Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 84 references

Stellar populations in STARFORGE II: Comparison with observations

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

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

Pith's one-line read Observational biases can inflate the virial parameter of stellar associations by a factor of ten.

desk verdict A useful, mostly sound quantification of Gaia biases on young association properties, but the group-identification step is done before biases are applied, so the quoted bias factors describe known groups rather than groups recovered from a real Gaia catalog. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00240 v1 pith:YPM4SUXP submitted 2025-05-30 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Juan P. Farias , Stella S. R. Offner , Ronan Kerr , Michael Y. Grudić This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords STARFORGEsimulationsstellarassociationsvirialparameterGaiaobservationalbiaseskinematictracebackageCepheusFarNorthstarformationsyntheticobservations
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 argues that Gaia-era measurements of young stellar associations carry severe hidden biases: missing, unresolved, or saturated stars distort measured mass, size, and velocity dispersion so much that inferred virial parameters can overshoot reality by a factor of ten. Using the STARFORGE magnetohydrodynamical simulations as a stand-in for typical Milky Way clouds, the authors build synthetic observations and show that kinematic traceback ages are reliable to within 20% only when the association is genuinely unbound, with a true virial parameter above 2. Because observational biases can make a bound-looking group appear unbound, a high observed virial ratio does not guarantee that a traceback age can be trusted. The paper also finds that the Cepheus Far North association likely formed in a low-density environment similar to the simulations, and that the difference between dynamical and stellar ages does not measure the duration of the embedded phase.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a synthetic-observation pipeline applied to STARFORGE groups: each simulated group is placed at a chosen distance, filtered through PARSEC isochrones with Gaia magnitude limits (roughly 3 to 20.7), stripped of unresolved binaries closer than 1 arcsecond and wide binaries within 10,000 AU, hit with a 15% random source-loss rate, and resampled 100 times to build percentile error bars. The virial parameter, defined as $\alpha_{\rm vir} = 5 R_h \sigma_{1d}^2/(G M_{\rm tot})$, is the quantity that carries the argument; the pipeline shows that the correlated biases in $M_{\rm tot}$ and $R_h$ inflate $\alpha_{\rm vir}$ by up to a factor of ten, while the traceback age is computed by linearly extrapolating the median mutual distance between stars back to its minimum.

What would settle it

Measure the actual census of missing luminous members in a Gaia-selected association such as CFN using a deep, spatially complete survey that recovers saturated and unresolved massive stars. If the true missing mass is small, the claimed factor-of-ten virial inflation would not apply to real groups; alternatively, compute traceback ages for a sample of associations with independently confirmed virial parameters above 2 and compare with photometric ages — if the errors exceed 20%, the accuracy threshold fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the standard quantities used to characterize observed stellar associations — total mass, half-mass radius, and velocity dispersion — are differentially corrupted by observational incompleteness, and these corruption patterns combine to systematically inflate the virial parameter by up to an order of magnitude. Masses are always underestimated because bright massive stars saturate in Gaia and faint members fall below its detection limit; radii of small groups are overestimated because poor sampling spreads the measured distribution; velocity dispersion is the least affected. Since the virial parameter enters as $\alpha_{\rm vir} = 5 R_h \sigma_{1d}^2/(G M_{\rm tot})$, the net effect is a large upward bias. Therefore an observed association that looks unbound may actually contain loosely bound stars whose slow expansion skews traceback ages. The authors establish that for groups with true virial parameters above 2, linear traceback of stellar motions recovers the expansion age within 20%, but the observational inflation of the virial parameter makes it hard to know whether a given group actually meets that condition.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that STARFORGE simulations represent typical Milky Way giant molecular clouds and that the synthetic-observation recipe captures the dominant Gaia biases; if either fails, the error magnitudes, the tenfold virial inflation, and the traceback accuracy threshold do not transfer to real associations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For groups with true mass below about 100 $M_\odot$, recovered masses fall between 20% and 90% of the true value, and half-mass radii can be overestimated by up to a factor of ten.
  • Velocity dispersion is the most trustworthy observable, with relative errors below about 20% for all groups and below 5% for the most massive ones.
  • Kinematic traceback ages are accurate to within 20% only for associations whose true virial parameter exceeds 2; because observed virial parameters can be inflated tenfold, a high observed value is not enough to justify trusting a traceback age.
  • Four of the seven Cepheus Far North subgroups have analogues in the STARFORGE simulations, indicating CFN formed in a low-density, typical Galactic-cloud environment without preferential massive-star placement in groups.
  • There is no correlation between the stellar-dynamical age difference and the duration of the embedded phase, because star formation continues while the cloud disperses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the tenfold virial inflation holds for real Gaia-discovered associations, then many systems currently classified as unbound expanding associations may in fact retain a significant fraction of loosely bound stars, and their expansion ages derived from traceback would be systematically too young.
  • A natural test is to re-measure group masses with infrared or deep optical surveys that recover saturated massive stars; if recovered masses rise substantially, the virial-inflation bias is present in real data, and traceback studies should require an independent boundness check.
  • The omission of reddening and radial-velocity incompleteness from the bias recipe suggests the real error budget for field associations could be even larger; including them would likely strengthen the paper's qualitative conclusions rather than reverse them.
  • The CFN result that massive stars are not preferentially in groups may reflect genuine low-density formation rather than bias, but a deeper census of CFN's high-mass end would settle whether the contrast with simulations is real.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper uses the STARFORGE MHD simulation suite, post-processed with 200 Myr N-body integrations, to build synthetic observations of young stellar groups. After identifying groups with HDBSCAN on the unbiased simulation data, the authors apply observational biases: Gaia magnitude limits and saturation, unresolved and wide binary cuts, a 15% source-loss rate, and distance-dependent resampling. They measure how inferred total mass, half-mass radius, and velocity dispersion deviate from true values, finding up to 100% errors in mass and radius for groups below ~100 Msun, and a systematic upward bias in the virial parameter that can reach a factor of ten. They compare the resulting synthetic properties to the Cepheus Far North (CFN) association and match four of its seven subgroups. Finally, they test linear kinematic traceback ages against the true dynamical age from the simulations, reporting that traceback is accurate to within 20% only when the true virial parameter exceeds about 2, and that observational biases can erase the relation between traceback error and virial parameter. They also find no correlation between the dynamical-age minus stellar-age difference and the embedded-phase duration.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper has a direct and important implication for Gaia-era studies of young associations: observed virial parameters and traceback ages can be substantially biased, so associations that appear unbound may not be suitable for traceback dating. The Monte Carlo synthetic observation procedure is clearly specified, and the central error curves are emergent outputs of the simulations rather than parameters tuned to match observed associations. The comparison with CFN is concrete and falsifiable, and the finding that massive stars are preferentially missing from the observed group mass is a useful caution for mass-based dynamical state estimates. The main limitations are that the bias model is incomplete, the group-finding step is not part of the synthetic observation loop, and a few load-bearing analysis choices (matching threshold, exclusion of Bx100) are not tested for sensitivity. These issues are addressable in a revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.4, §2.7, Figs. 4 and 8] The group-finding step is not part of the synthetic observation loop. HDBSCAN is run on the unbiased simulation data, and only afterwards are the biases of §2.7 applied; the manuscript states this explicitly at the end of §2.4. Real Gaia associations are the output of clustering algorithms applied to the biased catalog, as the paper notes for SPYGLASS in §2.7.1. Because mass, half-mass radius, velocity dispersion, virial parameter, and traceback ages are all membership-conditional quantities, the factor-of-ten virial inflation in Figure 4 and the 20% traceback accuracy threshold in Figure 8 describe the bias of a known group, not the bias of groups that would be detected in a Gaia-like survey. Selection effects could make detected groups preferentially complete or preferentially incomplete, and interloper contamination is not included. The authors should rerun HDBSCAN on the synthetic observed samples and repeat the measurements, or at minimum quantify detection completeness and membership contamination as a function of true group properties.
  2. [§3.3, Fig. 8] The Bx100 model is excluded from the traceback-virial analysis because late-forming stars contaminate the traced trajectories. This exclusion matters for the central traceback claim: Bx100 is the model with the longest star formation duration, and the statement that traceback errors fall below 20% for alpha_vir > 2 is obtained only after removing this model. If similar contamination occurs in real associations, the threshold will not transfer. Please provide an observable criterion for identifying this contamination (for example, a proxy based on age spread or the fraction of stars formed after expansion begins), or show how the Figure 8 relation changes when Bx100 is included.
  3. [§2.7.2, Eq. (3), §3.2] The matching criterion D <= 0.6 is introduced without justification or sensitivity analysis. The statement that four of seven CFN groups have good matches, and the conclusion that no single simulation reproduces most CFN groups, depend on this threshold. Changing the threshold to 0.4 or 0.8 would likely change which CFN groups are matched. Please justify the threshold, for example by comparing the D distribution of true analogue pairs with that of random pairs, or report the number of matches as a function of D.
  4. [§2.7, §4] The bias model omits reddening and radial-velocity incompleteness. The Discussion acknowledges these omissions, but the abstract and conclusions quote quantitative error magnitudes (up to 100% in mass, factor-of-ten virial inflation, 20% traceback threshold) without stating that these are lower limits or conditional on the included bias set. Since only a small fraction of Gaia sources have radial velocities with km/s-level uncertainties, the velocity dispersion and traceback measurements in real samples are made on a much smaller and kinematically selected subset, which can plausibly change the traceback error distribution in Figure 8. Please add a simple bracketing test, for example a reddening screen and an RV-only subsample, so that the reader can see how much the quoted error bars and thresholds could grow.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1 and §2.6] The column labels t_dyn and t*_dyn appear reversed relative to the text: §2.6 defines t*_dyn as the best-case estimate using all members and t_dyn as the estimate after observational biases, but Table 1 reports error bars on t*_dyn and no error bars on t_dyn, suggesting the columns are swapped.
  2. [§1, §2.3, §4, Fig. 1, Fig. 3] There are several typos: 'the the' in the Introduction, 'realty' in §2.3, 'viral' instead of 'virial' in the Discussion, 'Biasses' in the Figure 1 caption, and 'afactoroften' in the Figure 3 caption.
  3. [§2.6] The definition of t_dyn,true as the time when the median mutual distance is minimized with at least 50% of members present is reasonable but should be tested for sensitivity to the 50% threshold; the traceback accuracy claim depends on this specific definition.
  4. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption says 'Side panels shows the distribution of groups from different models ... (R3 and alpha1)', but all six models appear to be shown; please clarify the wording.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the bias amplitudes, virial-inflation factor, and traceback threshold are emergent outputs of simulation experiments, not fitted or self-citing reductions.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claims—measurement uncertainties up to 100%, virial-parameter overestimation by up to a factor ten, and traceback accuracy within 20% only for alpha_vir > 2—are produced by applying a fixed observational bias recipe (Section 2.7) to STARFORGE/N-body groups and comparing biased to true values. No equation in the paper defines an output quantity in terms of the target conclusion, and no parameter is fitted to reproduce CFN or any observed traceback result. The CFN comparison in Section 3.2 is an analogue search, not a prediction derived from the same data. The heavy reliance on prior same-group work (STARFORGE, Farias et al. 2023, SPYGLASS/Kerr et al. 2021, 2022) supplies simulation initial conditions, the group-finding method, and the measured 15% source-loss rate; these are external inputs with stated assumptions rather than conclusions that reduce to self-citation. The paper itself flags limitations that matter for transferability but not circularity: Section 2.4 explicitly states 'we performed the identification of groups with HDBSCAN directly on the simulation data. After the groups are well defined, we apply observational biases in order to compare them with observations,' so synthetic observed groups inherit true membership; and Section 4 acknowledges omitted reddening and radial-velocity incompleteness, noting 'the effects we include here are general.' These are validity caveats about whether the bias factors apply to real Gaia catalogs, not instances where the derivation is equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central analysis rests on the representativeness of the STARFORGE simulations and on the realism of the Gaia bias prescription, plus several hand-chosen thresholds (binary separation, source loss rate, D<=0.6). These are inputs from prior work or modeling choices rather than fitted outputs.

free parameters (5)
  • Unresolved binary angular separation threshold = 1 arcsec
    Pairs closer than 1 arcsec are assumed to be unresolved and both members are removed from kinematic measurements (Section 2.7.2, step iv). Changing this threshold changes the mass recovered and the velocity dispersion.
  • Wide binary separation cutoff = 10,000 AU
    Pairs closer than 10,000 AU are excluded from the synthetic velocity dispersion and traceback measurements (Section 2.7.2, step v). Affects the kinematic sample.
  • Source loss rate = 15%
    Randomly removes 15% of members to mimic quality cuts (Kerr et al. 2021; Section 2.7.2, step vi). Directly controls the completeness of every synthetic group.
  • Gaia magnitude limits = 3 to 20.7 mag
    Stars outside this range are treated as unobservable (Section 2.7.2, step ii). This drives the missing-mass bias, especially for massive stars.
  • Matching distance threshold D = D <= 0.6
    Defines whether a simulated group 'matches' a CFN group in Eq. (3). The threshold is chosen by the authors and is not derived from the data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption STARFORGE initial conditions and feedback model represent typical Milky Way giant molecular clouds and their stellar populations.
    Invoked in Section 2.2 (fiducial cloud: 20,000 Msun, 10 pc, alpha_turb=2, mu=4.2) and in the introduction ('Provided that the STARFORGE simulations accurately represent typical Milky Way clouds...'). If the simulated groups do not resemble real associations, the error magnitudes, traceback threshold, and CFN comparison do not transfer.
  • domain assumption The synthetic observation recipe captures the dominant Gaia selection biases.
    Section 2.7 models saturation, unresolved binaries, and 15% source loss but does not include reddening or radial-velocity incompleteness (acknowledged in Section 4). The claimed uncertainty ranges are only as realistic as this model.
  • ad hoc to paper The true dynamical age can be defined as the time when the median mutual distance is minimized with at least 50% of members present.
    Section 2.6 defines t_dyn,true in this way. It is a modeling choice, not a physical observable, and it affects the traceback error measurements.
  • ad hoc to paper The eccentricity correction for close binaries drawn from a uniform distribution is a valid approximation.
    Section 2.3 uses this correction from Farias et al. 2023 when switching from softened GIZMO gravity to unsoftened nbody7++GPU. If this population is wrong, binary-related biases and velocity dispersion measurements shift.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stellar populations in STARFORGE II: Comparison with observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YPM4SUXP

@misc{pith2026250600240,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stellar populations in STARFORGE II: Comparison with observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YPM4SUXP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00240}
}
read the original abstract

Recent studies suggest that most star-forming regions in our Galaxy form stellar associations rather than bound clusters. We analyse models from the STARFORGE simulation suite, a set of magneto-hydrodynamical simulations that include all key stellar feedback and radiative processes following star formation through cloud dispersal. We create synthetic observations by introducing observational biases such as random spurious measurements, unresolved binaries, and photometric sensitivity. These biases affect the measurement of the group mass, size, and velocity dispersion, introducing uncertainties of up to 100%, with accuracy improving as the number of system members increases. Furthermore, models favouring the formation of groups around massive stars were the most affected by observational biases, as massive stars contribute a larger fraction of the group mass and are often missing from astrometric surveys like Gaia. We compare the simulations to the Cepheus Far North (CFN) region, and show that CFN groups may have formed in a low-density environment similar to those modelled in STARFORGE but with massive stars not located preferentially in groups. We also question the effectiveness of the kinematic traceback method, showing that it is accurate within 20% only for certain associations with actual virial parameters above 2. However, observational biases can artificially raise the virial parameter by up to a factor ten, making it difficult to evaluate the reliability of the traceback age. Additionally, since stars continue to form during the dispersal of the parent cloud, we find no relation between the stellar-dynamical age difference and the length of the embedded phase.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00240 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Deviation of observable quantities when observational biases are applied as a function of observable mass for groups identified in STARFORGE. From top to bottom, total mass, half mass radius and velocity dispersion respectively. Left column shows deviation as a factor while right panel shows the deviation as relative error. Biasses are applied considering each system is 200 pc from the Sun. In general, errors decrea… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The fraction of stars more massive than 𝑚∗ that are group members, 𝑓g (> 𝑚∗ ), normalized by the total fraction of stars that are in groups in each simulation. As the value of the threshold mass 𝑚∗ increases, the number of stars included in 𝑓g (> 𝑚∗ ) decreases; we only keep bins that contain more than 5 stars. The blue dashed line represents CFN using the available data (with masses below 3.8 𝑀⊙). To provide uncert… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Properties of the groups identified in the STARFORGE simulations and their parameter shift after applying observational biases. Stellar groups are selected at an age of 20 Myr and placed at a distance of 200 pc, a similar distance to and age of groups in the Cepheus Far North complex. Filled circles show the value of each parameter after the sampling process, while lines connect to their true values. Order of magnit… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: One-to-one comparison between the virial parameter calculated using all stars (𝛼vir) and the equivalent using only observable stars (𝛼vir,obs), with the solid line representing equality. Errorbars represent the range be￾tween 25-75 percentile caused by the random sampl…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Best group-matched models. Diamond symbols represent the target CFN groups. Symbols of the same colour indicate model groups that match CFN groups when their ages are equivalent and placed at the same distance from the Sun. The symbols indicate the model from which the…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cepheus Far North groups as labelled in Kerr et al. (2022) (centre). Side panels shows the distribution of groups from different models after applying observational biases and at the time where the median age of the stars in each model is 25 Myr (R3 and alpha1). Cluste…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Median mutual distance versus time inferred from tracing back a typical stellar association. The solid line represents the true history based on the simulation data. Dashed lines indicate the traceback estimations using all available stars, excluding binary systems. Se…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Fractional error of the traceback dynamical age versus group virial ratio. Filled symbols show measurements of the traceback age and virial ratio that include all stars. Empty symbols show the same measurements but using the sampling prescription described in § 2.7. Er…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: Comparison between the dynamical age (𝑡dyn) and the median age of stars in each group, coloured by the true group virial ratio. Squares represent the true dynamical age, measured directly from the simulations, while circles represent the dynamical age obtained by…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cambridge University Press

    Aarseth S., 2003, Gravitational N-Body Simulations . Cambridge University Press

    2003

  2. [2]

    Rev.] 10.1007/s11214-020-00690-x , 216

    Adamo A., et al., 2020, @doi [Space Sci. Rev.] 10.1007/s11214-020-00690-x , 216

    doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00690-x 2020

  3. [3]

    C., 2000, @doi [Astrophys

    Adams F. C., 2000, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1086/317052 , 542, 964

    doi:10.1086/317052 2000

  4. [4]

    Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481 , 577, A42

    Baraffe I., Homeier D., Allard F., Chabrier G., 2015, @doi [Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481 , 577, A42

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425481 2015

  5. [5]

    Baumgardt H., Kroupa P., 2007, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12209.x , 380, 1589

    arXiv 2007

  6. [6]

    F., 1992, @doi [Astrophys

    Bertoldi F., McKee C. F., 1992, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1086/171638 , 395, 140

    doi:10.1086/171638 1992

  7. [7]

    Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1987, 747 p

    Binney J., Tremaine S., 1987, Galactic dynamics . Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1987, 747 p

    1987

  8. [8]

    Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834321 , 621, A86

    Brandeker A., Cataldi G., 2019, @doi [Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834321 , 621, A86

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834321 2019

Show all 84 references
  1. [10]

    Brown A. G. A., et al., 2018, @doi [Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 , 616, A1

    2018 doi

  2. [11]

    Campello R. J. G. B., Moulavi D., Sander J., 2013, in Pei J. Tseng V. Cao L. Motoda H. eds, , Vol. 7819 LNAI, Adv. Knowl. Discov. Data Mining. PAKDD 2013. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci.. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 160--172, @doi 10.1007/978-3-642-37456-2_14 , http://link.sprin...

    2013 doi

  3. [12]

    Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834957 , 626, A17

    Cantat-Gaudin T., et al., 2019, @doi [Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834957 , 626, A17

    2019 doi

  4. [13]

    50 Years Later

    Chabrier G., 2005, in Corbelli E., Palla F., Zinnecker H., eds, , Initial Mass Funct. 50 Years Later. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 41--50, @doi 10.1007/978-1-4020-3407-7_5 , http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4020-3407-7 \_ 5

    2005 doi

  5. [14]

    A., De Grijs R., Glushkova E

    Chemel A. A., De Grijs R., Glushkova E. V., Dambis A. K., 2022, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stac1780 , 515, 4359

    2022 doi

  6. [15]

    R., McLeod A

    Chevance M., Krumholz M. R., McLeod A. F., Ostriker E. C., Rosolowsky E. W., Sternberg A., 2023, in Inutsuka S.-i. Aikawa Y. Muto T. Tomida K. Tamura M. eds, Protostars Planets VII. Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, San Francisco, California, USA, p. 1 ( @...

    2023 doi arXiv

  7. [16]

    J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/acb4eb , 946, 6

    Couture D., Gagn \' e J., Doyon R., 2023, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/acb4eb , 946, 6

    2023 doi

  8. [17]

    D., Ireland M

    Crundall T. D., Ireland M. J., Krumholz M. R., Federrath C., Žerjal M., Hansen J. T., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz2376 , 489, 3625

    2019 doi

  9. [18]

    J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7a5b , 845, 105

    Da Rio N., et al., 2017, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7a5b , 845, 105

    2017 doi

  10. [20]

    E., Ercolano B., Bonnell I

    Dale J. E., Ercolano B., Bonnell I. A., 2013, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stt236 , 431, 1062

    2013 doi

  11. [21]

    Dinnbier F., Walch S., 2020, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/staa2560 , 499, 748

    2020 doi

  12. [22]

    I., 2022, @doi [Astron

    Dinnbier F., Kroupa P., Anderson R. I., 2022, @doi [Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142082 , 660, 1

    2022 doi

  13. [23]

    T., 2010, Physics of the interstellar and intergalactic medium

    Draine B. T., 2010, Physics of the interstellar and intergalactic medium . Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, @doi 10.2307/j.ctvcm4hzr , https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781400839087/html

    2010 doi

  14. [24]

    Ducourant C., Teixeira R., Galli P. A. B., Le Campion J. F., Krone-Martins A., Zuckerman B., Chauvin G., Song I., 2014, @doi [Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322075 , 563, A121

    2014 doi

  15. [25]

    P., Smith R., Fellhauer M., Goodwin S., Candlish G

    Farias J. P., Smith R., Fellhauer M., Goodwin S., Candlish G. N., Bla \ n a M., Dominguez R., 2015, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stv790 , 450, 2451

    2015 doi

  16. [26]

    P., et al., 2018, @doi [Mon

    Farias J. P., et al., 2018, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/sty597 , 476, 5341

    2018 doi

  17. [27]

    P., Offner S

    Farias J. P., Offner S. S. R., Grudi \' c M. Y., Guszejnov D., Rosen A. L., 2023, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stad3609 , 527, 6732

    2023 doi

  18. [28]

    S., Hattori K., Wang L., Hirai Y., Kumamoto J., Shimajiri Y., Saitoh T

    Fujii M. S., Hattori K., Wang L., Hirai Y., Kumamoto J., Shimajiri Y., Saitoh T. R., 2022, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stac808 , 514, 43

    2022 doi

  19. [29]

    A., Miret-Roig N., Bouy H., Olivares J., Barrado D., 2023, @doi [Mon

    Galli P. A., Miret-Roig N., Bouy H., Olivares J., Barrado D., 2023, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stad520 , 520, 6245

    2023 doi

  20. [30]

    A., 2018, @doi [Publ

    Gouliermis D. A., 2018, @doi [Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacific] 10.1088/1538-3873/AAC1FD , 130

    2018 doi

  21. [31]

    Y., Guszejnov D., Hopkins P

    Grudi \' c M. Y., Guszejnov D., Hopkins P. F., Offner S. S. R., Faucher-Gigu \` e re C.-A., 2021, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stab1347 , 506, 2199

    2021 doi

  22. [32]

    Y., Guszejnov D., Offner S

    Grudi \' c M. Y., Guszejnov D., Offner S. S. R., Rosen A. L., Raju A. N., Faucher-Gigu \` e re C.-A., Hopkins P. F., 2022, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stac526 , 512, 216

    2022 doi

  23. [33]

    Y., Offner S

    Grudic M. Y., Offner S. S. R., Guszejnov D., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Hopkins P. F., 2023, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.21105/astro.2307.00052 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023OJAp....6E..48G 6, 48

    2023 arXiv

  24. [34]

    Y., Hopkins P

    Guszejnov D., Grudi \' c M. Y., Hopkins P. F., Offner S. S. R., Faucher-Gigu \` e re C.-A. A., 2021, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stab278 , 502, 3646

    2021 doi

  25. [35]

    Guszejnov D., Markey C., Offner S. S. R., Grudi \' c M. Y., Faucher-Gigu \` e re C.-A. A. C. D., Rosen A. L., Hopkins P. F., 2022a, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stac1737 , 515, 167

    doi

  26. [36]

    Y., Offner S

    Guszejnov D., Grudi \' c M. Y., Offner S. S. R., Faucher-Gigu \` e re C.-A., Hopkins P. F., Rosen A. L., 2022b, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stac2060 , 515, 4929

    doi

  27. [37]

    Haid S., Walch S., Seifried D., Wünsch R., Dinnbier F., Naab T., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty1315 , 478, 4799

    2018 doi

  28. [38]

    G., 1980, @doi [Astrophys

    Hills J. G., 1980, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1086/157703 , 235, 986

    1980 doi

  29. [39]

    Hoogerwerf R., de Bruijne J. H. J., de Zeeuw P. T., 2000, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1086/317315 , 544, L133

    2000 doi

  30. [40]

    F., 2015, @doi [Mon

    Hopkins P. F., 2015, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stv195 , 450, 53

    2015 doi

  31. [41]

    F., 2016, @doi [Mon

    Hopkins P. F., 2016, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stw1578 , 462, 576

    2016 doi

  32. [42]

    F., et al., 2023, @doi [Mon

    Hopkins P. F., et al., 2023, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stac3489 , 519, 3154

    2023 doi

  33. [43]

    Kerr R. M. P., Rizzuto A. C., Kraus A. L., Offner S. S. R., 2021, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0251 , 917, 23

    2021 doi

  34. [44]

    L., Murphy S

    Kerr R., Kraus A. L., Murphy S. J., Krolikowski D. M., Offner S. S. R., Tofflemire B. M., Rizzuto A. C., 2022, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9b45 , 941, 49

    2022 doi

  35. [45]

    V., Piskunov A

    Kharchenko N. V., Piskunov A. E., Schilbach E., R \" o ser S., Scholz R.-D., 2013, @doi [Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322302 , 558, A53

    2013 doi

  36. [46]

    C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/727/2/64 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...727...64K 727, 64

    Kirk H., Myers P. C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/727/2/64 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...727...64K 727, 64

    2011 doi

  37. [47]

    C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/131 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...745..131K 745, 131

    Kirk H., Myers P. C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/131 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...745..131K 745, 131

    2012 doi

  38. [48]

    Krause M. G. H., et al., 2020, @doi [Sp. Sci Rev] 10.1007/s11214-020-00689-4 , 216, 64

    2020 doi

  39. [49]

    M., Kraus A

    Krolikowski D. M., Kraus A. L., Rizzuto A. C., 2021, @doi [Astron. J.] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac0632 , 162, 110

    2021 doi

  40. [50]

    Kroupa P., Aarseth S., Hurley J., 2001, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04050.x , 321, 699

    2001

  41. [51]

    M., 2012, @doi [Mon

    Kruijssen J. M., 2012, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21923.x , 426, 3008

    2012

  42. [52]

    R., McKee C

    Krumholz M. R., McKee C. F., 2020, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/staa659 , 494, 624

    2020 doi

  43. [53]

    A., Hillenbrand L

    Kuhn M. A., Hillenbrand L. A., Sills A., Feigelson E. D., Getman K. V., 2019, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaef8c , 870, 32

    2019 doi

  44. [54]

    J., Lada E

    Lada C. J., Lada E. A., 2003, @doi [Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094844 , 41, 57

    2003 arXiv

  45. [55]

    B., 1981, @doi [Mon

    Larson R. B., 1981, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/194.4.809 , 194, 809

    1981 doi

  46. [56]

    Malzer C., Baum M., 2020, in 2020 IEEE Int. Conf. Multisens. Fusion Integr. Intell. Syst.. IEEE, New York, NY, pp 223--228, @doi 10.1109/MFI49285.2020.9235263

    2020

  47. [57]

    Open Source Softw.] 10.21105/joss.00205 , 2, 205

    McInnes L., Healy J., Astels S., 2017, @doi [J. Open Source Softw.] 10.21105/joss.00205 , 2, 205

    2017 doi

  48. [58]

    Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731976 , 615, A51

    Miret-Roig N., Antoja T., Romero-G \' o mez M., Figueras F., 2018, @doi [Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731976 , 615, A51

    2018 doi

  49. [59]

    Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038765 , 642, A179

    Miret-Roig N., et al., 2020, @doi [Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038765 , 642, A179

    2020 doi

  50. [60]

    Miret-Roig N., B. Galli P. A., Olivares J., Bouy H., Barrado D., 2022, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244709

    2022 doi

  51. [61]

    Astron.] 10.1038/s41550-023-02132-4 , 8, 216

    Miret-Roig N., Alves J., Barrado D., Burkert A., Ratzenb \" o ck S., Konietzka R., 2024, @doi [Nat. Astron.] 10.1038/s41550-023-02132-4 , 8, 216

    2024 doi

  52. [62]

    R., 2010, @doi [Mon

    Moeckel N., Bate M. R., 2010, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16347.x , 404, 721

    2010

  53. [63]

    C., Spitzer, L

    Mouschovias T. C., Spitzer, L. J., 1976, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1086/154835 , 210, 326

    1976 doi

  54. [64]

    Murray D., Goyal S., Chang P., 2018, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stx3153 , 475, 1023

    2018 doi

  55. [65]

    Nakamura F., Li Z. Z.-Y. Z. Z.-Y., 2007, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1086/517515 , 662, 395

    2007 doi

  56. [66]

    Offner S. S. R., Chaban J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8996 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...847..104O 847, 104

    2017 doi

  57. [67]

    Offner S. S. R., Klein R. I., McKee C. F., Krumholz M. R., 2009, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/131 , 703, 131

    2009 doi

  58. [68]

    R., Moe M., Kratter K

    Offner S. R., Moe M., Kratter K. M., Sadavoy S. I., Jensen E. E. L. N., Eric L. N. N Tobin J. J. J. J., 2023, in Inutsuka S., Aikawa Y., Muto T., Tomida K., Tamura M., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 534, Protostars Planets VII. Astronomical Soc...

    2023 doi arXiv

  59. [69]

    Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628233 , 590

    Oh S., Kroupa P., 2016, @doi [Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628233 , 590

    2016 doi

  60. [70]

    Pelkonen V.-M., Miret-Roig N., Padoan P., 2024, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348611 , 683, A165

    2024 doi

  61. [71]

    Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321362 , 555, A135

    Pfalzner S., Kaczmarek T., 2013, @doi [Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321362 , 555, A135

    2013 doi

  62. [72]

    T., Portegies Zwart S

    Pijloo J. T., Portegies Zwart S. F., Alexander P. E. R., Gieles M., Larsen S. S., Groot P. J., Devecchi B., 2015, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stv1546 , 453, 605

    2015 doi

  63. [73]

    J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9cd7 , 940, 159

    Plotnikova A., Carraro G., Villanova S., Ortolani S., 2022, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9cd7 , 940, 159

    2022 doi

  64. [74]

    M., Mart \' i n-Pintado J., Jim \' e nez-Serra I., Rodr \' i guez-Franco A., 2013, @doi [Astron

    Rivilla V. M., Mart \' i n-Pintado J., Jim \' e nez-Serra I., Rodr \' i guez-Franco A., 2013, @doi [Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117487 , 554, A48

    2013 doi

  65. [75]

    C., Ireland M

    Rizzuto A. C., Ireland M. J., Robertson J. G., 2011, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19256.x , 416, 3108

    2011

  66. [76]

    Smith R., Goodwin S., Fellhauer M., Assmann P., 2013, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/sts106 , 428, 1303

    2013 doi

  67. [77]

    Springel V., 2005, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1111/J.1365-2966.2005.09655.X , 364, 1105

    2005

  68. [78]

    L., 2021, @doi [Astrophys

    Sullivan K., Kraus A. L., 2021, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/abf044 , 912, 137

    2021 doi

  69. [79]

    E., Corbin T

    Urban S. E., Corbin T. E., Wycoff G. L., Martin J. C., Jackson E. S., Zacharias M. I., Hall D. M., 1998, @doi [Astron. J.] 10.1086/300264 , 115, 1212

    1998 doi

  70. [80]

    Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141838 , 655, A71

    Wang L., Jerabkova T., 2021, @doi [Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141838 , 655, A71

    2021 doi

  71. [81]

    Wang L., Spurzem R., Aarseth S., Nitadori K., Berczik P., Kouwenhoven M. B. N., Naab T., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv817 , 450, 4070

    2015 doi

  72. [82]

    L., Diederik Kruijssen J

    Ward J. L., Diederik Kruijssen J. M., Rix H. W., 2020, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/MNRAS/STAA1056 , 495, 663

    2020 doi

  73. [83]

    J., 2020, @doi [New Astron

    Wright N. J., 2020, @doi [New Astron. Rev.] 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101549 , 90

    2020

  74. [84]

    Wright N., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae1806 , 533, 705

    2024 doi

  75. [85]

    J., Parker R

    Wright N. J., Parker R. J., 2019, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stz2303 , 489, 2694

    2019 doi

  76. [86]

    J., Goodwin S., Jeffries R

    Wright N. J., Goodwin S., Jeffries R. D., Kounkel M., Zari E., 2023, in Inutsuka S.-i. Aikawa Y. Muto T. Tomida K. Tamura M. eds, Protostars Planets VII. Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, San Francisco, California, USA, p. 129 ( @eprint arXiv 2203.10007 ),...

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

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