Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 69 references

Effect of Magnetic Field on the Accretion Phase of Population III Star Formation

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The central claim is that any non-zero magnetic field, no matter how weak, converts Population III disk fragmentation into a single massive protostar.

desk verdict A well-run sweep showing even 10^-20 G seed fields suppress fragmentation and merge to one Pop III protostar — but the blanket 'single star' claim rests on turbulence-free initial conditions that the paper's own caveats concede. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21110 v1 pith:J43BNPOI submitted 2025-05-27 astro-ph.SR

Masahiro N. Machida , Shingo Hirano , Shantanu Basu This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords PopulationIIIstarsprimordialmagneticfieldsmagnetohydrodynamicalsimulationsprotostellaraccretiondiskfragmentationfieldamplificationoutflowminihalocollapse
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

Population III stars are the first stars, and the standard no-magnetic-field picture has them forming in mini star clusters through repeated disk fragmentation. This paper uses three-dimensional ideal-MHD simulations of a collapsing primordial minihalo, sweeping initial field strengths from $10^{-20}$ gauss to $10^{-4}$ gauss plus a zero-field control, and argues that the magnetic field changes the answer completely: any nonzero seed field eventually produces a single massive protostar. In the zero-field run the disk keeps fragmenting and the primary reaches about 200 solar masses, while in every magnetized run except the strongest the fragments merge and no further fragmentation happens for 1000 to 1400 years. The paper concludes that as long as a minihalo is magnetized, a single Population III star forms, so the first stars are likely born one per minihalo, with a thick magnetically inflated disk rather than a rotation-supported disk and outflow.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a self-regulating feedback loop between magnetic amplification and angular momentum transport. When the field has not been amplified, magnetic torque is weak, a rotating disk forms, and the disk's differential rotation winds up and amplifies the field; once the field is strong, magnetic torque transports angular momentum outward, the gas falls inward without rotation, and the field stops amplifying, returning the system to the first state. The chaotic orbital and spin motions of multiple protostars give the loop an early boost, producing rapid amplification at densities above about $10^{13}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$ shortly after the first protostar forms. The numerical setup supports the loop by resolving the region around the protostar at 0.23 au cell width without sink cells, so magnetic flux is not removed when gas is accreted, and by using a stiff equation of state above $10^{16}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$ to represent the protostar.

What would settle it

Run the same collapse with an imposed turbulent velocity field, say a supersonic Kolmogorov spectrum, while holding $B_0 = 10^{-18}\,\mathrm{G}$; if after 1000 years two or more protostars remain separated by more than about 500 au and continue to accrete, the single-star conclusion fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the initial magnetic field strength only matters through whether it is zero or nonzero. For field strengths from $B_0 = 10^{-20}\,\mathrm{G}$ to $B_0 = 10^{-4}\,\mathrm{G}$, the same sequence repeats: the disk fragments shortly after the first protostar forms, the orbital and spin motions of the fragments stretch and amplify the magnetic field, and once amplified the magnetic torque removes angular momentum, drives the fragments inward, and merges them into a single star. After the merger the field keeps amplifying through differential rotation and saturates with plasma $\beta$ around $10^{-2}$ to $10^{-4}$, inflating the disk vertically and suppressing all further fragmentation. The exception is the strongest model, B04 at $10^{-4}\,\mathrm{G}$, where interchange instability leaks magnetic flux, forms ring-like structures, and triggers a second round of fragmentation. The zero-field model, by contrast, retains numerous protostars, with the most massive reaching about 200 solar masses. The authors state this directly: 'In all models except for the extremely strong magnetic field model B04, the fragments eventually merged into a single massive star. Therefore, as long as the minihalo is magnetized, a single Population III star will form.'

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that starting from a perfectly uniform magnetic field aligned with the rotation axis and no turbulence represents a realistic enough primordial minihalo, because with turbulence the density peaks can form protostars far apart that may survive without merging.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any non-zero seed field, even $B_0 = 10^{-20}\,\mathrm{G}$, a primordial minihalo ends with one massive protostar rather than a mini cluster; the zero-field control is the only model that keeps many protostars.
  • Under realistic weak primordial fields, rotation-supported disks and magnetically driven outflows should be rare, since the parameter windows that produce them (around $B_0 = 10^{-10}\,\mathrm{G}$ and $B_0 \gtrsim 10^{-5}\,\mathrm{G}$) are narrow.
  • The circumstellar structure around a Population III protostar should be a vertically inflated, magnetically supported thick disk with a global spiral pattern, not a thin Keplerian disk.
  • Final stellar masses are set partly by magnetic braking: accretion rates in magnetized runs are lower by a factor of about 2 to 4 than in the zero-field run, giving masses of roughly 60 to 120 solar masses after 1300 years.
  • At the opposite extreme, very strong fields trigger interchange instability and late-stage fragmentation, so the single-star rule has a strong-field boundary somewhere between magnetic-to-gravitational energy ratios 0.23 and 1.1.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Adding turbulence to the initial cloud may break the single-star conclusion: the paper notes that turbulent fragmentation can form protostars at separated locations whose interactions are too weak to amplify the field, allowing multiple stars to survive without merging.
  • A direct numerical test would hold $B_0$ fixed and add a supersonic turbulent velocity spectrum; mapping how the fragment count and merger rate change with turbulent Mach number would tell whether 'magnetized means single' survives in realistic minihalos.
  • The narrow disk/outflow window implies that observational or cosmological-model searches for Population III signatures should not assume Keplerian disks; funnel accretion through magnetic torque may favor one massive star per halo, which in turn affects predictions for supermassive black hole seed formation.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. This paper presents 3D ideal MHD simulations of Population III star formation in a minihalo, varying the initial uniform magnetic field strength from 10^-20 G to 10^-4 G in addition to a zero-field control. The simulations use a nested grid with maximum resolution 0.23 au, no sink cells, a barotropic EOS with a stiff protostellar core, and are run for 1000-1400 yr after first protostar formation. The main result is that in all magnetized models except the strongest (B04), disk fragmentation occurs early but the fragments merge into a single massive protostar, after which no further fragmentation occurs; the magnetic field is amplified to ~1 kG and forms a thick, magnetically inflated disk with a global spiral pattern. In contrast, the zero-field model produces persistent multiple stars with a ~200 M_sun primary. The paper concludes that any seed magnetic field, regardless of strength, leads to a single Population III star, with disks and outflows appearing only in a narrow parameter range.

Significance. The paper provides a systematic parameter study spanning 18 orders of magnitude in initial magnetic field strength, which is valuable for the Population III star formation community. The numerical setup is careful: the Jeans length is resolved with at least 8 cells, the finest cell width is 0.23 au, and the avoidance of sink cells preserves magnetic flux, a known issue in MHD simulations. The control model reproduces the expected vigorous fragmentation in the unmagnetized case, lending credibility to the method. The finding that the magnetic field saturates at plasma beta ~10^-3 across a wide range of initial strengths, and that weak fields lead to a magnetically inflated disk rather than a rotation-supported disk, are notable. However, the headline conclusion that any magnetized minihalo forms a single star is derived from strongly idealized initial conditions (uniform field, no turbulence), and the paper's own caveats in Section 4.2 directly limit this claim. The secure result is that magnetic fields suppress, but do not eliminate, fragmentation in quiescent, non-turbulent clouds.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 5] The claim that 'as long as the minihalo is magnetized, a single Population III star will form' (Section 5) is not supported by the simulations as stated. The models assume a perfectly uniform, rotation-aligned magnetic field and zero initial turbulence (Section 2). The paper itself concedes in Section 4.2 that strong turbulence can produce multiple density peaks throughout the cloud and that 'strong turbulence may prevent the merging of fragments, potentially resulting in the survival of multiple protostars in spatially separated regions.' Since turbulent minihalos are likely the realistic case (as discussed in Section 4.1 with reference to Sharda et al. 2021 and Sadanari et al. 2024), the conclusion must be restricted to the quiescent, non-turbulent regime explored in this study. The abstract and summary should be revised to avoid overgeneralization, and the 'single Population III star' statement should be explicitly conditional on the initial conditions.
  2. [Sections 2 and 4.2] The use of a barotropic equation of state (EOS) may systematically underestimate fragmentation, as the authors themselves note by citing Prole et al. (2024) in Section 2. Because the central result is the suppression of fragmentation leading to a single star, a thermal treatment that yields more fragments could alter the conclusion. The paper provides no sensitivity test with a more detailed EOS or chemistry. This is a load-bearing caveat that should be addressed either by additional simulations or by substantially qualifying the claims about the number of stars, particularly in the abstract and Section 5.
  3. [Sections 3.1 and 5] The statement that 'no further fragmentation occurs' after the merger is based on runs of only 1000-1400 yr after first protostar formation. The accretion phase of a Population III star is expected to last much longer (typically 10^4-10^5 yr), and disk fragmentation can be episodic. A 1000 yr interval, while long compared to the local orbital time, does not rule out later fragmentation events. The conclusion should be phrased as 'no fragmentation within the simulated time span' rather than as a definitive property of the accretion phase.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 5] The phrase 'In all models except for the extremely strong magnetic field model B04' is ambiguous because model B00 (zero magnetic field) does not result in a single star and is not mentioned in that sentence. Please specify 'in all magnetized models' to avoid confusion with the zero-field control.
  2. [Figure 5] The axis label 'plsma βp' is a typo for 'plasma βp'. Also, the title on the first page contains 'F ormation' with an unintended space, likely a formatting artifact.
  3. [Section 3.3.2] The protostar identification procedure uses a 5 au radius, and the text states that if two protostars are within 5 au they are counted as one. Given that the primary conclusion concerns whether a single star forms, it would be helpful to quantify how often this situation occurs in the magnetized models, even if it is stated to be rare.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the single-star outcome is emergent from MHD simulations with no fitted parameters, and the self-citations are motivational or methodological rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that any non-zero magnetic field leads to a single massive Population III star, is an emergent outcome of the reported simulations, not a quantity fitted to data or defined in terms of the conclusion. Across models B20 through B02, fragmentation, magnetic amplification, merger, and the absence of later fragmentation are presented as time-evolving simulation results (Figures 3, 12, 16). No parameter is calibrated to produce the merger; the outcome follows from the MHD equations with stated initial conditions. The self-citations to Hirano & Machida (2022) and Hirano et al. (2023) describe the amplification mechanism, but the same mechanism is independently reproduced in the present runs, e.g., in Figure 5, where the magnetic field is shown to amplify after protostar formation to B ~ 10^2-10^3 G with plasma beta ~ 10^-2 to 10^-4. The use of the barotropic EOS from Higuchi et al. (2018) and the stiff EOS from Machida & Nakamura (2015) are methodological inputs, not predictions derived from the paper's own conclusions. The statement in Section 5, 'as long as the minihalo is magnetized, a single Population III star will form,' is an extrapolation beyond the turbulence-free initial conditions, but the paper explicitly acknowledges this limitation in Section 4.2: 'strong turbulence may prevent the merging of fragments, potentially resulting in the survival of multiple protostars in spatially separated regions.' That is a caveat about the realism of the setup, not a circular step. There is no equation in which a predicted quantity equals a fitted input by construction, and no invoked uniqueness theorem or prior result that forces the conclusion. Therefore the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on a uniform, turbulence-free initial cloud, ideal MHD, a barotropic EOS known to suppress fragmentation, and a stiff-EOS protostar of a chosen size. None of these is fitted to any external data; they are numerical modeling choices with stated caveats in Section 4.2. The magnetic field sweep and the 5 au mass definition are free parameters, not fit parameters. The claimed mechanism (fragmentation-driven dynamo, then magnetic braking merger) is an emergent outcome of the equations.

free parameters (4)
  • Initial magnetic field strength B0 = 10^-20 to 10^-4 G plus zero-field control
    This is the independent variable of the study, treated as a free input parameter rather than fitted to data. It is the main parameter sweep and is not circular, but it is a free input.
  • Stiff EOS threshold density n_ps = 10^16 cm^-3 = 10^16 cm^-3
    The gas is made adiabatic above 10^16 cm^-3 to mimic a protostar. This is a numerical approximation: a real protostar has its radius set by a much higher density near 10^21 cm^-3. The choice changes the size of the object that drives magnetic amplification.
  • Protostar identification radius of 5 au = 5 au
    Protostellar mass is computed as the gas mass within 5 au of each density peak above n > 10^15 cm^-3. The authors state this matches the largest protostellar radius in their runs, but the 5 au cut directly sets the reported masses and can merge close binaries into one object.
  • Outflow detection threshold vz > 1 km/s = 1 km/s
    Outflow mass and momentum are integrals over gas with vz > 1 km/s in z > 0. The authors note that in weak-field models the high-velocity gas within the disk is mistakenly detected as outflows by this threshold, so the quantitative outflow numbers depend on this cut.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Ideal MHD holds throughout the accretion phase; magnetic dissipation is negligible on star and disk scales.
    The paper argues in Section 1 (citing Maki & Susa 2004, 2007; Higuchi et al. 2018, 2019) that primordial gas is hot and dust-free so ionization is sufficient for flux freezing. Section 4.2 concedes that non-ideal effects could become important during accretion and would diffuse magnetic flux, which could suppress the amplification that drives the single-star outcome.
  • domain assumption The barotropic EOS of Higuchi et al. 2018 (model I0ZPM100) adequately represents the thermal state of collapsing primordial gas.
    The authors adopt this EOS instead of solving chemistry on the fly. They cite Prole et al. 2024 showing that barotropic EOS underestimates fragmentation frequency, which is exactly the quantity that determines how many protostars form and therefore how much orbital-motion amplification occurs.
  • domain assumption A Bonnor-Ebert sphere with rigid rotation, beta = 0.02, no turbulence, and a uniform aligned magnetic field is a representative initial condition for a primordial star-forming minihalo.
    Section 2 states this setup is inherited from prior studies and the authors acknowledge it may not be very realistic. Section 4.2 explains that turbulence could create off-center fragments that survive, undermining the single-star conclusion.
  • domain assumption A protostar can be represented as gas with a stiff EOS above 10^16 cm^-3, and sink cells must be avoided.
    The stiff EOS size of the protostar sets the scale of the region where orbital and rotational motions amplify the field. The authors argue sink cells are unsuitable because they remove gas but leave magnetic flux behind, which artificially weakens magnetic effects.
  • standard math The standard MHD equations with gravitational softening and divergence cleaning are solved faithfully by the nested grid code.
    Equations 1-4 are the standard ideal MHD system; the Dedner et al. 2002 divergence cleaning is used. There is no formal verification that the implementation is bug-free.
invented entities (2)
  • Magnetically inflated thick disk (pseudodisk supported by magnetic pressure)
    purpose: Explains how the amplified field both transports angular momentum outward and inflates the disk vertically, preventing further fragmentation.
    This is a simulation outcome with internal consistency (plasma beta about 10^-2 to 10^-4, vertical expansion, spiral pattern) but no observation exists yet to confirm it. It is an emergent structure, not a new force or particle.
  • Interchange instability as the cause of the B04 ring fragmentation
    purpose: Explains the exceptional B04 model, where fragments reappear late in the run.
    The instability is invoked from prior literature (Machida & Basu 2020), but the application to B04 is a post hoc interpretation of one simulation with gamma0 = 1.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effect of Magnetic Field on the Accretion Phase of Population III Star Formation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J43BNPOI

@misc{pith2026250521110,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effect of Magnetic Field on the Accretion Phase of Population III Star Formation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J43BNPOI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21110}
}
abstract

We examine the impact of the magnetic field on Population III star formation by varying the magnetic field strength. We perform simulations with magnetic field strengths ranging from $10^{-20}$ G to $10^{-4}$ G, in addition to a model without a magnetic field. The simulations are run for $>1000-1400$ yr after the first protostar forms. In weak-field models, the surrounding disk fragments, forming multiple protostars, and the magnetic field is amplified by the orbital motion and rotation of these protostars. In the model without a magnetic field, frequent fragmentation occurs, and the most massive protostar reaches $\sim200 M_\odot$. However, in models with a magnetic field, once the magnetic field is amplified, the protostars merge to form a single massive protostar, and no further fragmentation occurs except in the model with the strongest magnetic field. Even after the formation of the single protostar, the magnetic field continues to amplify, leading to the formation of a thick disk supported by magnetic pressure and a global spiral pattern. In models with moderate or strong magnetic fields, a rotating disk can form, but fragmentation does not occur, and a strong magnetic field drives an outflow. However, the range of parameters for both disk formation and outflow driving is very narrow, making their appearance under realistic conditions unlikely. Given the weak magnetic field in the early universe, Population III stars are expected to form as single stars, surrounded by a thick disk with a spiral pattern. Thus, the magnetic field, regardless of its strength, plays a crucial role in Population III star formation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21110 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Density distributions on the z = 0 plane (each top panel) and y = 0 plane (each bottom panel) for model B18 at different epochs. The time t after the calculation starts and the time tps after the first protostar formation are described in each top panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The configuration of magnetic field lines (red streamlines) viewed from above for model B18 at the same epochs as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Density distribution (color) on the equatorial plane for model B18. The time t after the calculation starts and the time tps after the first protostar formation are described in each panel. n ≳ 109 cm−3 . As seen in Figure 3c, at this epoch, multiple protostars orbit around the center where n ≳ 109 cm−3 . Thus, rapid amplification of the magnetic field in the early phase is caused by the orbital motion of the protos… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (17 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of magnetic field strength on the z = 0 (upper panels) and y = 0 (middle panels) planes, and plasma beta on the y = 0 plane (bottom panels) for model B18 at tps = 136.7 yr (left) and tps = 272.2 yr (right). The time t after the calculation starts and the t…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Magnetic field strength for all cells plotted against the gas density in model B18. The color of each cell represents plasma beta βp. The time tps after the first protostar formation is described in each panel. The relations B ∝ ρ 2/3 and B ∝ ρ 1/2 are plotted in panel…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Density distribution on the z = 0 or equatorial (top) and y = 0 plane (bottom) for model B00. The time t after the calculation starts and the time tps after the first protostar formation are described in the upper part of the top panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fi…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Density distribution on the equatorial (z = 0) plane at tps ≃ 1000 yr for all models except for model B00. The initial magnetic field strength B0, the time t after the calculation starts, and the time tps after the first protostar formation are described in each panel.…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Density (color) and velocity (arrows) distributions on the z = 0 (or equatorial) plane for models B15, B10, B05, L05, L03, and L02. The initial magnetic field strength B0, the time t after the calculation starts, and the time tps after the first protostar formation are…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The configuration of magnetic field lines (red streamlines) viewed from above for all models except for model B00. The color on the bottom represents the density. The model name, initial magnetic field strength B0, and the time tps after the first protostar formation a…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Magnetic field strength for all cells against the gas density at tps ≃ 1000 yr for all models except for model B00. In each panel, the color of each cell represents the value of plasma beta βp. The relations B ∝ ρ 2/3 and B ∝ ρ 1/2 are plotted in the top left panel (m…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (Top) Number of fragments for all models except for model B04 versus the time tps after the first protostar formation. (Bottom) Mass of the most massive star for all models except for model B04 versus tps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Density (color) and velocity (arrows) distributions on the y = 0 plane for model B05. The time t after the calculation starts and the time tps after the first protostar formation are shown in the upper left part of the panel. The thick white line represents the bounda…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Three-dimensional view of the outflow at the same epoch as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Outflow mass (top) and momentum (bottom) against the time tps after the first protostar formation for all models except for model B00 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Summary of the simulation results. However, during the accretion phase after protostar formation, dissipation may become effective even on larger scales. This may enhance the diffusion of magnetic flux from the central region and suppress amplification of the magnetic…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Density and velocity distributions on the equatorial plane for model B10. The time t after the calculation starts and the time tps after the first protostar formation are shown in each top panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The azimuthally averaged rotation velocity vrot normalized by the Keplerian velocity vKep at tps = 1000 yr, plotted against the cylindrical radius rc from the most massive star for all models. The models shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Number of fragments for models B18, B10, B04 and B00 plotted against the time tps after the first protostar formation. or fragments have not been reported in such studies. This difference may be attributed to variations in the mass accretion rate. Since the mass accre…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Time sequence of the density (top) and magnetic field strength (bottom) distributions for model B04. The time t after the calculation starts and the time tps after the first protostar formation are shown in each top panel. Each column of panels has a different spatial…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed

    Andr \'e , P., Di Francesco , J., Ward-Thompson , D., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther , R. S. Klessen , C. P. Dullemond , & T. Henning , 27--51, 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch002

    doi:10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch002 2014

  2. [2]

    2004, , 70, 123003, 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.123003

    Banerjee , R., & Jedamzik , K. 2004, , 70, 123003, 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.123003

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.70.123003 2004

  3. [3]

    Basu , S., Sharkawi , M., & Machida , M. N. 2024, , 964, 116, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1bf3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1bf3 2024

  4. [4]

    K., et al

    Beuther , H., Schilke , P., Sridharan , T. K., et al. 2002, , 383, 892, 10.1051/0004-6361:20011808

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20011808 2002

  5. [5]

    C., Glover , S

    Clark , P. C., Glover , S. C. O., Klessen , R. S., & Bromm , V. 2011, , 727, 110, 10.1088/0004-637X/727/2/110

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/727/2/110 2011

  6. [6]

    Crutcher , R. M. 1999, , 520, 706, 10.1086/307483

    doi:10.1086/307483 1999

  7. [7]

    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

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/1/466 2010

  8. [8]

    B., Basu , S., & Kunz , M

    Dapp , W. B., Basu , S., & Kunz , M. W. 2012, , 541, A35, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117876

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117876 2012

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    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

  2. [10]

    2011, , 741, 93, 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/93

    Doi , K., & Susa , H. 2011, , 741, 93, 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/93

    2011 doi

  3. [11]

    Federrath , C., Sur , S., Schleicher , D. R. G., Banerjee , R., & Klessen , R. S. 2011, , 731, 62, 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/62

    2011 doi

  4. [12]

    Gaches , B. A. L., Tan , J. C., Rosen , A. L., & Kuiper , R. 2024, , 692, A219, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451842

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    H., Bromm , V., Clark , P

    Greif , T. H., Bromm , V., Clark , P. C., et al. 2012, , 424, 399, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21212.x

    2012

  6. [14]

    2024, , 962, 158, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2066

    Higashi , S., Susa , H., Federrath , C., & Chiaki , G. 2024, , 962, 158, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2066

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    N., & Susa , H

    Higuchi , K., Machida , M. N., & Susa , H. 2018, , 475, 3331, 10.1093/mnras/sty046

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    2019, , 486, 3741, 10.1093/mnras/stz1079

    ---. 2019, , 486, 3741, 10.1093/mnras/stz1079

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    2017, , 470, 898, 10.1093/mnras/stx1220

    Hirano , S., & Bromm , V. 2017, , 470, 898, 10.1093/mnras/stx1220

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    Hirano , S., & Machida , M. N. 2022, , 935, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac85e0

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    N., & Basu , S

    Hirano , S., Machida , M. N., & Basu , S. 2021, , 917, 34, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0913

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    2023, , 952, 56, 10.3847/1538-4357/acda94

    ---. 2023, , 952, 56, 10.3847/1538-4357/acda94

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    Hirano , S., Tsukamoto , Y., Basu , S., & Machida , M. N. 2020, , 898, 118, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9f9d

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    2012, , 543, A128, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118730

    Joos , M., Hennebelle , P., & Ciardi , A. 2012, , 543, A128, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118730

    2012 doi

  15. [23]

    S., & Glover , S

    Klessen , R. S., & Glover , S. C. O. 2023, , 61, 65, 10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-053453

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    2003, , 67, 043505, 10.1103/PhysRevD.67.043505

    Langer , M., Puget , J.-L., & Aghanim , N. 2003, , 67, 043505, 10.1103/PhysRevD.67.043505

    2003 doi

  17. [25]

    2020, , 641, A112, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038174

    Lebreuilly , U., Commer c on , B., & Laibe , G. 2020, , 641, A112, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038174

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    T., & Bate , M

    Lewis , B. T., & Bate , M. R. 2018, , 477, 4241, 10.1093/mnras/sty829

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    N., & Basu , S

    Machida , M. N., & Basu , S. 2020, , 494, 827, 10.1093/mnras/staa672

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    2024, , 970, 41, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4997

    ---. 2024, , 970, 41, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4997

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    2025, , 979, L49, 10.3847/2041-8213/adabc5

    ---. 2025, , 979, L49, 10.3847/2041-8213/adabc5

    2025 doi

  22. [30]

    N., & Doi , K

    Machida , M. N., & Doi , K. 2013, , 435, 3283, 10.1093/mnras/stt1524

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    N., Higuchi , K., & Okuzumi , S

    Machida , M. N., Higuchi , K., & Okuzumi , S. 2018, , 473, 3080, 10.1093/mnras/stx2589

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    N., & Hosokawa , T

    Machida , M. N., & Hosokawa , T. 2013, , 431, 1719, 10.1093/mnras/stt291

    2013 doi

  25. [33]

    N., Inutsuka , S.-i., & Matsumoto , T

    Machida , M. N., Inutsuka , S.-i., & Matsumoto , T. 2008 a , , 676, 1088, 10.1086/528364

    2008 doi

  26. [36]

    N., Matsumoto , T., Tomisaka , K., & Hanawa , T

    Machida , M. N., Matsumoto , T., Tomisaka , K., & Hanawa , T. 2005, , 362, 369, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09297.x

    2005

  27. [37]

    N., & Nakamura , T

    Machida , M. N., & Nakamura , T. 2015, , 448, 1405, 10.1093/mnras/stu2633

    2015 doi

  28. [38]

    N., Omukai , K., Matsumoto , T., & Inutsuka , S.-i

    Machida , M. N., Omukai , K., Matsumoto , T., & Inutsuka , S.-i. 2006, , 647, L1, 10.1086/507326

    2006 doi

  29. [39]

    2008 b , , 677, 813, 10.1086/533434

    ---. 2008 b , , 677, 813, 10.1086/533434

    2008 doi

  30. [40]

    N., Tomisaka , K., & Matsumoto , T

    Machida , M. N., Tomisaka , K., & Matsumoto , T. 2004, , 348, L1, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07402.x

    2004

  31. [41]

    2004, , 609, 467, 10.1086/421103

    Maki , H., & Susa , H. 2004, , 609, 467, 10.1086/421103

    2004 doi

  32. [42]

    2007, , 59, 787, 10.1093/pasj/59.4.787

    ---. 2007, , 59, 787, 10.1093/pasj/59.4.787

    2007 doi

  33. [43]

    D., & McKee , C

    Matzner , C. D., & McKee , C. F. 1999, , 526, L109, 10.1086/312376

    1999 doi

  34. [44]

    Mouschovias , T. C. 1976, , 207, 141, 10.1086/154478

    1976 doi

  35. [45]

    2002, , 573, 199, 10.1086/340587

    Nakano , T., Nishi , R., & Umebayashi , T. 2002, , 573, 199, 10.1086/340587

    2002 doi

  36. [46]

    2021, , 508, 6176, 10.1093/mnras/stab2999

    Park , J., Ricotti , M., & Sugimura , K. 2021, , 508, 6176, 10.1093/mnras/stab2999

    2021 doi

  37. [47]

    R., Clark , P

    Prole , L. R., Clark , P. C., Klessen , R. S., & Glover , S. C. O. 2022 a , , 510, 4019, 10.1093/mnras/stab3697

    2022 doi

  38. [48]

    R., Clark , P

    Prole , L. R., Clark , P. C., Klessen , R. S., Glover , S. C. O., & Pakmor , R. 2022 b , , 516, 2223, 10.1093/mnras/stac2327

    2022 doi

  39. [49]

    R., Clark , P

    Prole , L. R., Clark , P. C., Priestley , F. D., Glover , S. C. O., & Regan , J. A. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 4, 10.21105/astro.2310.10730

    2024 arXiv

  40. [50]

    E., & Norman , C

    Pudritz , R. E., & Norman , C. A. 1986, , 301, 571, 10.1086/163924

    1986 doi

  41. [51]

    2025, , 980, L38, 10.3847/2041-8213/adaf94

    Ryu , T., Sills , A., Pakmor , R., de Mink , S., & Mathieu , R. 2025, , 980, L38, 10.3847/2041-8213/adaf94

    2025 doi

  42. [52]

    E., Omukai , K., Sugimura , K., Matsumoto , T., & Tomida , K

    Sadanari , K. E., Omukai , K., Sugimura , K., Matsumoto , T., & Tomida , K. 2024, , 76, 823, 10.1093/pasj/psae051

    2024 doi

  43. [53]

    2012, , 754, 99, 10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/99

    Schober , J., Schleicher , D., Federrath , C., et al. 2012, , 754, 99, 10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/99

    2012 doi

  44. [54]

    H., & Black , D

    Scott , E. H., & Black , D. C. 1980, , 239, 166, 10.1086/158098

    1980 doi

  45. [55]

    Sharda , P., Federrath , C., & Krumholz , M. R. 2020, , 497, 336, 10.1093/mnras/staa1926

    2020 doi

  46. [56]

    R., & Schleicher , D

    Sharda , P., Federrath , C., Krumholz , M. R., & Schleicher , D. R. G. 2021, , 503, 2014, 10.1093/mnras/stab531

    2021 doi

  47. [57]

    Sharda , P., & Menon , S. H. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.18265, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.18265

    2024 doi arXiv

  48. [58]

    H., Gerasimov , R., et al

    Sharda , P., Menon , S. H., Gerasimov , R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.12734, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.12734

    2025 doi arXiv

  49. [59]

    J., Glover , S

    Smith , R. J., Glover , S. C. O., Clark , P. C., Greif , T., & Klessen , R. S. 2011, , 414, 3633, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18659.x

    2011

  50. [60]

    2013, , 433, 1094, 10.1093/mnras/stt789

    Stacy , A., & Bromm , V. 2013, , 433, 1094, 10.1093/mnras/stt789

    2013 doi

  51. [61]

    F., Lee , A

    Stacy , A., McKee , C. F., Lee , A. T., Klein , R. I., & Li , P. S. 2022, , 511, 5042, 10.1093/mnras/stac372

    2022 doi

  52. [62]

    2020, , 892, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7d37

    Sugimura , K., Matsumoto , T., Hosokawa , T., Hirano , S., & Omukai , K. 2020, , 892, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7d37

    2020 doi

  53. [63]

    2023, , 959, 17, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad02fc

    ---. 2023, , 959, 17, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad02fc

    2023 doi

  54. [64]

    2019, , 877, 99, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b6f

    Susa , H. 2019, , 877, 99, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b6f

    2019 doi

  55. [65]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.15350, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.15350

    Takasao , S., Hosokawa , T., Tomida , K., & Iwasaki , K. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.15350, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.15350

    2025 doi arXiv

  56. [66]

    Takasao , S., Tomida , K., Iwasaki , K., & Suzuki , T. K. 2022, , 941, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9eb1

    2022 doi

  57. [67]

    2023, , 956, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/acfca9

    Tokuda , K., Fukaya , N., Tachihara , K., et al. 2023, , 956, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/acfca9

    2023 doi

  58. [68]

    2024, , 965, 99, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f9a

    Tokuda , K., Harada , N., Omura , M., et al. 2024, , 965, 99, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f9a

    2024 doi

  59. [69]

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

    Tsukamoto , Y., Maury , A., Commercon , B., 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 , 317, 10.48550/arXiv.2209.13765

    2023 doi arXiv

  60. [70]

    J., Oishi , J

    Turk , M. J., Oishi , J. S., Abel , T., & Bryan , G. L. 2012, , 745, 154, 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/154

    2012 doi

  61. [71]

    2018, , 615, A5, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732075

    Vaytet , N., Commer c on , B., Masson , J., Gonz \'a lez , M., & Chabrier , G. 2018, , 615, A5, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732075

    2018 doi

Pith tools

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