Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 47 references

The Evolution of Substructure during Star Cluster Assembly

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Star clusters lose their spatial clumpiness within about 2.5 free-fall times of their natal cloud, while kinematic substructure lingers, and primordial binaries accelerate mass segregation.

desk verdict Worth a serious referee, but the 2.5 tff spatial erasure timescale is only strictly established for M1; M3 has not lost substructure by its final snapshot. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00815 v1 pith:ECR4FCHN submitted 2025-07-01 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Edwin Laverde-Villarreal , Alison Sills , Claude Cournoyer-Cloutier , Veronica Arias Callejas This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords starclusterformationsubstructureevolutionmasssegregationprimordialbinariesQstatisticMoran'sIhierarchicalassemblyfree-falltimescale
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

Star clusters form hierarchically: stars are born in clumps and sub-clusters that later merge, and this process should leave observable traces in young clusters. This paper uses radiation-magnetohydrodynamical simulations with star-by-star N-body dynamics, primordial binaries, and stellar feedback to measure how those traces decay. The central finding is that spatial clumpiness, measured by the Q statistic, disappears in roughly 2.5 initial free-fall times of the cloud, while kinematic substructure, measured by Moran's I, lingers throughout the simulated assembly. The paper also argues that a population of primordial binaries makes dynamical mass segregation stronger and sets in earlier than in simulations without binaries. If correct, the results give observers a clock: seeing spatial substructure means the cluster is still in its first few free-fall times, and seeing kinematic substructure without spatial substructure means assembly is ongoing but nearly complete.

What carries the argument

The analysis is carried by three dimensionless statistics. The Q statistic, the ratio of the normalized minimum spanning tree edge length to the mean projected separation, classifies a stellar distribution as substructured (Q < 0.8) or smooth and centrally concentrated (Q > 0.8). Moran's I, a spatial autocorrelation measure computed on the stellar velocities with inverse-distance weights, detects kinematic substructure, with a value near zero or -1/(N-1) indicating a fully mixed population. The modified mass segregation ratio Lambda_MSR compares the mean minimum spanning tree length of randomly sampled 25-star subgroups of the massive stars against random samples of the full population, avoiding the N-dependence of the original ratio. To keep these statistics honest, the authors replace each binary system with a single particle at its center of mass, preventing the anti-correlated orbital motions of companions from masquerading as substructure.

What would settle it

Run the same three initial clouds through the same code with primordial binary formation switched off, holding gas masses, densities, resolutions, feedback implementations, and cluster-selection criteria fixed; if the Lambda_MSR evolution curves match the binary-included runs, the claim that binaries accelerate mass segregation is disproved.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes a clean time-ordering of substructure erasure during cluster assembly. Across three clouds spanning a factor of sixteen in gas mass, the Q parameter of the most massive cluster rises above the smoothness threshold of 0.8 at about 2.5 times the cloud's initial free-fall time, meaning the stars have lost their filament-born clumpiness. Moran's I for the same clusters declines steadily but never reaches the zero value expected for a fully mixed population, asymptoting near I ~ 0.1 by the end of the simulations. Using a modified Lambda_MSR statistic, the authors find mass segregation grows before and around the time of cluster collapse, and it is consistently stronger and earlier than in a comparison simulation set without primordial binaries; they attribute this to binaries acting as larger gravitational targets that eject low-mass stars and redistribute energy. They conclude that primordial binaries enhance and accelerate dynamical mass segregation in young clusters.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's conclusion that binaries accelerate mass segregation rests on the assumption that the comparison simulations differ only in whether primordial binaries were included; if the clouds' masses, densities, resolutions, or feedback details also differ, those differences could explain the stronger and earlier segregation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Observed spatial substructure in a young cluster indicates it is younger than roughly 2.5 free-fall times of its natal cloud.
  • Kinematic substructure is a longer-lived signature of hierarchical assembly and can reveal ongoing merging even when the spatial distribution looks smooth.
  • Dynamical mass segregation can appear before cluster collapse, so its presence in young clusters does not require primordial segregation.
  • The timescale for order is set by the cloud free-fall time and appears insensitive to cloud mass across the simulated range.
  • Primordial binaries are not just passive members but active agents that accelerate mass segregation during assembly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 2.5 free-fall time scaling holds across environments, the Q statistic can be converted into an age estimator for embedded clusters that does not rely on stellar evolution models.
  • The residual kinematic substructure near I ~ 0.1 may serve as a fossil signature of hierarchical assembly that persists after spatial relaxation, potentially distinguishing formed-in-place clusters from merged ones in Gaia-era data.
  • A direct test would be to measure Moran's I in clusters spanning a range of dynamical ages; a plateau above zero in older embedded clusters would support the asymptotic behavior seen here.
  • The binary-acceleration mechanism suggests clusters with higher primordial binary fractions should mass-segregate faster, which is testable with resolved binary surveys in young clusters.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper uses three magnetohydrodynamic plus direct N-body simulations of star-forming giant molecular clouds (M1, M2, M3, from Cournoyer-Cloutier et al. 2024) to follow the assembly of the most massive cluster in each cloud. The authors measure spatial substructure with the Q statistic, kinematic substructure with Moran's I, and mass segregation with a modified Lambda_MSR statistic. They report that spatial substructure is erased at roughly 2.5 initial free-fall times, kinematic substructure persists longer, and primordial binaries enhance and accelerate dynamical mass segregation. The last claim rests on a comparison with the binary-free simulations of Polak et al. (2025).

Significance. If the 2.5 tff spatial-substructure timescale is robust, it gives observers a direct chronological diagnostic: significant spatial substructure in a young cluster would imply that the cluster is still in the first few free-fall times of assembly. The paper also contributes to the debate on whether early dynamical mass segregation can occur, particularly with a realistic primordial binary population. Strengths of the analysis are its use of standard, externally benchmarked statistics, the transparent treatment of binaries for the substructure metrics, and the direct link to Gaia-era observational tests. However, the key quantitative claim is only partially supported by the runs as presented, and the binary comparison is not shown to be a controlled experiment.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1 / Figure 4 / Abstract] The central claim that spatial substructure is erased at approximately 2.5 tff is not supported for all three simulations. In Figure 4, M2 and M3 extend only to about 2.5 tff, so the threshold crossing for M2 is seen only at the final output with no post-crossing baseline, and M3 has not lost its substructure by its last snapshot according to the caption, which states that substructure has been lost in M1 and M2 only. This is in tension with the Section 4 statement that the behavior of the three simulations is similar. The abstract and the text of Section 3.1 should either be qualified to the simulations that actually show the crossing, or the simulations should be extended beyond 2.5 tff.
  2. [Section 3.3] The conclusion that primordial binaries enhance and accelerate mass segregation depends on the comparison to Polak et al. (2025) being a controlled experiment. The manuscript states that those simulations were run in the same framework without the primordial binary prescription, but it never shows that the initial cloud masses, surface densities, resolutions, feedback implementations, and analysis choices are identical to those used here. If the initial conditions differ, the earlier and stronger mass segregation could be driven by those differences rather than by binaries. Please either provide a side-by-side comparison of the relevant simulation settings or soften the causal claim to a hypothesis.
  3. [Section 2.5] The modified Lambda_MSR calculation never defines what is meant by 'massive stars'. The text says that 25 stars are randomly sampled from the total number of massive stars, but no mass threshold or selection rule is given. Without this definition, the mass-segregation curves in Figure 6 are not reproducible and the reader cannot assess how the statistic was computed. Please specify the selection criterion (for example, stars above a particular mass or the top percentile by mass).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1] There is a typo: 'After is has formed' should read 'After it has formed'.
  2. [Figure 4 and Figure 5 captions] The legend entries in the captions appear to be incomplete or garbled; the authors should state clearly which line is the current most-massive cluster and which line traces the eventual most-massive cluster in the last snapshot.
  3. [Abstract / Keywords] The keyword list contains a typographical artifact ('Star clusters (1567) –' with a double hyphen); this should be cleaned up.
  4. [Section 4] The limitation statement that M2 and M3 have not finished forming stars and that cluster assembly is likely incomplete is appropriate, but it directly contradicts the abstract's universal 2.5 tff claim; this should be reconciled in revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the substructure timescale is read off external statistics applied to simulation output, and the binary mass-segregation claim is anchored to an external no-binary simulation comparison rather than to a fitted parameter or definitional identity.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim, that spatial substructure is erased on a timescale of about 2.5 initial free-fall times, is an empirical reading of the Q-statistic curve crossing a pre-defined 0.8 threshold. Q, Moran's I, and the modified Lambda_MSR are established external statistics (Cartwright & Whitworth 2004; Arnold et al. 2022; Wei et al. 2025) applied to simulation snapshots, and no quantity is fitted to the target claims. The simulation data come from the authors' own prior Torch simulations (Cournoyer-Cloutier et al. 2024), but citing one's own simulation database as the input to a new analysis is data provenance, not a circular derivation; the statistics themselves are external benchmarks. The paper explicitly flags two limitations that bear on support rather than circularity: the M2 and M3 runs end at about 2.5 free-fall times and M3 has not yet lost its spatial substructure, so the '2.5 tff for all clusters' statement is stronger than the displayed data; and the raw-versus-reduced Lambda_MSR difference is acknowledged as an inevitable MST-length artifact ('the total edge length of the MST will inevitably increase as the short edge that joined the binaries will be replaced by a larger one'). That admission means the paper is not disguising a definitional effect as a physical discovery. The mass-segregation conclusion is instead supported by comparison to the external, no-binary simulations of Polak et al. (2025). Whether that comparison is fully controlled (identical initial cloud properties, resolution, and feedback) is not demonstrated, but an uncontrolled comparison is a correctness risk, not circular reasoning. No load-bearing self-citation chain, uniqueness import, or ansatz smuggling is present, so the derivation chain is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new fitted constants or invented physical entities. The listed free parameters are hand-chosen initial conditions and analysis thresholds. The central claims rest on the fidelity of the Torch simulation suite and on the validity of the comparison to Polak et al. (2025) without binaries.

free parameters (3)
  • Initial cloud gas mass and surface density (M1, M2, M3) = M1: 2e4 Msun, 130 Msun/pc2; M2: 8e4, 520; M3: 3.2e5, 2080
    The three simulations sample different cloud masses and surface densities; the claimed universal 2.5 tff erasure timescale is inferred from these three chosen initial conditions.
  • Binary separation cutoff for replacement = 10,000 au
    Binaries with semi-major axes smaller than 10,000 au are replaced by their center of mass in the substructure and mass segregation analyses. The choice affects the measured statistics, especially the raw versus reduced Lambda_MSR comparison.
  • Velocity outlier removal threshold = 2.5 times IQR from median speed
    Stars with speeds beyond 2.5 IQR are excluded before computing Moran's I. The authors state fewer than 1% are removed and only extreme outliers (25 IQR) affect the results, but the threshold is hand-chosen.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Sink particle star formation criteria from Federrath et al. (2010) produce realistic star formation.
    The simulations' stellar populations depend on this subgrid prescription; invoked in Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption The binary population produced by the Cournoyer-Cloutier et al. (2024) sampling algorithm represents primordial binaries in real clusters.
    The central mass segregation result depends on this binary population; Section 2.1.
  • standard math A Q threshold of 0.8 separates substructured from smooth clusters (Cartwright & Whitworth 2004).
    Used to define when spatial substructure is lost in Section 3.1.
  • standard math Moran's I has expected value -1/(N-1) under no spatial autocorrelation.
    Used for kinematic substructure interpretation in Section 2.4.
  • domain assumption DBSCAN with min_samples=5 and kneed-selected distance identifies all physical subclusters.
    Cluster membership determines the samples for Q, I, and Lambda_MSR; Section 2.2.
  • ad hoc to paper The Polak et al. (2025) simulations are a valid control with identical physics except for the binary prescription.
    The binary acceleration of mass segregation is inferred by comparing to Polak et al. without confirming identical initial conditions or resolution; Section 3.3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Evolution of Substructure during Star Cluster Assembly." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ECR4FCHN

@misc{pith2026250700815,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Evolution of Substructure during Star Cluster Assembly},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ECR4FCHN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00815}
}
read the original abstract

Star cluster formation and assembly occurs inside filamentary and turbulent molecular clouds, which imprints both spatial and kinematic substructure on the young cluster. In this paper, we quantify the amount and evolution of this substructure in simulations of star cluster formation that include radiation magnetohydrodynamical evolution of the gas, coupled with detailed stellar dynamics, binary formation and evolution, and stellar feedback. We find that both spatial and kinematic substructure are present at early times. Both are erased as the cluster assembles through the formation of new stars as well as the merger of sub-clusters. Spatial substructure is erased over a timescale of approximately 2.5 times the initial free-fall time of the cloud. Kinematic substructure persists for longer, and is still present to the end of our simulations. We also explored our simulations for evidence of early dynamical mass segregation, and conclude that the presence of a population of binary stars can accelerate and enhance the mass segregation process.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00815 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Gas column density in colour, with the stars shown as white markers, for simulation M1 after 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 and 3.5 free-fall times. The physical time of the simulation is given in the top right corner, and the total mass in stars is given in the bottom left corner. ters, cluster splitting, and mergers with clusters that themselves are the products of mergers. This behavior is consistent with our understand… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Clusters identified in M1 after 1.5 (left) and 3.0 (right) initial free-fall times of the cloud. Each cluster is shown as one colour, and unclustered stars are shown in grey. Examples were chosen to showcase a time at which there is a lot of substructure and one at which only one cluster was identified. Clusters can have any morphology, and clearly show evidence of spatial asymmetries that persist at late times. usu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Total cluster mass as a function of time for each of the clusters identified in simulation M3. The most massive cluster at the latest snapshot is shown in violet. The verti￾cal blue lines show instances where a smaller cluster merged with a larger cluster, with the violet ones representing merg￾ers with the most massive cluster. The evolution lines with an open marker at their end show clusters that eventually ended… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Q parameter in time for 2 cases. The brown line is found using the stars in the most massive cluster at each snapshot, and the blue line using the stars that are part of the most massive cluster in the last snapshot. The Q value of 0.8 helps distinguish between a subst…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Moran’s I values in time for the three simulations. The brown line was calculated using the most massive cluster at each snapshot, and the blue line using the stars that belong to the most massive cluster in the latest snapshot. The green lines denote multiples of that…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Modified mass segregation ratio as a function of time for all three simulations. The shaded regions indicate the dispersion of the statistic. The dashed green lines denote multiples of that cloud’s initial free fall time, starting at 2.0 for the leftmost line, and incr…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J., Goodwin, S

    Allison, R. J., Goodwin, S. P., Parker, R. J., et al. 2009, Using the minimum spanning tree to trace mass segregation, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 395, 1449, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14508.x

    arXiv 2009

  2. [2]

    Arnold, B., & Wright, N. J. 2024, Kinematic substructure in star clusters constrains star cluster formation, MNRAS, 531, 1191, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1236

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1236 2024

  3. [3]

    J., & Parker, R

    Arnold, B., Wright, N. J., & Parker, R. J. 2022, Quantifying kinematic substructure in star-forming regions with statistical tests of spatial autocorrelation, MNRAS, 515, 2266, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1955

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1955 2022

  4. [4]

    2021, From hydrodynamics to N-body simulations of star clusters: mergers and rotation, MNRAS, 501, 2920, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3763

    Ballone, A., Torniamenti, S., Mapelli, M., et al. 2021, From hydrodynamics to N-body simulations of star clusters: mergers and rotation, MNRAS, 501, 2920, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3763

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3763 2021

  5. [5]

    2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    2008

  6. [6]

    A., & Bate, M

    Bonnell, I. A., & Bate, M. R. 2006, Star formation through gravitational collapse and competitive accretion, MNRAS, 370, 488, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10495.x

    arXiv 2006

  7. [7]

    Cartwright, A., & Whitworth, A. P. 2004, The statistical analysis of star clusters, MNRAS, 348, 589, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07360.x

    arXiv 2004

  8. [8]

    2021, Implementing primordial binaries in simulations of star cluster formation with a hybrid MHD and direct N-body method, MNRAS, 501, 4464, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3902

    Cournoyer-Cloutier, C., Tran, A., Lewis, S., et al. 2021, Implementing primordial binaries in simulations of star cluster formation with a hybrid MHD and direct N-body method, MNRAS, 501, 4464, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3902

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3902 2021

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    E., et al

    Cournoyer-Cloutier, C., Sills, A., Harris, W. E., et al. 2023, Early evolution and three-dimensional structure of embedded star clusters, MNRAS, 521, 1338, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad568 11

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    E., et al

    Cournoyer-Cloutier, C., Sills, A., Harris, W. E., et al. 2024, Massive Star Cluster Formation with Binaries. I. Evolution of Binary Populations, ApJ, 977, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad90b3

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    C., et al

    Dubey, A., Antypas, K., Calder, A. C., et al. 2014, Evolution of FLASH, a multi-physics scientific simulation code for high-performance computing, The International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications, 28, 225, doi: 10.1177/1094342013505656

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    P., Sander, J., & Xiaowei, X

    Ester, M., Kriegel, H. P., Sander, J., & Xiaowei, X. 1996, in KDD’96: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, AAAI Press. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/421283

    1996

  5. [13]

    P., & Tan, J

    Farias, J. P., & Tan, J. C. 2023, Star cluster formation from turbulent clumps - III. Across the mass spectrum, MNRAS, 523, 2083, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1532

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    C., & Klessen, R

    Federrath, C., Banerjee, R., Clark, P. C., & Klessen, R. S. 2010, Modeling Collapse and Accretion in Turbulent Gas Clouds: Implementation and Comparison of Sink Particles in AMR and SPH, ApJ, 713, 269, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/713/1/269

    2010 doi

  7. [15]

    2000, FLASH: An Adaptive Mesh Hydrodynamics Code for Modeling Astrophysical Thermonuclear Flashes, ApJS, 131, 273, doi: 10.1086/317361

    Fryxell, B., Olson, K., Ricker, P., et al. 2000, FLASH: An Adaptive Mesh Hydrodynamics Code for Modeling Astrophysical Thermonuclear Flashes, ApJS, 131, 273, doi: 10.1086/317361

    2000 doi

  8. [16]

    P., & Whitworth, A

    Goodwin, S. P., & Whitworth, A. P. 2004, The dynamical evolution of fractal star clusters: The survival of substructure, A&A, 413, 929, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031529

    2004 doi

  9. [17]

    2024, Structural properties of subgroups of stars associated with open clusters, MNRAS, 533, 1782, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1869 Grudi´ c, M

    Gregorio-Hetem, J., & Hetem, A. 2024, Structural properties of subgroups of stars associated with open clusters, MNRAS, 533, 1782, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1869 Grudi´ c, M. Y., Guszejnov, D., Offner, S. S. R., et al. 2022, The dynamics and outcome of star formation with jets, r...

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    Heggie, D. C. 1975, Binary Evolution in Stellar Dynamics, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 173, 729, doi: 10.1093/mnras/173.3.729

    1975 doi

  11. [19]

    S., Pudritz, R

    Howard, C. S., Pudritz, R. E., & Harris, W. E. 2018, A universal route for the formation of massive star clusters in giant molecular clouds, Nature Astronomy, 2, 725, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0506-0

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    L., & Reffert, S

    Hunt, E. L., & Reffert, S. 2023, Improving the open cluster census. II. An all-sky cluster catalogue with Gaia DR3, A&A, 673, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346285

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    2024, Dynamics of Star Cluster Formation: Mergers in Gas-rich Environments, ApJ, 967, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3d51

    Karam, J., & Sills, A. 2024, Dynamics of Star Cluster Formation: Mergers in Gas-rich Environments, ApJ, 967, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3d51

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    C., Bourke, T

    Kirk, H., Myers, P. C., Bourke, T. L., et al. 2013, Filamentary Accretion Flows in the Embedded Serpens South Protocluster, ApJ, 766, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/2/115

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    2002, The Initial Mass Function of Stars: Evidence for Uniformity in Variable Systems, Science, 295, 82, doi: 10.1126/science.1067524

    Kroupa, P. 2002, The Initial Mass Function of Stars: Evidence for Uniformity in Variable Systems, Science, 295, 82, doi: 10.1126/science.1067524

    2002 doi

  16. [24]

    A., Feigelson, E

    Kuhn, M. A., Feigelson, E. D., Getman, K. V., et al. 2014, The Spatial Structure of Young Stellar Clusters. I

    2014

  17. [25]

    Subclusters, ApJ, 787, 107, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/2/107

    doi

  18. [26]

    J., & Lada, E

    Lada, C. J., & Lada, E. A. 2003, Embedded Clusters in Molecular Clouds, ARA&A, 41, 57, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094844

    2003 arXiv

  19. [27]

    McMillan, S. L. W., Vesperini, E., & Portegies Zwart, S. F. 2007, A Dynamical Origin for Early Mass Segregation in Young Star Clusters, ApJL, 655, L45, doi: 10.1086/511763

    2007 doi

  20. [28]

    2017, Mind Your Ps and Qs: The Interrelation between Period (P) and Mass-ratio (Q) Distributions of Binary Stars, ApJS, 230, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

    Moe, M., & Di Stefano, R. 2017, Mind Your Ps and Qs: The Interrelation between Period (P) and Mass-ratio (Q) Distributions of Binary Stars, ApJS, 230, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    Offner, S. S. R., Moe, M., Kratter, K. M., 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, 275, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.10066

    2023 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    2011, Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    2011

  23. [31]

    I., van Elteren, A., de Vries, N., et al

    Pelupessy, F. I., van Elteren, A., de Vries, N., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Multipurpose Software Environment, A&A, 557, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321252

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    S., et al

    Polak, B., Mac Low, M.-M., Klessen, R. S., et al. 2024, Massive star cluster formation: I. High star formation efficiency while resolving feedback of individual stars, A&A, 690, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348840

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    2025, Massive star cluster formation - III

    Polak, B., Mac Low, Mordecai-Mark, Klessen, Ralf S., et al. 2025, Massive star cluster formation - III. Early mass segregation during cluster assembly, A&A, 695, A188, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451785 Portegies Zwart, S., & McMillan, S. L. W. 2019, Astrophysical Recipes: The A...

    2025 doi

  26. [34]

    Pelupessy, I., & de Vries, N. 2013, Multi-physics simulations using a hierarchical interchangeable software interface, Computer Physics Communications, 184, 456, doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2012.09.024 12 Portegies Zwart, S., McMillan, S., Harfst, S., et al. 2009, A multiphysics and mu...

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    2025, The physical properties of cluster chains, A&A, 693, A175, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451312

    Posch, L., Alves, J., Miret-Roig, N., et al. 2025, The physical properties of cluster chains, A&A, 693, A175, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451312

    2025 doi

  28. [36]

    Proszkow, E.-M., & Adams, F. C. 2009, Dynamical Evolution of Young Embedded Clusters: A Parameter Space Survey, ApJS, 185, 486, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/185/2/486

    2009 doi

  29. [37]

    1998, Density-Based Clustering in Spatial Databases: The Algorithm GDBSCAN and Its Applications, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 2, 169, doi: 10.1023/A:1009745219419

    Sander, J., Ester, M., Kriegel, H.-P., & Xu, X. 1998, Density-Based Clustering in Spatial Databases: The Algorithm GDBSCAN and Its Applications, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 2, 169, doi: 10.1023/A:1009745219419

    1998 doi

  30. [38]

    2011, in 2011 31st International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops, 166–171, doi: 10.1109/ICDCSW.2011.20

    Satopaa, V., Albrecht, J., Irwin, D., & Raghavan, B. 2011, in 2011 31st International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops, 166–171, doi: 10.1109/ICDCSW.2011.20

    2011 doi

  31. [39]

    2018, Dynamical evolution of stars and gas of young embedded stellar sub-clusters, MNRAS, 477, 1903, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty681

    Sills, A., Rieder, S., Scora, J., McCloskey, J., & Jaffa, S. 2018, Dynamical evolution of stars and gas of young embedded stellar sub-clusters, MNRAS, 477, 1903, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty681

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    E., Mac Low, M.-M., McMillan, S

    Wall, J. E., Mac Low, M.-M., McMillan, S. L. W., et al. 2020, Modeling of the Effects of Stellar Feedback during Star Cluster Formation Using a Hybrid Gas and N-Body

    2020

  33. [41]

    Method, ApJ, 904, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc011

    doi

  34. [42]

    E., McMillan, S

    Wall, J. E., McMillan, S. L. W., Mac Low, M.-M., Klessen, R. S., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2019, Collisional N-body Dynamics Coupled to Self-gravitating Magnetohydrodynamics Reveals Dynamical Binary

    2019

  35. [43]

    Formation, ApJ, 887, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4db1

    doi

  36. [44]

    2020, PETAR: a high-performance N-body code for modelling massive collisional stellar systems, MNRAS, 497, 536, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1915

    Wang, L., Iwasawa, M., Nitadori, K., & Makino, J. 2020, PETAR: a high-performance N-body code for modelling massive collisional stellar systems, MNRAS, 497, 536, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1915

    2020 doi

  37. [45]

    R., Boyle, P

    Wei, L., Lu, J. R., Boyle, P. C., et al. 2025, Structure and Dynamics of the Young Massive Star Cluster Westerlund 1, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.16755, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.16755

    2025 doi

  38. [46]

    Wells, M. R. A., Beuther, H., Molinari, S., et al. 2024, Dynamical accretion flows: ALMAGAL: Flows along filamentary structures in high-mass star-forming clusters, A&A, 690, A185, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449794

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    J., Jeffries, R

    Wright, N. J., Jeffries, R. D., Jackson, R. J., et al. 2024, The Gaia-ESO Survey: 3D dynamics of young groups and clusters from GES and Gaia EDR3, MNRAS, 533, 705, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1806

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.