambipolar-diffusion theory for the mass-to-flux ratio even when the drift velocity field itself becomes unusable as a clean diagnostic.

Reading between the lines

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

A decisive test of the measurement: if the same monotonic rise and outward decline survive a factor-of-two resolution increase or a different turbulent seed, the behavior is physical; if not, the flux-tube reconstruction is the likely source.
The poor observed-versus-true correlation suggests that some published Zeeman mass-to-flux gradients, including apparent decreases toward cores, may be dominated by projection rather than by the physics of ambipolar diffusion.
The antiphase drift pattern gives a concrete observational prediction: in an edge-on turbulent core, ion-neutral velocity offsets should flip sign across the midplane, though the predicted drift magnitudes are below current spectral resolutions.
The flux-tube method could be applied to regimes with Hall or Ohmic diffusion, where the monotonic behavior of the true mass-to-flux ratio has not yet been demonstrated.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is a real step forward for how we interpret mass-to-flux measurements, but the central monotonic-increase claim is only as good as a flux-tube reconstruction that has not been tested in the tangled-field regime where it matters. What is new: the antiphase drift structure above and below the midplane, explained via magnetic tension in helical loops, is genuinely new and would not have come out of the 2D axisymmetric literature. The generalized 3D method for computing the true differential mass-to-flux ratio is also original, and the paper correctly shows that an idealized Zeeman-inferred ratio is a poor proxy for the true one. The method is benchmarked against an ideal MHD run with a known initial ratio, recovering it to within 0.2-0.3, with percentile spreads reported. The resistivity calculation is careful microphysics: 115-species chemical network, per-species collision rates, and an iterative correction for supersonic drift. Credit is due for all of that. The soft spots, in proportion. The main one is exactly the stress-test concern. Appendix B.1 uses hand-set scaling factors f_i, a one-cell maximum displacement, and convex hulls to estimate flux-tube volumes. The only benchmark is a smooth, near-hourglass ideal MHD field, and the paper itself says tracing becomes increasingly challenging as the field morphology gets more complex. The target run at 1.44 t_ff has helical loops and tangled fields in precisely the regions used for Figures 5 and 6. In that regime neighboring seed lines can converge or diverge quickly, so fixed one-cell cross-sections can double-count mass or leave gaps, and nothing independently constrains the f_i choices. A bias that grows with field complexity could manufacture the apparent monotonic increase and radial decrease. I do not think that is fatal: the trend is clean, the benchmark scatter is smaller than the signal, and the 2D comparison in Appendix C is reassuring. But a synthetic tangled-field test would settle it. Second, there is no resolution study for a paper whose main product is a new integral quantity; that is a real omission, though minor given the benchmark. Third, the abstract says the ratio monotonically increases, while the body hedges with a tentative indication of late-time reduction in the larger region; that overstatement should be fixed. Public code and data would also help others probe the f_i sensitivity. The citation pattern is fine; the relevant 2D and 3D nonideal MHD literature is cited, including the author's own prior work, which is appropriate here. This paper is for people working on ambipolar diffusion, prestellar cores, and Zeeman surveys. It deserves serious refereeing, and with a tangled-field benchmark and a resolution check it would be solid. My recommendation: send it out, and ask for those tests.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a 3D nonideal MHD simulation of a turbulent, supercritical collapsing molecular cloud, with resistivities computed self-consistently from a 115-species nonequilibrium chemical network. The author studies the neutral-ion drift velocity at two epochs, finds a transition from a coherent hourglass-like inflow at one free-fall time to a chaotic field with midplane-antisymmetric drift at 1.44 free-fall times, and attributes these features to magnetic tension and helical field loops. A new method for measuring the true (differential) mass-to-flux ratio by tracing magnetic field lines and reconstructing flux-tube volumes is introduced and benchmarked against an ideal MHD run. The main claims are that the region-averaged true mass-to-flux ratio increases monotonically with time and decreases with radius, while an idealized Zeeman-like observed ratio correlates poorly with both the true ratio and the density structure.

Significance. The simulation is computationally expensive and technically ambitious, and it provides one of the first 3D views of how ambipolar diffusion, gravity, and turbulence interact in a collapsing cloud. The decomposition of the drift velocity into tension- and pressure-driven components, and the explicit comparison of true versus observationally inferred mass-to-flux ratios, are valuable diagnostics. The paper is commendably honest about uncertainties: percentile error bars are provided for all profiles, and the appendix benchmark attempts to quantify systematic errors. If the new mass-to-flux method can be shown to be robust in tangled fields, the results would be an important benchmark for theories of star formation and for interpreting Zeeman observations.

major comments (3)

[Appendix B.1/B.2, Figs. 5 and 6] The central claims of monotonic increase and outward decrease of the true mass-to-flux ratio rest entirely on the new flux-tube reconstruction, which is validated only against an ideal MHD simulation with a smooth, near-hourglass field. The paper itself states in Appendix B.2 that tracing magnetic field lines becomes increasingly challenging as the field morphology gets more complex, and the target run at 1.44 t_ff contains helical loops and tangled fields precisely in the central region used for Figs. 5 and 6. The scaling factors f_i are introduced as depending on the local field strength, but their exact prescription and the consequences of the one-cell maximum displacement are not specified, so the volume reconstruction cannot be independently assessed. A systematic bias in mass loading that grows with field complexity could produce an apparent monotonic increase and radial decrease even if the underlying physics is different. I request a validation test with a synthetic field containing known tangled/helical structures and a known mass-to-flux distribution, or at least a sensitivity study varying f_i and the displacement limit in the existing run, before the central claim is accepted.
[Section 3.2.1, Fig. 5] The region whose time evolution is shown in Fig. 5 is defined at the final time, centered on the location of maximum density at 1.44 t_ff, and then followed backward in time. The text does not state whether the region is fixed in space or traced in a Lagrangian sense along the flow. If the region is Eulerian, the monotonic increase might reflect the advection of different flux tubes through a fixed volume rather than an increase in the mass-to-flux ratio of a given set of fluid elements. The ideal-MHD benchmark indirectly suggests that the method does not spuriously create such a trend, but the authors should clarify the tracking procedure and discuss the sensitivity of the trend to the chosen region size and center.
[Appendix A, Eq. (A.3) and Section 3.1] The decomposition of the drift velocity into magnetic tension and pressure terms neglects the parallel and Hall resistivities and other subdominant terms. This decomposition is used to assert that the late-time antiphase drift velocity above and below the midplane is primarily driven by the magnetic tension force. Because the drift velocity can reach sonic or mildly supersonic values and the Hall term can be non-negligible in partially ionized gas, the authors should provide a quantitative estimate of the relative magnitudes of the neglected terms in the analyzed region (e.g., a map or histogram of the ratio of the Hall and parallel resistivities to the perpendicular resistivity at 1.44 t_ff). Without this, the physical attribution is not fully supported.

minor comments (5)

[Section 1] The word 'referenes' should be 'references'.
[Section 3.1] The word 'miplane' should be 'midplane' (in the paragraph discussing Fig. 1).
[Appendix B.2] The phrase 'access the significance of these errors' should be 'assess the significance of these errors'.
[Figures and text] The notation for the mass-to-flux ratio is inconsistent: Fig. B.2 uses 'M/Phi' while the text and other figures use 'M/Phi_B'; please unify.
[Appendix B.1] The functional form of the scaling factors f_i is not given anywhere in Appendix B.1; even a representative formula or a table of typical values would aid reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported monotonic increase of the true mass-to-flux ratio and the drift-velocity structure are direct outputs of the simulation and measurement method, not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are not constructed from their own outputs. The drift velocity is computed from the simulation's magnetic and density fields through the standard force balance in Eq. A.1 and the decomposition in Eq. A.3; the latter is an algebraic identity using the Lorentz force, and no result is fed back into the induction equation or the resistivity calculation. The true mass-to-flux ratio is measured in Appendix B.1 by tracing magnetic field lines and integrating the simulation's density over reconstructed flux-tube volumes. The scaling factors f_i are set so that the magnetic flux through each cross-section is constant along a line; this is the definition of the differential mass-to-flux ratio, not a constraint that forces the monotonic time increase or the radial decrease reported in Figs. 5 and 6. Those trends are emergent properties of the mass distribution in the simulated cloud. The observed mass-to-flux ratio is a separate mock-observational construction (Appendix B.3), and the poor correlation with the true ratio is a comparison of two distinct definitions, not a prediction extracted from a fit. The paper's self-citations, chiefly Tritsis et al. 2022, 2023, and 2025a,b, supply the numerical setup, the chemical network, and a benchmark simulation; these are reused methods and prior results, not load-bearing circular proofs. The benchmark in Appendix B.2 is a sanity check against a known, constant mass-to-flux ratio in an ideal MHD run, and it is not an input into the target measurement. A legitimate concern remains about the accuracy of field-line tracing in the tangled-field regime at late times, a concern the paper itself acknowledges in Appendix B.2; however, that is a validation and robustness issue, not circular reasoning. Therefore, the derivation is self-contained and no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All inputs are standard astrophysical parameters (chemistry, collision rates, initial conditions) or numerical choices in the new measurement method. No new physical entities are postulated; the helical loops are emergent features of the simulated magnetic field topology, not invented constructs.

free parameters (6)

Cosmic-ray ionization rate (zeta_0) = 1.3e-17 s^-1
Adopted standard value (Caselli et al. 1998), described in Sect. 2.2 as a 'critical free parameter' whose factor-of-two variations significantly affect drift velocity and dynamics.
Grain abundance (n_g-/n_H2) = 1e-12
Constant adopted from Tassis et al. 2012a (Sect. 2.1); affects the perpendicular conductivity and hence resistivities.
Grain size distribution parameters = MRN, 30 bins, r_min=0.0181 um, r_max=0.9049 um, rho=2.3 g/cm^3, delta=1.3
Adopted from Mathis et al. 1977 and Kunz & Mouschovias 2009 (Sect. 2.1); the paper notes grain growth could modify conductivities at the ~10% level.
Initial conditions (n0, B0, T, Mach numbers) = n=500 cm^-3, B=10 uG, T=10 K, M_s~3, M_A~0.85, M/Phi~1.7, box 2 pc, mass 240 M_sun
Chosen in Sect. 2.3; the author explicitly states these do not necessarily represent typical real cloud conditions and are part of a parameter-suite exploration.
Per-species ion collision rates and electron rate = sigma_w from Langevin, sigma_w_eH2=1.3e-9 cm^3/s, alpha_eHe=1.16
Taken from Pinto & Galli 2008a and Mouschovias 1996 (Sect. 2.1); variation among ions up to 67%, leading to resistivity changes of less than 15%.
Flux-tube scaling factors f_i in the mass-to-flux method = dependent on local B; max displacement one cell
Introduced in Appendix B.1 to keep the magnetic flux constant along traced field lines; a free numerical choice in the new mass-to-flux measurement method.

assumptions (6)

standard math Nonideal MHD induction equation and conductivity formulas (Eqs. 1-5) from Parks (1991) and Mouschovias (1996)
Background theory assumed without proof in Sect. 2.1.
domain assumption Langevin approximation for ion-neutral collision rates is valid; iterated for supersonic drift
Sect. 2.1; the paper checks that drift velocities only become marginally supersonic, so corrections are minor.
domain assumption Chemical network of 115 species with about 1650 reactions from UMIST RATE12 and prior papers by the author accurately models ionization
Sect. 2.2; the network is inherited from Tritsis et al. 2025a,b and determines resistivities.
domain assumption Isothermality at T=10 K throughout the simulation
Sect. 2.3; a simplification for prestellar collapse.
ad hoc to paper In the drift-velocity decomposition (Eq. A.3), parallel and Hall resistivities and other subdominant terms are neglected
Appendix A; used to attribute the antiphase structure to the magnetic tension force; the paper itself warns the magnetic pressure contribution is non-negligible.
ad hoc to paper For the angle analysis, the z-component of the drift velocity is set to zero because vertical motions are 'ultimately regulated by gravity'
Sect. 3.2.1, Fig. 7; this assumption could affect the conclusion about the fraction of outward-pointing vectors.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ambipolar diffusion and the mass-to-flux ratio in a turbulent collapsing cloud." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WUFCFALY

@misc{pith2026250520391,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ambipolar diffusion and the mass-to-flux ratio in a turbulent collapsing cloud},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WUFCFALY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20391}
}

read the original abstract

The formation of stars is governed by the intricate interplay of nonideal magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) effects, gravity, and turbulence. Computational challenges have hindered a comprehensive 3D exploration of this interplay, posing a longstanding challenge in our understanding of clouds and cores. Our objective was to study the spatial features and time evolution of the neutral-ion drift velocity and the mass-to-flux ratio in a 3D nonideal MHD chemo-dynamical simulation of a supercritical turbulent collapsing molecular cloud. The resistivities of the cloud were computed self-consistently from a vast non-equilibrium chemical network containing 115 species. To compute the resistivities we used different mean collisional rates for each charged species in our network. We additionally developed a new generalized method for measuring the true mass-to-flux ratio in 3D simulations. Despite the cloud's turbulent nature, at early times, the neutral-ion drift velocity follows the expected structure from 2D axisymmetric non-ideal MHD simulations with an hourglass magnetic field. At later times, however, the neutral-ion drift velocity becomes increasingly complex, with many vectors pointing outward from the cloud's center. Specifically, we find that the drift velocity above and below the cloud's ``midplane'' is in ``antiphase''. We explain these features on the basis of magnetic helical loops and the correlation of the drift velocity with the magnetic tension force per unit volume. Despite the complex structure of the neutral-ion drift velocity, we demonstrate that, when averaged over a region, the true mass-to-flux ratio monotonically increases as a function of time and decreases as a function of the radius from the center of the cloud. In contrast, the ``observed'' mass-to-flux ratio shows poor correlation with the true mass-to-flux ratio and the density structure of the cloud.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.20391 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Density slices (black-white colormap) through our computational cube at the location of the maximum density at one free-fall time (left column) and at the end of our simulation (right column). From top to bottom we show slices through the y, x and z directions. Cyan streamlines show the morphology of the magnetic field in each slice and blue contours mark the density with dotted, dashed, dash-dotted and solid lines … view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Illustration of the physical picture that explains (to zeroth order) the features seen in the drift velocity in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** One-dimensional profiles of the x and y components of the neutral-ion drift (left and right panels, respectively) at the end of the simulation. In the upper row, we show the components of the neutralion drift velocity driven by the magnetic tension force per unit volume, and in the lower row we show the components driven by the magnetic pressure force per unit volume. Note that, to zeroth order, the features observ… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The evolution of the mass-to-flux ratio as a function of time in a slice perpendicular to the z axis, centered on the location of the maximum density at a time of 1.44 tf f . The mass-to-flux ratio was computed for all cells within a 0.2×0.2 pc2 area. With the black p…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Average profiles of the mass-to-flux ratio (upper panel), and the number density (lower panel) of the cloud in concentric radial shells at a time of 1.44 tf f . The averages were created by considering a slice perpendicular to the z axis centered at the location of th…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Probability density functions of the angle between the drift velocity and vectors pointing toward the center of the cloud for the two different times examined. θ∡ = 0 ◦ means that the neutral-ion drift points toward the center of the cloud and θ∡ = 180◦ means that the…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[1]

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

ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint 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 ...
[2]

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....
[3]

ichiro .\ 2023, arXiv:2310.16448

Abe, D., Inoue, T., & Inutsuka, S.-. ichiro .\ 2023, arXiv:2310.16448. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2310.16448

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.16448 2023
[4]

A fast and robust recipe for modeling non-ideal MHD effects in star-formation simulations

Agianoglou, E., Tritsis, A., & Tassis, K.\ 2025, arXiv:2502.06933. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2502.06933

work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.06933 2025
[5]

E., Dapp, W

Basu, S., Ciolek, G. E., Dapp, W. B., et al.\ 2009, , 14, 483. doi:10.1016/j.newast.2009.01.004

work page doi:10.1016/j.newast.2009.01.004 2009
[6]

A., Plume, R., Williams, J

Bergin, E. A., Plume, R., Williams, J. P., et al.\ 1999, , 512, 724. doi:10.1086/306791

doi:10.1086/306791 1999
[7]

M., Terzieva, R., et al.\ 1998, , 499, 234

Caselli, P., Walmsley, C. M., Terzieva, R., et al.\ 1998, , 499, 234. doi:10.1086/305624

doi:10.1086/305624 1998
[8]

M., Zucconi, A., et al.\ 2002, , 565, 344

Caselli, P., Walmsley, C. M., Zucconi, A., et al.\ 2002, , 565, 344. doi:10.1086/324302

doi:10.1086/324302 2002

Show all 83 references

[9]

doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04159-x

Ching, T.-C., Li, D., Heiles, C., et al.\ 2022, , 601, 49. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04159-x

2022 doi
[10]

Ciolek, G. E. & Mouschovias, T. C.\ 1993, , 418, 774. doi:10.1086/173435

1993 doi
[11]

doi:10.1007/BF01448839

Courant, R., Friedrichs, K., & Lewy, H.\ 1928, Mathematische Annalen, 100, 32. doi:10.1007/BF01448839

1928 doi
[12]

M., Hakobian, N., & Troland, T

Crutcher, R. M., Hakobian, N., & Troland, T. H.\ 2009, , 692, 844. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/844

2009 doi
[14]

M.\ 2012, , 50, 29

Crutcher, R. M.\ 2012, , 50, 29. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125514

2012 doi
[15]

Desch, S. J. & Mouschovias, T. C.\ 2001, , 550, 314. doi:10.1086/319703

2001 doi
[16]

T., Roberge, W

Draine, B. T., Roberge, W. G., & Dalgarno, A.\ 1983, , 264, 485. doi:10.1086/160617

1983 doi
[17]

Dubey, A., Fisher, R., Graziani, C., et al.\ 2008, Numerical Modeling of Space Plasma Flows, 385, 145

2008
[18]

doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628995

Dzyurkevich, N., Commer c on, B., Lesaffre, P., et al.\ 2017, , 603, A105. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628995

2017 doi
[19]

S.\ 1924, Physical Review, 23, 710

Epstein, P. S.\ 1924, Physical Review, 23, 710. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.23.710

1924 doi
[20]

H., Crutcher, R

Falgarone, E., Troland, T. H., Crutcher, R. M., et al.\ 2008, , 487, 247. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809577

2008 doi
[21]

S., et al.\ 2010, , 512, A81

Federrath, C., Roman-Duval, J., Klessen, R. S., et al.\ 2010, , 512, A81. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912437

2010 doi
[22]

S., et al.\ 2022, Astrophysics Source Code Library

Federrath, C., Roman-Duval, J., Klessen, R. S., et al.\ 2022, Astrophysics Source Code Library. ascl:2204.001

2022
[23]

Computing 4, 93–106

Fehlberg, E.\ 1969, Klassische Runge-Kutta-Formeln funfter und siebenter Ordnung mit Schrittweiten-Kontrolle. Computing 4, 93–106. 10.1007/BF02234758

1969 doi
[24]

Fryxell, B., Olson, K., Ricker, P., et al.\ 2000, , 131, 273

2000
[25]

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

2012
[26]

R., Pety, J., Gerin, M., et al.\ 2009, , 498, 771

Goicoechea, J. R., Pety, J., Gerin, M., et al.\ 2009, , 498, 771. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200811496

2009 doi
[27]

R., Millman, K

Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J. et al.\ 2020 Nature 585, 357–362. doi: 0.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

2020
[28]

doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936714

Hennebelle, P., Commer c on, B., Lee, Y.-N., et al.\ 2020, , 635, A67. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936714

2020 doi
[29]

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf3c4

Hwang, J., Kim, J., Pattle, K., et al.\ 2021, , 913, 85. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf3c4

2021 doi
[30]

doi:10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/603

Hezareh, T., Houde, M., McCoey, C., et al.\ 2010, , 720, 603. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/603

2010 doi
[31]

F., Squire, J., Skalidis, R., et al.\ 2024, arXiv:2405.06026

Hopkins, P. F., Squire, J., Skalidis, R., et al.\ 2024, arXiv:2405.06026. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2405.06026

2024 doi
[32]

D.\ 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, vol

Hunter, J. D.\ 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 90-95

2007
[33]

M., Tang, Y.-W., & Ho, P

Koch, P. M., Tang, Y.-W., & Ho, P. T. P.\ 2012, , 747, 80. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/80

2012 doi
[34]

Krumholz, M. R. & Federrath, C.\ 2019, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 7. doi:10.3389/fspas.2019.00007

2019
[37]

S., McKee, C

Li, P. S., McKee, C. F., & Klein, R. I.\ 2006, , 653, 1280. doi:10.1086/508977

2006 doi
[38]

doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346558

Lebreuilly, U., Hennebelle, P., Colman, T., et al.\ 2024, , 682, A30. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346558

2024 doi
[39]

Li, H.-. bai . & Houde, M.\ 2008, , 677, 1151. doi:10.1086/529581

2008 doi
[40]

doi:10.1063/1.1526701

Liu, B., Goree, J., Nosenko, V., et al.\ 2003, Physics of Plasmas, 10, 9. doi:10.1063/1.1526701

2003 doi
[41]

Machida, M. N. & Basu, S.\ 2024, , 970, 41. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4997

2024 doi
[42]

doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526780

Marchand, P., Masson, J., Chabrier, G., et al.\ 2016, , 592, A18. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526780

2016 doi
[43]

doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526371

Masson, J., Chabrier, G., Hennebelle, P., et al.\ 2016, , 587, A32. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526371

2016 doi
[44]

S., Rumpl, W., & Nordsieck, K

Mathis, J. S., Rumpl, W., & Nordsieck, K. H.\ 1977, , 217, 425. doi:10.1086/155591

1977 doi
[45]

M.\ 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 949223

Maury, A., Hennebelle, P., & Girart, J. M.\ 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 949223. doi:10.3389/fspas.2022.949223

2022
[46]

J., et al.\ 2013, , 550, A36

McElroy, D., Walsh, C., Markwick, A. J., et al.\ 2013, , 550, A36. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220465

2013 doi
[47]

F., & Massey, H

Mott, N. F., & Massey, H. S. W.\ 1971, The Theory of Atomic Collisions (3d ed.; Oxford : Oxford Univ. Press)

1971
[48]

Mouschovias, T. C. & Spitzer, L.\ 1976, , 210, 326. doi:10.1086/154835

1976 doi
[49]

C.\ 1995, The Physics of the Interstellar Medium and Intergalactic Medium, 80, 184

Mouschovias, T. C.\ 1995, The Physics of the Interstellar Medium and Intergalactic Medium, 80, 184

1995
[50]

C.\ 1987, Physical Processes in Interstellar Clouds, 210, 491

Mouschovias, T. C.\ 1987, Physical Processes in Interstellar Clouds, 210, 491. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-3945-5\_28

1987 doi
[51]

C.\ 1991, , 373, 169

Mouschovias, T. C.\ 1991, , 373, 169. doi:10.1086/170035

1991 doi
[52]

C.\ 1996, Solar and Astrophysical Magnetohydrodynamic Flows, 481, 505

Mouschovias, T. C.\ 1996, Solar and Astrophysical Magnetohydrodynamic Flows, 481, 505

1996
[53]

Mouschovias, T. C. & Ciolek, G. E.\ 1999, The Origin of Stars and Planetary Systems, 540, 305

1999
[54]

C., Tassis, K., & Kunz, M

Mouschovias, T. C., Tassis, K., & Kunz, M. W.\ 2006, , 646, 1043. doi:10.1086/500125

2006 doi
[55]

Mouschovias, T. C. & Tassis, K.\ 2009, , 400, L15. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00752.x

2009
[56]

Mouschovias, T. C. & Tassis, K.\ 2010, , 409, 801. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17345.x

2010
[57]

Myers, P. C. & Basu, S.\ 2021, , 917, 35. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf4c8

2021 doi
[58]

E.\ 1961, , 134, 270

Osterbrock, D. E.\ 1961, , 134, 270. doi:10.1086/147155

1961 doi
[59]

M., et al.\ 2021, , 912, 159

Palau, A., Zhang, Q., Girart, J. M., et al.\ 2021, , 912, 159. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abee1e

2021 doi
[60]

K.\ 1991, Redwood City, CA, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1991, 547 p

Parks, G. K.\ 1991, Redwood City, CA, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1991, 547 p

1991
[61]

V.\ 1979, Electron-Molecule Scattering, 81

Phelps, A. V.\ 1979, Electron-Molecule Scattering, 81

1979
[62]

E., Schmiedeke, A., Caselli, P., et al.\ 2021, , 912, 7

Pineda, J. E., Schmiedeke, A., Caselli, P., et al.\ 2021, , 912, 7. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abebdd

2021 doi
[63]

E., Soler, J

Pineda, J. E., Soler, J. D., Offner, S., et al.\ 2024, , 690, L5. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451208

2024 doi
[64]

& Galli, D.\ 2008, , 484, 17

Pinto, C. & Galli, D.\ 2008, , 484, 17. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078819

2008 doi
[65]

& Galli, D.\ 2008, , 492, 1

Pinto, C. & Galli, D.\ 2008, , 492, 1. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078819e

2008 doi
[66]

D., Wurster, J., & Viti, S.\ 2019, , 488, 2357

Priestley, F. D., Wurster, J., & Viti, S.\ 2019, , 488, 2357. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1869

2019 doi
[67]

S., Li, H.-B., & Lee, W.-K.\ 2018, , 862, 42

Tang, K. S., Li, H.-B., & Lee, W.-K.\ 2018, , 862, 42. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aacb82

2018 doi
[68]

& Mouschovias, T

Tassis, K. & Mouschovias, T. C.\ 2005, , 618, 769. doi:10.1086/424479

2005 doi
[69]

W., et al.\ 2012a, , 753, 29

Tassis, K., Willacy, K., Yorke, H. W., et al.\ 2012a, , 753, 29. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/29

doi
[70]

doi:10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/57

Tassis, K., Hezareh, T., & Willacy, K.\ 2012b, , 760, 57. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/57

doi
[71]

Tielens, A. G. G. M.\ 2005, The Physics and Chemistry of the Interstellar Medium, by A. G. G. M. Tielens, pp. . ISBN 0521826349. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005

2005
[72]

V., Mouschovias, T

Tritsis, A., Panopoulou, G. V., Mouschovias, T. C., et al.\ 2015, , 451, 4384. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1133

2015 doi
[73]

doi:10.1093/mnras/stw329

Tritsis, A., Tassis, K., & Willacy, K.\ 2016, , 458, 789. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw329

2016 doi
[74]

doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3740

Tritsis, A., Federrath, C., Willacy, K., et al.\ 2022, , 510, 4420. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3740

2022 doi
[75]

doi:10.1093/mnras/stad829

Tritsis, A., Basu, S., & Federrath, C.\ 2023, , 521, 5087. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad829

2023 doi
[76]

Tritsis, A., Basu, S., & Federrath, C.\ 2024, , accepted

2024
[77]

doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1290

Tsukamoto, Y., Iwasaki, K., Okuzumi, S., et al.\ 2015, , 452, 278. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1290

2015 doi
[78]

doi:10.48550/arXiv.2209.13765

Tsukamoto, Y., Maury, A., Commer c on, B., et al.\ 2022, arXiv:2209.13765. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2209.13765

2022 doi arXiv
[79]

J., Smith, B

Turk, M. J., Smith, B. D., Oishi, J. S., et al.\ 2011, , 192, 9. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9

2011 doi
[80]

doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732075

Vaytet, N., Commer c on, B., Masson, J., et al.\ 2018, , 615, A5. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732075

2018 doi
[81]

E., et al.\ 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

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

2020 doi
[82]

P., Bergin, E

Williams, J. P., Bergin, E. A., Caselli, P., et al.\ 1998, , 503, 689. doi:10.1086/306034

1998 doi
[83]

R., & Price, D

Wurster, J., Bate, M. R., & Price, D. J.\ 2018, , 475, 1859. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3339

2018 doi
[84]

M., Lee, C.-F., et al.\ 2023, , 942, 32

Yen, H.-W., Koch, P. M., Lee, C.-F., et al.\ 2023, , 942, 32. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca47f

2023 doi
[85]

D., & Wurster, J.\ 2021, , 504, 2381

Yin, C., Priestley, F. D., & Wurster, J.\ 2021, , 504, 2381. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1039

2021 doi
[86]

doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1295

Zhao, B., Caselli, P., Li, Z.-Y., et al.\ 2021, , 505, 5142. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1295

2021 doi

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

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

ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint 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 ...

[2] [2]

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....

[3] [3]

ichiro .\ 2023, arXiv:2310.16448

Abe, D., Inoue, T., & Inutsuka, S.-. ichiro .\ 2023, arXiv:2310.16448. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2310.16448

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.16448 2023

[4] [4]

A fast and robust recipe for modeling non-ideal MHD effects in star-formation simulations

Agianoglou, E., Tritsis, A., & Tassis, K.\ 2025, arXiv:2502.06933. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2502.06933

work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.06933 2025

[5] [5]

E., Dapp, W

Basu, S., Ciolek, G. E., Dapp, W. B., et al.\ 2009, , 14, 483. doi:10.1016/j.newast.2009.01.004

work page doi:10.1016/j.newast.2009.01.004 2009

[6] [6]

A., Plume, R., Williams, J

Bergin, E. A., Plume, R., Williams, J. P., et al.\ 1999, , 512, 724. doi:10.1086/306791

doi:10.1086/306791 1999

[7] [7]

M., Terzieva, R., et al.\ 1998, , 499, 234

Caselli, P., Walmsley, C. M., Terzieva, R., et al.\ 1998, , 499, 234. doi:10.1086/305624

doi:10.1086/305624 1998

[8] [8]

M., Zucconi, A., et al.\ 2002, , 565, 344

Caselli, P., Walmsley, C. M., Zucconi, A., et al.\ 2002, , 565, 344. doi:10.1086/324302

doi:10.1086/324302 2002