Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

The Rosetta Stone Project. I. A suite of radiative magnetohydrodynamics simulations of high-mass star-forming clumps

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 The paper argues that magnetic field strength dominates how high-mass star-forming clumps fragment and collapse, and that the luminosity-to-mass ratio is an evolutionary clock largely insensitive to initial conditions.

desk verdict Useful catalog, honest about its own limits, but the resolution convergence gap sits under the magnetic-field claim; still deserves refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08436 v2 pith:BZYORIT6 submitted 2025-07-11 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM

Ugo Lebreuilly , Alessio Traficante , Alice Nucara , Ngo-Duy Tung , Patrick Hennebelle , Sergio Molinari , Ralf S. Klessen , Leonardo Testi
show 9 more authors
Veli-Matti Pelkonen Milena Benedettini Alessandro Coletta Davide Elia Chiara Mininni Stefania Pezzuto Juan D. Soler Paolo Suin Claudia Toci
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM
keywords high-massstarformationradiativemagnetohydrodynamicsmassivestar-formingclumpsmagneticfieldstrengthmass-to-fluxratioluminosity-to-masssyntheticobservationsinitialmassfunction
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

To make sense of observations of high-mass star-forming clumps, this paper computes a catalog of 24 radiative magnetohydrodynamics simulations, plus four targeted variants, of 500 and 1000 solar-mass clumps collapsing with controlled magnetic field strength, turbulence, and random seed, as the first step of a project that will eventually compare the runs directly with infrared and millimeter observations. Its central claim is that the strength of the initial magnetic field is the single most influential parameter: it controls how the clump fragments, how many stars form, and how fast the global collapse proceeds, at both large and small scales. Its second claim is that the luminosity-to-mass ratio, a quantity routinely estimated for real clumps, tracks the star formation efficiency to within about an order of magnitude regardless of clump mass, magnetization, or turbulence, making it a useful evolutionary clock for ranking observed clumps. The paper also reports that the random turbulent seed mainly changes the mass of the most massive star, and that numerical choices such as the resolution per Jeans length and the sink accretion threshold affect the low-mass end of the sink mass function. If these claims hold, observers gain a single-parameter staging tool for clump evolution and a sharpened target, the magnetic field, for understanding how massive stars are assembled.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a grid of adaptive-mesh-refinement simulations of radiative magnetohydrodynamics: each clump is a uniformly magnetized, supersonically turbulent sphere of 500 or 1000 $M_\odot$ at 10 K, with three mass-to-flux ratios ($\mu = 3, 10, 100$), two Mach numbers (7 and 10), and two random seeds, integrated with flux-limited-diffusion radiative transfer, self-gravity, and sink particles that accrete gas above $10^9$ cm$^{-3}$ and release accretion plus internal stellar luminosity. The load-bearing diagnostics are the sink population, which stands in for the stellar initial mass function, and the ratio $L/M = L_{\rm tot}/(M_0 - M_{\rm sinks})$. The near-universality of $L/M$ as an evolutionary clock is explained by two power-law mechanisms derived from the runs: at low star formation efficiency the accretion luminosity dominates and gives $L/M \propto {\rm SFE}^{1.5}$, because the accretion rate scales as the SFE, the median sink mass as ${\rm SFE}^{0.5}$, and the stellar radius is roughly constant; at higher efficiency the internal luminosity, scaling as the square of the maximal sink mass with $M_{\max} \propto {\rm SFE}^{0.8}$, takes over and gives $L/M \propto {\rm SFE}^{1.6}$.

What would settle it

Rerun the reference 1000 $M_\odot$ clump at 10, 20, 40, and 80 cells per Jeans length and compare the sink mass functions and the $L/M$ versus SFE relation across resolutions: if the peak near 1 $M_\odot$ or the ${\rm SFE}^{1.5}$ scaling shifts systematically, the headline results are numerical artifacts rather than physical outcomes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that magnetization outranks every other initial condition in shaping clump evolution. Strongly magnetized clumps (mass-to-flux ratio $\mu = 3$, only three times the critical value at which the field would halt collapse) collapse into sheet-like structures aligned with the field, confine star formation to a single filament, form roughly half as many sinks as weakly magnetized clumps, and push the median sink mass to about 3 $M_\odot$ at 10 percent star formation efficiency, whereas weakly magnetized clumps ($\mu = 100$) fragment into many scattered low-mass stars with a median near 0.8 $M_\odot$. The second headline claim is that the luminosity-to-mass ratio, $L/M \equiv L_{\rm tot}/(M_0 - M_{\rm sinks})$, the total luminosity of all sinks divided by the gas mass not yet converted into stars, increases almost monotonically as the star formation efficiency (the fraction of initial clump mass in sinks) rises, and collapses onto a common scaling, roughly $L/M \propto {\rm SFE}^{1.5}$ early on and ${\rm SFE}^{1.6}$ later, with about one dex of scatter across the whole catalog; different seeds, masses, Mach numbers, and magnetizations land on the same band. That universality is what makes $L/M$ usable as an evolutionary indicator of real clumps, even though it cannot measure absolute time because clumps of different mass or magnetization collapse at different rates. A final finding is methodological: the sink mass function's peak near 1 $M_\odot$ is partly a numerical artifact of not resolving the opacity limit, and the paper warns that jets, which are absent here, are needed to recover the Galactic peak near 0.3 $M_\odot$.

Load-bearing premise

The catalog assumes that resolving each Jeans length with 10 grid cells prevents artificial fragmentation in magnetized, turbulent, collapsing clumps; the authors themselves flag this in Section 5.2 as fragile because a run with 20 cells per Jeans length produced visibly different small-scale structure, and if the assumption fails the sink populations and the $L/M$ relation built from them are partly numerical.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Observers can use the luminosity-to-mass ratio to stage real star-forming clumps by evolutionary state without knowing their mass, magnetization, or turbulent driver, because in these runs $L/M$ tracks the star formation efficiency to within about an order of magnitude.
  • Strongly magnetized clumps should appear observationally as single-filament nurseries forming fewer, more massive stars, while weakly magnetized clumps should fragment into many low-mass stars spread over a larger volume.
  • The slope of the measured magnetic field-density relation ($B \propto \rho^{1/2}$ versus $B \propto \rho^{2/3}$) can act as a fingerprint of the clump's magnetization regime, connecting a hard-to-measure quantity to an observable scaling.
  • The catalog's sink mass functions should not be read as converged predictions of the initial mass function: the paper argues the peak near 1 $M_\odot$ is partly artificial and that jets, absent from these runs, are needed to reproduce the Galactic peak near 0.3 $M_\odot$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $L/M$ clock survives conversion into synthetic observations, existing infrared surveys could be reinterpreted as maps of star formation efficiency, turning a single observed ratio into a statistical estimate of how much gas a clump has already turned into stars.
  • The transition between the two regimes of the $L/M$ scaling, accretion-dominated below and internal-luminosity-dominated above a star formation efficiency near 0.01, coincides with the luminosity level at which HII regions appear in observations of real clumps, suggesting the break marks the onset of massive-star feedback; checking whether clumps above that threshold systematically show ionized ga
  • The prediction that strong magnetization raises the median stellar mass is directly testable: within a sample of clumps with measured mass-to-flux ratios, the strongly magnetized subsample should show a top-heavier stellar mass distribution, connecting magnetic field measurements to variations in the initial mass function.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents the first catalog (RS1.0) of 24 radiative magnetohydrodynamic simulations of high-mass star-forming clumps computed with RAMSES, varying clump mass (500, 1000 M_sun), Mach number (7, 10), mass-to-flux ratio (mu = 3, 10, 100), and turbulent seed (1, 2), plus four additional runs that vary the Jeans resolution (N_Jeans = 20) and the sink formation threshold (n_sink = 10^10 cm^-3). The reference model is analyzed in detail for its column density, temperature, magnetic field structure, and sink mass function. The parameter exploration identifies the magnetic field strength as the most influential parameter for clump evolution, and the luminosity-to-mass ratio (L/M) is found to correlate with the star formation efficiency (SFE) across the catalog. The authors explicitly acknowledge limitations: the IMF peak is partly artificial, jets and HII regions are not included, and the L/M-SFE relation may change when such feedback processes are added.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the catalog and the planned synthetic-observation pipeline (Papers II and III) will be a valuable community resource for bridging simulations and observations of high-mass star-forming clumps. The paper is notably honest about its numerical limitations, and the L/M-SFE relation is measured from the simulations rather than tuned to an external target, so the circularity burden is modest. The main unresolved issue is whether the small-scale fragmentation pattern at N_Jeans = 10, on which the magnetization ranking and the IMF-based scalings rest, is converged; the single N_Jeans = 20 test shows non-negligible differences. This gap can be addressed with additional targeted runs or with explicitly weakened claims, and it does not appear to be an unfixable error.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3 and §5.2, Fig. 17] The resolution convergence test is performed only for the fiducial mu = 10 model: the N_Jeans = 20 run is not part of the magnetization sequence (mu = 3, 10, 100) that supports the headline claim that magnetic field strength has the strongest influence on small-scale fragmentation. The N_Jeans = 20 run itself shows visibly more small-scale structure than the fiducial N_Jeans = 10 run, and its sink distribution more closely resembles the n_sink = 10^10 cm^-3 run than the fiducial, as the authors note. This is direct evidence that small-scale fragmentation is not converged at N_Jeans = 10 in this regime, consistent with the Federrath et al. (2011) caveat cited by the authors. Because the mu = 3 and mu = 100 runs are available only at N_Jeans = 10, the differential fragmentation and the derived ranking of models could be partly numerical. I request either a resolution test for at least the extreme magnetization cases, or a clear restriction of the 'strongest influence' claim to large-scale morphology and collapse, with the small-scale statements downgraded to provisional.
  2. [§5.1, Eqs. (7)-(9)] The analytic explanation of the L/M-SFE scaling uses the relations Mdot_tot ∝ SFE, M_med ∝ SFE^0.5, and M_max ∝ SFE^0.8, all of which are read from the same simulation outputs (Figs. 9, 11, 13, 14) with no formal fit uncertainties. The derived L/M ∝ SFE^1.5-1.6 is therefore not an independent prediction; it is a restatement of correlations measured from the same data. The empirical relation in Fig. 15 is the actual result and appears reasonably supported, but the paper should present Eqs. (7)-(9) as a consistency check rather than a derivation, and it should quantify the scatter (~1 dex) and the fit uncertainties before drawing quantitative conclusions.
  3. [§5.2 and §3.4] The paper states that the IMF peak is 'still artificial and is not guaranteed to be correct for all the models.' This caveat applies directly to the median sink mass, which is one of the basis quantities in Eq. (8) for the L/M-SFE scaling, and to the sink populations used to rank the magnetization models in §4.1.1. The abstract's claim that L/M is 'a good indicator ... regardless of its initial condition' should be tempered by an explicit statement of which conclusions are robust to the artificial low-mass sink population and which would require higher-resolution or jet-including calculations.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.6, Eq. (6)] The sentence following the L/M definition, 'This quantity measures the relative conversion of the clump material into stars or sinks,' actually describes SFE in Eq. (5); L/M is a luminosity-to-remaining-gas-mass ratio. Please correct to avoid confusing the two quantities.
  2. [§4.1.1] The statement that 'for µ=1 the magnetic field is expected to completely prevent the collapse of the clump' is imprecise: in ideal MHD, complete magnetic support requires a subcritical cloud, µ < 1, while µ = 1 is the marginal critical value. Please rephrase.
  3. [§4.2] The phrase 'the opposed effect' should read 'the opposite effect.'
  4. [§5.1] The phrase 'he future RS models' should read 'the future RS models.'
  5. [Figs. 9, 11, 13, 14] The power-law overlays are labeled only as 'to guide the eye,' and neither the figures nor the text states the fitting procedure or the scatter associated with exponents such as SFE^0.3, SFE^0.5, and SFE^0.8. Please add a table or legend with the fitted slopes and uncertainties, or explicitly state that the exponents are rough visual estimates.
  6. [§4.1] The text uses 'M' both for the clump mass (in M_sun) and for the Mach number (e.g., 'M=1000M_sun, M=7, and µ=10'); this overloading is confusing. Please use distinct symbols for the Mach number.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Central claims rest on direct simulation outputs; the only circularity is the post-hoc analytic L/M–SFE derivation that reuses the same fitted power-law exponents.

  1. other [Section 5.1, Eqs. (7)–(9), with Fig. 15; exponents from Figs. 9, 11, 13, 14]
    "For this, we keep in mind that we have previously shown that Ṁ∝SFE and that the typical relation between the median mass and the SFE in our models is on the order of ∝SFE∼0.5. ... For a clump with only low-mass stars (when Mmax<2M⊙), the accretion luminosity dominates and we can therefore write L/M∝ Ṁ M_med / R. ... We therefore determine that L/M∝SFE^1.5."

    The scalings Ṁ∝SFE, M_med∝SFE^0.5, and M_max∝SFE^0.8 are not independent inputs: they are power-law fits read off the same RS1.0 simulations (Figs. 9, 11, 13, 14). Substituting these fitted scalings into the accretion-luminosity expression (Eq. 4) yields L/M∝SFE^1.5–1.6 by construction, so the 'derivation' is a consistency check rather than an independent prediction. The paper introduces it as 'understand where this relation comes from', not as a prediction, and the underlying L/M–SFE correlation is measured directly from the simulations; hence the circularity is minor and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's two headline results—magnetic-field strength as the dominant influence on clump evolution, and L/M as an evolutionary indicator independent of initial conditions—are empirical statements based on controlled variations of initial parameters in the RS1.0 grid, not on fitting to an external target. The magnetic-field ranking follows from comparing µ=3, 10, 100 runs at fixed other parameters, and the L/M–SFE correlation is computed directly from sink masses and sink luminosities across all models. The §5.1 analytic scaling is post-hoc: it reuses the same fitted exponents (Ṁ∝SFE, M_med∝SFE^0.5, M_max∝SFE^0.8) to reproduce L/M∝SFE^1.5–1.6, so it adds no independent support, but this does not affect the empirical claim. Self-citations (e.g., Lebreuilly et al. 2024a for the sink-threshold comparison) are used with explicit hedges; §5.2 openly states that the IMF peak is 'still artificial and is not guaranteed to be correct for all the models' and that N_Jeans=10 may be insufficient in gravo-turbulent magnetized collapse (Federrath et al. 2011). Those are convergence limitations that lower robustness, not circularity. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and the resolution and sink-convergence discussion is transparent and targeted at the weakest numerical assumption. Circularity score is therefore low.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; sink particles are numerical devices. The central claims depend primarily on ideal MHD, the FLD approximation, the Jeans resolution criterion, and the adopted stellar tracks and accretion efficiency, all of which are assumptions imported into the model rather than derived results.

free parameters (5)
  • f_acc (accretion luminosity efficiency) = 0.1
    Chosen by hand in §2.4; the factor is essentially unknown and controls how much accretion energy is radiated into the gas, directly affecting luminosity and L/M.
  • n_sink (sink formation density threshold) = 1e9 cm^-3
    Set in §2.4 and §2.5 to reproduce the resolved IMF peak, but §5.2 states the IMF peak is still artificial; a run at 1e10 cm^-3 changes low-mass sink statistics.
  • N_Jeans (cells per Jeans length) = 10
    Chosen as a cost-resolution compromise in §2.3; the N_Jeans=20 run produces different small-scale structure, so the value affects the sink population and the resulting IMF.
  • Median sink mass vs SFE exponent = ~0.3 to 0.6 depending on model
    Power-law exponents overplotted 'to guide the eye' in Figs. 9, 11, 13, 14; used in §5.1 to derive the L/M vs SFE scaling.
  • Maximum sink mass vs SFE exponent = ~0.8
    Overplotted fit in Figs. 9 and 11; used in Eq. (9) for the L/M scaling at high SFE.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Ideal MHD (flux freezing) holds down to 38 au, with nonideal effects negligible.
    Stated in §2.2: 'we do not consider any nonideal MHD effect'; this underlies the magnetic field versus density scalings and the interpretation of magnetic support.
  • domain assumption N_Jeans = 10 cells per Jeans length is sufficient to avoid artificial fragmentation.
    Invoked in §2.3 via the Truelove criterion; §5.2 notes Federrath et al. (2011) suggest higher resolution may be needed in magnetized gravo-turbulent collapse, and the N_Jeans=20 run shows different structure.
  • domain assumption The flux-limited diffusion (FLD) approximation adequately captures radiative transfer in these clumps.
    Radiative transfer is solved in the FLD limit per §2.1 (Commerçon et al. 2011, 2014); this affects temperature structure and hence fragmentation.
  • domain assumption A decaying Kolmogorov turbulent velocity field with random phases is an acceptable initial condition.
    §2.2 acknowledges supersonic turbulence should follow a Burgers spectrum but argues the choice is not influential for collapse; the initial field is quickly forgotten.
  • domain assumption Isolated uniform spherical clumps are representative of real star-forming clumps.
    §2.2 sets uniform spheres with T=10 K and no environment; the authors explicitly list this as a limitation and plan zoom-in initial conditions for future work.
  • domain assumption Kuiper & Yorke (2013) evolutionary tracks give reliable stellar radii and internal luminosities for all sinks.
    Used in §2.4 for both L_int and R_star in Eq. (4); the L/M values and their scaling inherit this assumption.
  • standard math The RAMSES implementation of the RMHD and sink equations is correct.
    The paper relies on the publically documented code (Teyssier 2002 and extensions); this is standard computational practice, not verified here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Rosetta Stone Project. I. A suite of radiative magnetohydrodynamics simulations of high-mass star-forming clumps." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BZYORIT6

@misc{pith2026250708436,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Rosetta Stone Project. I. A suite of radiative magnetohydrodynamics simulations of high-mass star-forming clumps},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BZYORIT6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08436}
}
read the original abstract

Context. Star formation and, in particular, high-mass star formation are key astrophysical processes that are far from being fully understood. Unfortunately, progress in these fields is slow because observations are hard to interpret as they cannot be directly compared to numerical simulations. Synthetic observations are therefore necessary to better constrain the models. Aims. With the Rosetta Stone project, we aim to develop an end-to-end pipeline to compare star formation simulations with observations as accurately as possible in order to study the evolution from clumps scales to stars. Methods. Using the adaptive mesh-refinement code RAMSES, we computed a first grid of model of star-forming clumps to develop our pipeline and explore the impact of the clump initial conditions on their evolution. The main purpose of this set of simulations is to be converted into synthetic observations to enable a direct comparison with real star-forming clumps observed with Herschel and ALMA. Results. The Rosetta Stone simulations presented here provide a catalog available for full post-processing and subsequent comparison with observations (RS1). Among all the parameters explored here, the strength of the magnetic field has the strongest influence on the clump evolution (fragmentation, star formation, global collapse) at both large and small scales. Numerical parameters such as the resolution per Jeans length or the threshold for accretion onto sink particles affects the formation of low-mass sinks. Finally, the widely used L/M ratio is found to be a good indicator of the clump evolutionary state regardless of its initial condition, but this could change when more feedback processes (jets, HII regions) are included. Conclusions. We now have a new suite of simulations of star-forming clumps that is available for full post-processing and subsequent comparison with the observations,

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.08436 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Integrated maps for the reference model in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution of physical properties in the reference model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Magnetic field in the reference model. On the left we display the histogram of the magnetic field strength as a function the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Initial mass function of the sink at SFE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of accretion, internal and total luminosity (left), and ratio between the accretion and total luminosity as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Four realizations of the same star-forming clump with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Density PDFs of the four realizations of the clump with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Sink mass function at SFE=0.1 for the four realizations of the same star-forming clump with M = 1000 M⊙, M = 7, and µ = 10. The black line shows the IMF average out of the four clumps. small influence on the result, it is still a key variable. This may reflect the intr…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Evolution of the star formation for the four realizations of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Illustration of the magnetic field strength impact on the column density (integrated in the z direction). The columns cor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evolution of star formation for the three di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Illustration of the impact of initial magnetization on the scaling of magnetic field strength (B) with density (ρ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Evolution of star formation for the clumps of 1000 and 500 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: L/M as a function of the time (left) and the SFE (right) for the full RS1.0 catalog of models. Here large (resp. small) markers represent 1000 (resp. 500) M⊙clumps. We use three different colors to represent the different mass-to-flux ratios (purple is 100, dark green…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Lacc (left) and Lint (right) as a function of the time (left) and the SFE (right) for the full RS1.0 catalog of models. The color and marker coding is the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Impact of the choice of sink threshold and resolution on the column density (integrated along the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_17.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. How Should We Understand the Core Mass Function? A memo of the CMF2IMF conference at ESO Garching

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

    The high-mass slope of the core mass function depends strongly on the minimum fitting mass: completeness-based fits look top-heavy, while KS-selected tail fits move toward Salpeter, and the early-stage ASHES sample ap...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

113 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2021, MNRAS, 503, 5826

    Agertz, O., Renaud, F., Feltzing, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 5826

    2021

  2. [2]

    2023, A&A, 680, A23

    Ahmad, A., González, M., Hennebelle, P., & Commerçon, B. 2023, A&A, 680, A23

    2023

  3. [3]

    2024, A&A, 687, A90

    Ahmad, A., González, M., Hennebelle, P., & Commerçon, B. 2024, A&A, 687, A90

    2024

  4. [4]

    E., et al

    Anderson, M., Peretto, N., Ragan, S. E., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 2964

    2021

  5. [5]

    2011, ApJS, 196, 22

    Baes, M., Verstappen, J., De Looze, I., et al. 2011, ApJS, 196, 22

    2011

  6. [6]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 491

    Bally, J. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 491

    2016

  7. [7]

    R., Bonnell, I

    Bate, M. R., Bonnell, I. A., & Price, N. M. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 362 Benítez-Llambay, P. & Masset, F. S. 2016, ApJS, 223, 11

    1995

  8. [8]

    2020, A&A, 638, A86

    Bhandare, A., Kuiper, R., Henning, T., et al. 2020, A&A, 638, A86

    2020

Show all 113 references
  1. [9]

    & Teyssier, R

    Bleuler, A. & Teyssier, R. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 4015

    2014

  2. [10]

    A., Bate, M

    Bonnell, I. A., Bate, M. R., Clarke, C. J., & Pringle, J. E. 2001, MNRAS, 323, 785

    2001

  3. [11]

    A., Vine, S

    Bonnell, I. A., Vine, S. G., & Bate, M. R. 2004, MNRAS, 349, 735

    2004

  4. [12]

    2020, ApJ, 896, L34

    Brucy, N., Hennebelle, P., Bournaud, F., & Colling, C. 2020, ApJ, 896, L34

    2020

  5. [13]

    2023, A&A, 675, A144

    Brucy, N., Hennebelle, P., Colman, T., & Iteanu, S. 2023, A&A, 675, A144

    2023

  6. [14]

    & Mocz, P

    Burkhart, B. & Mocz, P. 2019, ApJ, 879, 129

    2019

  7. [15]

    T., et al

    Cesaroni, R., Pestalozzi, M., Beltrán, M. T., et al. 2015, A&A, 579, A71

    2015

  8. [16]

    2025, A&A, 696, A151

    Coletta, A., Molinari, S., Schisano, E., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A151

    2025

  9. [17]

    2018, A&A, 620, A21

    Colling, C., Hennebelle, P., Geen, S., Iffrig, O., & Bournaud, F. 2018, A&A, 620, A21

    2018

  10. [18]

    & Teyssier, R

    Colman, T. & Teyssier, R. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 4727 Commerçon, B., Debout, V ., & Teyssier, R. 2014, A&A, 563, A11 Commerçon, B., Teyssier, R., Audit, E., Hennebelle, P., & Chabrier, G. 2011, A&A, 529, A35 Commerçon, B., González, M., Mignon-Risse, R., Hennebelle, P., & Vaytet, N...

    2020

  11. [19]

    Crutcher, R. M. 1999, ApJ, 520, 706

    1999

  12. [20]

    M., Wandelt, B., Heiles, C., Falgarone, E., & Troland, T

    Crutcher, R. M., Wandelt, B., Heiles, C., Falgarone, E., & Troland, T. H. 2010, ApJ, 725, 466

    2010

  13. [21]

    F., Testi, L., et al

    Curone, P., Izquierdo, A. F., Testi, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A25

    2022

  14. [22]

    Dale, J. E. & Bonnell, I. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 321

    2011

  15. [23]

    E., Ngoumou, J., Ercolano, B., & Bonnell, I

    Dale, J. E., Ngoumou, J., Ercolano, B., & Bonnell, I. A. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 694

    2014

  16. [24]

    2015, MNRAS, 453, L73

    Dipierro, G., Price, D., Laibe, G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, L73

    2015

  17. [25]

    C., Dittmann, A

    Duffell, P. C., Dittmann, A. J., D’Orazio, D. J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 156

    2024

  18. [26]

    2021, MNRAS, 504, 2742

    Elia, D., Merello, M., Molinari, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 2742

    2021

  19. [27]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 4035

    Federrath, C. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 4035

    2015

  20. [28]

    C., & Klessen, R

    Federrath, C., Banerjee, R., Clark, P. C., & Klessen, R. S. 2010, ApJ, 713, 269

    2010

  21. [29]

    & Klessen, R

    Federrath, C. & Klessen, R. S. 2012, ApJ, 761, 156

    2012

  22. [30]

    S., Iapichino, L., & Beattie, J

    Federrath, C., Klessen, R. S., Iapichino, L., & Beattie, J. R. 2021, Nature Astron- omy, 5, 365

    2021

  23. [31]

    Federrath, C., Schrön, M., Banerjee, R., & Klessen, R. S. 2014, ApJ, 790, 128

    2014

  24. [32]

    Federrath, C., Sur, S., Schleicher, D. R. G., Banerjee, R., & Klessen, R. S. 2011, ApJ, 731, 62

    2011

  25. [33]

    2023, A&A, 672, A193

    Fensch, J., Bournaud, F., Brucy, N., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A193

    2023

  26. [34]

    2006, A&A, 457, 371

    Fromang, S., Hennebelle, P., & Teyssier, R. 2006, A&A, 457, 371

    2006

  27. [35]

    2000, ApJS, 131, 273

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

    2000

  28. [36]

    2015, MNRAS, 454, 4484

    Geen, S., Hennebelle, P., Tremblin, P., & Rosdahl, J. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 4484

    2015

  29. [37]

    Girichidis, P., Federrath, C., Banerjee, R., & Klessen, R. S. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 2741

    2011

  30. [38]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 3511 Göller, J., Girichidis, P., Brucy, N., et al

    Girichidis, P., Seifried, D., Naab, T., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 3511 Göller, J., Girichidis, P., Brucy, N., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, submitted to A&A, arXiv:2502.02646 Grudi´c, M. Y ., Guszejnov, D., Hopkins, P. F., Offner, S. S. R., & Faucher- Giguère, C.-A. 2021, MNRAS,...

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Y ., Hopkins, P

    Guszejnov, D., Grudi ´c, M. Y ., Hopkins, P. F., Offner, S. S. R., & Faucher- Giguère, C.-A. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 3646

    2021

  32. [40]

    2018, A&A, 611, A24

    Hennebelle, P. 2018, A&A, 611, A24

    2018

  33. [41]

    2020, ApJ, 904, 194

    Hennebelle, P., Commerçon, B., Lee, Y .-N., & Chabrier, G. 2020, ApJ, 904, 194

    2020

  34. [42]

    & Grudi´c, M

    Hennebelle, P. & Grudi´c, M. Y . 2024, ARA&A, 62, 63

    2024

  35. [43]

    2022, A&A, 668, A147

    Hennebelle, P., Lebreuilly, U., Colman, T., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A147

    2022

  36. [44]

    2019, ApJ, 883, 140

    Hennebelle, P., Lee, Y .-N., & Chabrier, G. 2019, ApJ, 883, 140

    2019

  37. [45]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 53

    2015

  38. [46]

    Jeffreson, S. M. R., Sun, J., & Wilson, C. D. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 1663

    2022

  39. [47]

    Kim, C.-G., Kim, J.-G., Gong, M., & Ostriker, E. C. 2023, ApJ, 946, 3

    2023

  40. [48]

    & Ostriker, E

    Kim, C.-G. & Ostriker, E. C. 2017, ApJ, 846, 133

    2017

  41. [49]

    Klessen, R. S. & Glover, S. C. O. 2016, Saas-Fee Advanced Course, 43, 85

    2016

  42. [50]

    R., Bate, M

    Krumholz, M. R., Bate, M. R., Arce, H. G., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 243

    2014

  43. [51]

    Kuffmeier, M., Calcutt, H., & Kristensen, L. E. 2019, A&A, 628, A112

    2019

  44. [52]

    2017, ApJ, 846, 7

    Kuffmeier, M., Haugbølle, T., & Nordlund, Å. 2017, ApJ, 846, 7

    2017

  45. [53]

    & Yorke, H

    Kuiper, R. & Yorke, H. W. 2013, ApJ, 772, 61

    2013

  46. [54]

    Lada, C. J. & Lada, E. A. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 57

    2003

  47. [55]

    B., Grudi´c, M

    Lane, H. B., Grudi´c, M. Y ., Guszejnov, D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 4767

    2022

  48. [56]

    Larson, R. B. 1969, MNRAS, 145, 271

    1969

  49. [57]

    2021, ApJ, 917, L10

    Lebreuilly, U., Hennebelle, P., Colman, T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 917, L10

    2021

  50. [58]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 3326

    Lebreuilly, U., Vallucci-Goy, V ., Guillet, V ., Lombart, M., & Marchand, P. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 3326

    2023

  51. [59]

    & Hennebelle, P

    Lee, Y .-N. & Hennebelle, P. 2018, A&A, 611, A88

    2018

  52. [60]

    2010, ApJ, 720, L26

    Li, Z.-Y ., Wang, P., Abel, T., & Nakamura, F. 2010, ApJ, 720, L26

    2010

  53. [61]

    2021, A&A, 653, A157 Article number, page 16 of 18 Lebreuilly et al: Rosetta Stone

    Louvet, F., Hennebelle, P., Men’shchikov, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A157 Article number, page 16 of 18 Lebreuilly et al: Rosetta Stone. Paper I Mac Low, M.-M. & Klessen, R. S. 2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 125

    2021

  54. [62]

    Mathew, S. S. & Federrath, C. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 2448

    2021

  55. [63]

    S., Federrath, C., & Seta, A

    Mathew, S. S., Federrath, C., & Seta, A. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 5190

    2023

  56. [64]

    J., Girart, J

    Maury, A. J., Girart, J. M., Zhang, Q., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 2760

    2018

  57. [65]

    McKee, C. F. & Tan, J. C. 2003, ApJ, 585, 850

    2003

  58. [66]

    P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap, K

    McMullin, J. P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap, K. 2007, in As- tronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw, F. Hill, & D. J. Bell, 127

    2007

  59. [67]

    1966, MNRAS, 133, 265

    Mestel, L. 1966, MNRAS, 133, 265

    1966

  60. [68]

    2007, ApJS, 170, 228

    Mignone, A., Bodo, G., Massaglia, S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 170, 228

    2007

  61. [69]

    F., & Springel, V

    Mocz, P., Burkhart, B., Hernquist, L., McKee, C. F., & Springel, V . 2017, ApJ, 838, 40

    2017

  62. [70]

    2016, ApJ, 826, L8

    Molinari, S., Merello, M., Elia, D., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, L8

    2016

  63. [71]

    2025, A&A, 696, A149

    Molinari, S., Schilke, P., Battersby, C., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A149

    2025

  64. [72]

    2022, A&A, 662, A8

    Motte, F., Bontemps, S., Csengeri, T., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A8

    2022

  65. [73]

    2018, ARA&A, 56, 41

    Motte, F., Bontemps, S., & Louvet, F. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 41

    2018

  66. [74]

    G., Federrath, C., & Krumholz, M

    Nam, D. G., Federrath, C., & Krumholz, M. R. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 1138

    2021

  67. [75]

    Offner, S. S. R. & Arce, H. G. 2014, ApJ, 784, 61

    2014

  68. [76]

    Offner, S. S. R., Krumholz, M. R., Klein, R. I., & McKee, C. F. 2008, AJ, 136, 404

    2008

  69. [77]

    & Kuiper, R

    Oliva, A. & Kuiper, R. 2023, A&A, 669, A80

    2023

  70. [78]

    2020, ApJ, 900, 82 Pencil Code Collaboration, Brandenburg, A., Johansen, A., et al

    Padoan, P., Pan, L., Juvela, M., Haugbølle, T., & Nordlund, Å. 2020, ApJ, 900, 82 Pencil Code Collaboration, Brandenburg, A., Johansen, A., et al. 2021, The Jour- nal of Open Source Software, 6, 2807

    2020

  71. [79]

    2006, A&A, 459, 797 Portegies Zwart, S

    Pinte, C., Ménard, F., Duchêne, G., & Bastien, P. 2006, A&A, 459, 797 Portegies Zwart, S. F., McMillan, S. L. W., & Gieles, M. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 431

    2006

  72. [80]

    J., Wurster, J., Tricco, T

    Price, D. J., Wurster, J., Tricco, T. S., et al. 2018, PASA, 35, e031

    2018

  73. [81]

    2016, A&A, 593, A87

    Reissl, S., Wolf, S., & Brauer, R. 2016, A&A, 593, A87

    2016

  74. [82]

    2013, MNRAS, 436, 1836

    Renaud, F., Bournaud, F., Emsellem, E., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 1836

    2013

  75. [83]

    Rosen, A. L. 2022, ApJ, 941, 202

    2022

  76. [84]

    2019, ApJ, 886, 102

    Sanhueza, P., Contreras, Y ., Wu, B., et al. 2019, ApJ, 886, 102

    2019

  77. [85]

    2017, MNRAS, 472, 4797

    Seifried, D., Walch, S., Girichidis, P., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 4797

    2017

  78. [86]

    J., Treß, R

    Smith, R. J., Treß, R. G., Sormani, M. C., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1594

    2020

  79. [87]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 791

    Springel, V . 2010, MNRAS, 401, 791

    2010

  80. [88]

    2024, A&A, 682, A76

    Suin, P., Zavagno, A., Colman, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A76

    2024

  81. [89]

    E., Shirley, Y

    Svoboda, B. E., Shirley, Y . L., Traficante, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 886, 36

    2019

  82. [90]

    C., Beltrán, M

    Tan, J. C., Beltrán, M. T., Caselli, P., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 149–172

    2014

  83. [91]

    2002, A&A, 385, 337

    Teyssier, R. 2002, A&A, 385, 337

    2002

  84. [92]

    & Galli, D

    Toci, C. & Galli, D. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 2118

    2015

  85. [93]

    2020, ApJ, 888, L4

    Toci, C., Lodato, G., Fedele, D., Testi, L., & Pinte, C. 2020, ApJ, 888, L4

    2020

  86. [94]

    2013, ApJ, 763, 6

    Tomida, K., Tomisaka, K., Matsumoto, T., et al. 2013, ApJ, 763, 6

    2013

  87. [95]

    2018, MNRAS, 477, 2220

    Traficante, A., Duarte-Cabral, A., Elia, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 2220

    2018

  88. [96]

    A., Billot, N., et al

    Traficante, A., Fuller, G. A., Billot, N., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 3882

    2017

  89. [97]

    A., Peretto, N., Pineda, J

    Traficante, A., Fuller, G. A., Peretto, N., Pineda, J. E., & Molinari, S. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 3089

    2015

  90. [98]

    M., Avison, A., et al

    Traficante, A., Jones, B. M., Avison, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 2306

    2023

  91. [99]

    G., Sormani, M

    Tress, R. G., Sormani, M. C., Glover, S. C. O., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 4455

    2020

  92. [100]

    K., Klein, R

    Truelove, J. K., Klein, R. I., McKee, C. F., et al. 1997, ApJ, 489, L179

    1997

  93. [101]

    2024, A&A, 684, A36

    Tung, N.-D., Testi, L., Lebreuilly, U., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A36

    2024

  94. [102]

    S., König, C., Giannetti, A., et al

    Urquhart, J. S., König, C., Giannetti, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 1059

    2018

  95. [103]

    S., Moore, T

    Urquhart, J. S., Moore, T. J. T., Csengeri, T., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 1555

    2014

  96. [104]

    2022, A&A, 668, A83

    Valdivia, V ., Maury, A., & Hennebelle, P. 2022, A&A, 668, A83

    2022

  97. [105]

    2018, A&A, 615, A5 Vázquez-Semadeni, E., Palau, A., Ballesteros-Paredes, J., Gómez, G

    Vaytet, N., Commerçon, B., Masson, J., González, M., & Chabrier, G. 2018, A&A, 615, A5 Vázquez-Semadeni, E., Palau, A., Ballesteros-Paredes, J., Gómez, G. C., & Zamora-Avilés, M. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3061

    2018

  98. [106]

    2022, A&A, 663, A6

    Verliat, A., Hennebelle, P., González, M., Lee, Y .-N., & Geen, S. 2022, A&A, 663, A6

    2022

  99. [107]

    P., Bisbas, T

    Walch, S., Whitworth, A. P., Bisbas, T. G., Wünsch, R., & Hubber, D. A. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 917

    2013

  100. [108]

    R., & Price, D

    Wurster, J., Bate, M. R., & Price, D. J. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 1719

    2019

  101. [109]

    2024, ApJS, 270, 9

    Xu, F., Wang, K., Liu, T., et al. 2024, ApJS, 270, 9

    2024

  102. [110]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.07440

    Zamponi, J., Giannetti, A., Bovino, S., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.07440

    2022 arXiv

  103. [111]

    E., Pillsworth, R., Robinson, H., & Wadsley, J

    Zhao, B., Pudritz, R. E., Pillsworth, R., Robinson, H., & Wadsley, J. 2024, ApJ, 974, 240

    2024

  104. [112]

    1982, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 395, 226

    Zinnecker, H. 1982, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 395, 226

    1982

  105. [113]

    & Yorke, H

    Zinnecker, H. & Yorke, H. W. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 481 1 Université Paris-Saclay, Université Paris Cité, CEA, CNRS, AIM, F-91191, Gif-sur-Yvette, France 2 INAF - Istituto di Astrofisica e Planetologia Spaziali, Via Fosso del Cavaliere 100, I-00133 Roma, Italy 3 Dipartimento di Fisi...

    2007

Pith tools

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