Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The Rosetta Stone Project. II. The correlation between star formation efficiency and L/M indicator for the evolutionary stages of star-forming clumps in post-processed radiative magnetohydrodynamics simulations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper calibrates the observed luminosity-to-mass ratio of massive star-forming clumps against star formation efficiency and finds one mass-independent power law, $L/M \propto {\rm SFE}^{1.20}$, usable to read evolutionary stage from…

desk verdict A solid calibration study whose slope is likely robust but whose zero point hinges on one uncalibrated subgrid parameter; referee should require the sensitivity analysis before the absolute L/M-to-SFE translation is trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09936 v2 pith:PIN7KCRI submitted 2025-07-14 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR

Ngo-Duy Tung , Alessio Traficante , Ugo Lebreuilly , Alice Nucara , Leonardo Testi , Patrick Hennebelle , Ralf S. Klessen , Sergio Molinari
show 8 more authors
Veli-Matti Pelkonen Milena Benedettini Alessandro Coletta Davide Elia Gary A. Fuller Stefania Pezzuto Juan D. Soler Claudia Toci
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR
keywords starformationefficiencyL/Mindicatormassivestar-formingclumpsbolometricluminosityradiativetransferpost-processingsyntheticobservationsHi-GALsurveymagnetohydrodynamics
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 aims to turn an observable—the bolometric luminosity-to-envelope-mass ratio $L/M$ of parsec-scale star-forming clumps—into a direct readout of how much of a clump's gas has already turned into stars, the star formation efficiency (SFE). From radiative magnetohydrodynamics simulations of collapsing clumps post-processed through synthetic far-infrared observations built to mimic the Hi-GAL survey, the authors reconstruct $L/M$ with the same aperture-photometry and SED-fitting tools observers use, then compare it with the SFE and age recorded in the simulation. They find a power-law correlation $\log(L_{\rm bol}/M) = 1.20\log({\rm SFE}) + 3.28$ that is independent of clump mass, turbulence level, magnetic-field strength, and turbulent seed. If real Galactic clumps obey the same relation, $L/M$ measured with Herschel-type surveys gives a direct, mass-free estimate of star formation efficiency, and the observed boundary $L/M \approx 10$ marks the stage past which most star formation still has to occur.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is an end-to-end synthetic-observation pipeline. The Ramses adaptive-mesh-refinement code runs radiative magnetohydrodynamics collapse simulations of isolated clumps—uniform-density 10 K spheres of 500 or 1000 $M_\odot$ in a 1.53 pc box—with sink particles standing in for stars; the Radmc-3d Monte Carlo radiative-transfer code recomputes dust temperatures from stellar and accretion luminosities (accretion efficiency $f_{\rm acc}=0.1$) using DIANA/MRN dust opacities and ray-traces images at 24, 70, 160, 250, 350, and 500 $\mu$m; the images are convolved with the real Hi-GAL and MIPSGAL beams and noise; and the Hyper aperture-photometry routine extracts sources whose fluxes are turned into bolometric luminosity and clump mass by SED integration and optically thin graybody fitting. The central identity that carries the result is Eq. (10), the power-law relation converting the observable $L/M$ into the simulation-intrinsic SFE, whose mass independence is the paper's headline claim.

What would settle it

Apply Eq. (10) to a sample of real Hi-GAL clumps whose $L/M$ spans roughly 0.5 to 100 $L_\odot/M_\odot$, and compare the predicted SFE with independent SFE estimates from ALMA counts of individual protostars (with completeness corrections) or from the mass in detected outflows; a systematic offset—especially for clumps hosting H II regions or showing external heating—would falsify the calibration. A simpler check: clumps with strong outflows should scatter off the power law by more than the quoted scatter if the missing feedback physics matters.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Stated the way the authors would state it to a fair reader: the observationally reconstructed luminosity-to-mass ratio of massive star-forming clumps is a power-law function of star formation efficiency, $\log(L_{\rm bol}/M) = 1.20^{+0.02}_{-0.02}\log({\rm SFE}) + 3.28^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ (Eq. 10), and this relation does not depend on the clump's initial mass or on the initial conditions (turbulent Mach number, magnetic-field strength via $\mu = 3, 10, 100$, turbulent seed, or viewing projection). By contrast, $L/M$ plotted against clump age is mass-dependent, with separate power laws for the 500 and 1000 $M_\odot$ realizations, so age cannot be read off without a mass estimate. The paper also maps the three observationally recognized evolutionary phases onto SFE: $L/M \approx 1$ is reached as soon as the first sink particles form (SFE $\sim 10^{-3}$–$10^{-2}$), $L/M \approx 10$ corresponds to SFE $\sim 10^{-2}$–$5\times10^{-2}$, and the majority of star formation activity takes place after clumps cross $L/M = 10$.

Load-bearing premise

The calibration is built from idealized simulated clumps that start as uniform, isolated, 10 K spheres with no external starlight, no protostellar outflows, and no H II regions; if those missing processes change how dust temperature and inferred envelope mass relate to the true luminosity, real Galactic clumps could fall off the calibrated relation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Observed $L/M$ values from far-infrared surveys translate directly into star formation efficiency for parsec-scale clumps, with no need to know the clump mass.
  • The three recognized evolutionary phases map onto SFE thresholds: $L/M\approx1$ appears as soon as the first stars form (SFE $\sim10^{-3}$–$10^{-2}$) and $L/M\approx10$ corresponds to SFE $\sim10^{-2}$–$5\times10^{-2}$.
  • Because the SFE is only of order $10^{-2}$ at $L/M=10$, the bulk of a clump's star formation happens after it enters the $L/M>10$ phase.
  • Absolute clump ages cannot be inferred from $L/M$ without a mass estimate, and strong magnetic fields (mass-to-flux ratio $\mu=3$) delay star formation by roughly a factor of two.
  • The post-processed slope (1.20) is shallower than the simulation-intrinsic $L/M$–SFE relation of Paper I (slope $\simeq1.5$), so the observational mass-reconstruction procedure itself shapes the calibrated power law.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A test the paper does not run: feed real Hi-GAL clump catalogs through Eq. (10) to produce a Galactic SFE distribution, and check whether clumps with similar SFE show similar resolved stellar populations in ALMA follow-ups; agreement would validate the calibration outside the simulated parameter space.
  • The paper's own Appendix B hints at a systematic direction for real clumps: adding an interstellar radiation field overheats the model clump outskirts, which would bias inferred masses low and hence $L/M$ high for clumps embedded in strong external radiation.
  • The mass-independence claim rests on a narrow mass window (500–1000 $M_\odot$); extending the same pipeline to lighter infrared dark clouds and heavier giant clumps could reveal whether the power law bends outside that range, since the $L/M$–age relation already changes steeply with mass.
  • If the calibration holds, a single far-infrared measurement of $L/M$ gives observers a physically meaningful 'fraction of gas turned into stars', which speaks directly to the clump-fed versus core-fed debate: clumps with low SFE but high $L/M$ would show that a few bright protostars heat the envelope before the bulk of the cluster forms.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents the second paper of the Rosetta Stone project. It post-processes 24 radiative magnetohydrodynamic simulations of isolated massive clump collapse (two masses, two Mach numbers, three magnetizations, two turbulent seeds) with Radmc-3d Monte Carlo radiative transfer and generates synthetic Hi-GAL/MIPSGAL-like images from 24 to 500 micron plus 1.3 mm. Source extraction with Hyper and graybody SED fitting are used to reconstruct the observationally defined L/M estimator. The central result is Eq. (10), log(Lbol/M) = 1.20^{+0.02}_{-0.02} log(SFE) + 3.28^{+0.03}_{-0.03}, which the authors claim is independent of clump mass and initial conditions, together with a mass-dependent L/M-age relation. The paper concludes that L/M can be directly translated into SFE and that the majority of star formation activity occurs after clumps enter the L/M > 10 phase.

Significance. If Eq. (10) is robust, the paper provides a valuable semi-empirical calibration connecting a widely used observational evolutionary indicator to a simulation-derived quantity, and the end-to-end pipeline from RMHD simulation to synthetic survey images is a useful methodological template for the community. The relation is not circular: SFE is defined from sink masses and the initial gas mass in the simulation, while L/M is reconstructed from synthetic fluxes via an observer-style SED fit, and the paper explicitly shows deviations from a 1:1 relation in Fig. 6. The main weakness is that the absolute zero-point and, to a lesser degree, the slope rest on unquantified systematics (the accretion-luminosity efficiency f_acc, the dust opacity normalization, and the SED-based mass errors) that are not reflected in the quoted fit uncertainties. The paper deserves publication after a systematic error analysis and a more careful statement of the applicability of the calibration.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.2.1, Eq. (2); Sec. 3.2, Eq. (10)] The zero-point of the headline calibration is set by the sub-grid accretion-luminosity efficiency f_acc = 0.1, which is introduced as an 'unknown efficiency factor' in Eq. (2) and is never varied or propagated into the final relation. In the early-to-mid SFE regime the accretion luminosity dominates the sink emission, so log(Lbol/M) at fixed SFE shifts by approximately log10(f_acc/0.1). A factor-of-2 change in f_acc moves the intercept of Eq. (10) by roughly 0.3 dex; a factor-of-5 change (f_acc = 0.5) changes the SFE inferred at L/M = 10 from about 1.3e-2 to about 3e-3, directly affecting the conclusion that the majority of star formation occurs after L/M > 10. The quoted +/-0.03 intercept uncertainty reflects only the linmix fit scatter. Please add a sensitivity analysis or an explicit systematic-error term to Eq. (10) and to the abstract's quantitative claims.
  2. [Sec. 3.1, Sec. 3.2, Appendix B, Eq. (6)] The clump masses entering L/M carry 20-40% systematic uncertainties (Sec. 3.2) and, at some stages, larger errors; Appendix B reports about 60% uncertainty at the earliest usable snapshot, improving to about 20% overshoot at late times for the fiducial model. Figure 6 shows a systematic offset between the observed and simulation L/M that the text attributes to the mass estimation method, and this offset is also cited as the reason why the slope of Eq. (10) differs from the steeper slope found in Paper I. In addition, the opacity normalization in Eq. (6), kappa_ref = 0.2061 cm2/g, is a factor of about 2 higher than the 0.1 cm2/g used in Elia et al. (2017); if the latter mass scale is used, all reconstructed masses double and L/M halves. None of these systematics appears in the error budget of Eq. (10). Please provide a systematic error budget for the slope and intercept, or state explicitly that Eq. (10) is calibrated only on the authors' adopted mass and opacity scale.
  3. [Sec. 2.1, Sec. 4, Appendix B] The calibration is built from isolated, uniform-density, 10 K clumps in a 1.53 pc box with no interstellar radiation field, no outflows, and no H II regions. For the stated goal of comparing with real Galactic clumps, these omissions matter. The ISRF experiment in Appendix B shows that external heating strongly changes the inferred mass and over-heats the clump outskirts, and outflows and H II regions are acknowledged in Sec. 4 as future work. The paper should either quantify how these effects would shift the L/M-SFE relation or explicitly restrict the calibration to clumps in which internal heating dominates and feedback is negligible. As written, the conclusion that L/M is 'a reliable parameter' for characterizing the evolutionary stage of observed regions overstates the applicability.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eqs. (8)-(9)] The L/M-age fits are quoted with many significant digits, but the zero-points depend on the arbitrary choice of simulation start time as age zero; consider stating the intercept in terms of a reference age or removing it from the text.
  2. [Sec. 2.2.1] The text reports mc_weighted_photons=1 for the thermal MC runs and then mc_weighted_photons=0 for the scattering runs; please clarify in one place that these are different settings for the two different Radmc-3d stages.
  3. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption is very dense and uses gray labels for the parameters of the exact marker; simplifying the legend or splitting it into a table would improve readability.
  4. [Sec. 3.2] There is a typo in 'There a clear correlation between these two quantities'; it should read 'There is a clear correlation'.
  5. [Appendix B] The statement that the pixel-by-pixel approach 'gives indeed more reliable results' is hard to reconcile with the factor-of-2 overestimate reported for the later stages; please reconcile these statements.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Eq. 10 is an empirical calibration between observationally reconstructed L/M and independently computed simulation SFE; the f_acc zero-point is a parametric caveat, not a circular step.

full rationale

The central correlation (Eq. 10) is not true by construction. SFE (Eq. 1) is the ratio of sink mass to initial clump mass taken directly from the Ramses simulation, whereas Lbol/M is reconstructed through a separate observational pipeline: Radmc-3d radiative transfer, Hi-GAL/MIPSGAL beam convolution and noise injection, Hyper aperture photometry, and graybody SED fitting for mass and temperature. Figure 6 shows the observationally reconstructed L/M deviates systematically from the simulation-side Ltot/Mgas, demonstrating that the two quantities are not identical by construction. The fit is an empirical calibration of the synthetic observations against the simulation's evolutionary parameters. The self-citations to the companion Paper I are used for the simulation setup and for a comparison of the L/M-SFE slope, but Eq. 10 is fitted to the present paper's own 732 synthetic observations and does not rely on Paper I's relation as evidence. The adoption of f_acc = 0.1 in Eq. (2) is an uncalibrated sub-grid input that sets the zero-point of the luminosity scale; this is a robustness/calibration caveat (a factor-of-five change shifts the intercept by ~0.3 dex), not a circular reduction, because f_acc is not fitted to the data being predicted. The paper also explicitly acknowledges missing ISRF, outflows, and H II regions (Sec. 4, Appendix B) as limitations, further confirming the absent physical processes are stated assumptions, not hidden re-uses of the target result.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. Sink particles are a standard numerical device from Bleuler & Teyssier (2014). The central calibration rests on several domain assumptions about sub-grid physics, dust properties, and the representativeness of isolated clump simulations, plus three numerical inputs (f_acc, kappa_ref, beta) that directly affect the inferred L/M values.

free parameters (3)
  • f_acc (accretion luminosity efficiency) = 0.1
    Chosen from Ahmad et al. (2024) to convert gravitational energy into radiation at unresolved scales (Eq. 2). Directly controls sink luminosity and hence L/M normalization; not fit to the target data but a free input.
  • Reference dust opacity kappa_ref at 300 um = 0.2061 cm^2/g
    Scaled from Elia et al. (2017) using the DIANA dust model with dust-to-gas ratio 0.01. Since clump mass M is inversely proportional to kappa_ref, this single number shifts the whole L/M calibration.
  • Dust emissivity index beta = 1.67
    Power-law fit to the adopted dust opacity model (Fig. 2); used in the graybody SED fitting (Eq. 5). Affects the inferred temperature and mass, hence L/M.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Sink particles, created at n_thre=10^9 cm^-3, faithfully represent protostars and their point-source blackbody luminosities approximate stellar emission.
    Invoked in Sec. 2.1-2.2.1; the entire synthetic luminosity depends on this sub-grid representation.
  • domain assumption Accretion luminosity model with f_acc=0.1 captures the radiative output of accretion at unresolved scales.
    Sec. 2.2.1, Eq. 2; chosen from literature, not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The DIANA dust opacity model with MRN grain sizes and dust-to-gas mass ratio 0.01 represents the true dust properties of star-forming clumps.
    Sec. 2.2.1; controls both the RT post-processing and the mass reconstruction.
  • domain assumption A single-temperature optically thin graybody fit to 160-500 um fluxes recovers the clump mass and temperature with acceptable accuracy.
    Sec. 3.1 and Appendix B; the paper itself shows 20-40% errors and larger early-time discrepancies.
  • domain assumption Isolated uniform-density spherical clumps in a 1.53 pc box, without ISRF, outflows, or H II regions, are representative of observed Galactic massive clumps for the purpose of calibrating L/M.
    Sec. 2.1 and Sec. 4; the paper acknowledges outflows and H II regions as future work.
  • domain assumption The observational evolutionary phases defined by Molinari et al. (2016) (L/M thresholds of 1 and 10) are valid benchmarks.
    Sec. 3.2; used to interpret the time spent in each phase, though not required for the power-law fit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Rosetta Stone Project. II. The correlation between star formation efficiency and L/M indicator for the evolutionary stages of star-forming clumps in post-processed radiative magnetohydrodynamics simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PIN7KCRI

@misc{pith2026250709936,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Rosetta Stone Project. II. The correlation between star formation efficiency and L/M indicator for the evolutionary stages of star-forming clumps in post-processed radiative magnetohydrodynamics simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PIN7KCRI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09936}
}
abstract

Context. The evolution of massive star-forming clumps that are progenitors of high-mass young stellar objects are often classified based on a variety of observational indicators ranging from near-infrared to radio wavelengths. Among them, the ratio of the bolometric luminosity to the mass of their envelope, $L/M$, has been observationally diagnosed as a good indicator for the evolutionary classification of parsec-scale star-forming clumps in the Galaxy. Aims. We developed the Rosetta Stone project$\unicode{x2013}$an end-to-end framework designed to enable an accurate comparison between simulations and observations for investigating the formation and evolution of massive clumps. In this study, we calibrate the $L/M$ indicator in relation to the star formation efficiency (SFE) and the clump age, as derived from our suite of simulations. Methods. We performed multi-wavelength radiative transfer post-processing of radiative magnetohydrodynamics (RMHD) simulations of the collapse of star-forming clumps fragmenting into protostars. We generated synthetic observations to obtain far-infrared emission from $70$ to $500\,\mu$m, as was done in the Hi-GAL survey, and at $24\,\mu$m in the MIPSGAL survey, which were then used to build the spectral energy distributions (SEDs) and estimate the $L/M$ parameter. An additional $1.3\,$mm wavelength in ALMA Band 6 was also produced for the comparison with observational data. We applied observational techniques$\unicode{x2013}$commonly employed by observers$\unicode{x2013}$to the synthetic data in order to derive the corresponding physical parameters. Results. We find a correlation between $L/M$ and the SFE, with a power-law form $L/M\propto {\rm SFE}^{1.20^{+0.02}_{-0.02}}$. This correlation is independent of the mass of the clumps and the choice of initial conditions of the simulations in which they formed. (Abridged)

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.09936 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Column density map integrated along the z-direction of one of the models used for this study, seen at a full simulation box’s length. The star symbols indicate the sink particle positions. magnetic field, initially aligned along the z-direction, is set ac￾cording to three values of the mass-to-flux to critical-mass-to￾flux ratio which represent three relative potential magnetization scenarios: a quasi-hydrodynamical… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Absorption (κabs; blue) and scattering (κscat; orange) opacities from OpTool as a function of the wavelength used in this study. For the calculation of the clump masses in Sect. 3, κabs is sampled at Spizer 24 µm and Hi-GAL wavelengths (green dots), and at 1.3 mm (red dot) for the ALMA observations done in SQUALO, which corresponds to the power-law scaling given by the black dashed line, in comparison with the opaci… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Radmc-3d images (left column) with the Hi-GAL beams convolved (middle column) and the instrumental noise added (right column). The source size extracted by Hyper is the illustrated by the ellipses and the beams by the filled circles. Article number, page 6 of 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time evolution of the spectral energy distribution (SED) of the clump shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Masses of the clumps (left panel) and bolometric luminosities Lbol (right panel) extracted with Hyper as a function of the physical time in the simulation. The black points in the left panel mark the closest values inferred from the simulations corresponding to the tot…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: L/M computed from our synthetic observations vs. L/M derived from the simulations. As expected from the results shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left panel: L/M vs. time plot, which shows for each initial clump mass a clear separation between the realizations with µ = 3 (in light green) and the ones with other values of µ = 10, 100 (in dark green and purple, respectively). The latter are then fitted to a log-li…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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

54 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2024, A&A, 687, A90

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

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Banerjee, R., Vázquez-Semadeni, E., Hennebelle, P., & Klessen, R. S. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1082

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    2014, ApJ, 786, 116

    Battersby, C., Bally, J., Dunham, M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 786, 116

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Berger, M. J. & Oliger, J. 1984, Journal of Computational Physics, 53, 484

    work page 1984

  5. [5]

    & Teyssier, R

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

    2014

  6. [6]

    A., Bate, M

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

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

    J., Noriega-Crespo, A., Mizuno, D

    Carey, S. J., Noriega-Crespo, A., Mizuno, D. R., et al. 2009, PASP, 121, 76

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    2015, A&A, 579, A71

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

    work page 2015

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    C., Glover, S

    Clark, P. C., Glover, S. C. O., Klessen, R. S., & Bonnell, I. A. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 2599

    2012

  2. [10]

    2025, A&A, 696, A151 Di Mascia, F., Pallottini, A., Sommovigo, L., & Decataldo, D

    Coletta, A., Molinari, S., Schisano, E., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A151 Di Mascia, F., Pallottini, A., Sommovigo, L., & Decataldo, D. 2025, A&A, 695, A77 Article number, page 10 of 14 N.-D. Tung et al.: The Rosetta Stone Project. Paper II

    2025

  3. [11]

    2021, OpTool: Command-line driven tool for creating complex dust opacities, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2104.010

    Dominik, C., Min, M., & Tazaki, R. 2021, OpTool: Command-line driven tool for creating complex dust opacities, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2104.010

    2021

  4. [12]

    2013, A&A, 558, A125

    Duarte-Cabral, A., Bontemps, S., Motte, F., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A125

    2013

  5. [13]

    P., Juhasz, A., Pohl, A., et al

    Dullemond, C. P., Juhasz, A., Pohl, A., et al. 2012, RADMC-3D: A multi- purpose radiative transfer tool, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1202.015

    2012

  6. [14]

    K., Robitaille, T

    Dunham, M. K., Robitaille, T. P., Evans, Neal J., I., et al. 2011, ApJ, 731, 90

    2011

  7. [15]

    2017, MNRAS, 471, 100

    Elia, D., Molinari, S., Schisano, E., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 100

    2017

  8. [16]

    & Pezzuto, S

    Elia, D. & Pezzuto, S. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1328

    2016

  9. [17]

    2018, A&A, 615, A94

    Fontani, F., Commerçon, B., Giannetti, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A94

    2018

  10. [18]

    2006, A&A, 457, 371

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

    2006

  11. [19]

    J., Abergel, A., Abreu, A., & et al

    Griffin, M. J., Abergel, A., Abreu, A., & et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L3 Guzmán, A. E., Sanhueza, P., Contreras, Y ., et al. 2015, ApJ, 815, 130

    2010

  12. [20]

    D., Devriendt, J

    Heitsch, F., Slyz, A. D., Devriendt, J. E. G., Hartmann, L. W., & Burkert, A. 2006, ApJ, 648, 1052

    2006

  13. [21]

    S., & Audit, E

    Hennebelle, P., Banerjee, R., Vázquez-Semadeni, E., Klessen, R. S., & Audit, E. 2008, A&A, 486, L43

    2008

  14. [22]

    Henyey, L. G. & Greenstein, J. L. 1941, ApJ, 93, 70 Jáquez-Domínguez, J. M., Galván-Madrid, R., Fritz, J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 88

    1941

  15. [23]

    Kelly, B. C. 2007, ApJ, 665, 1489

    2007

  16. [24]

    1941, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, 30, 301

    Kolmogorov, A. 1941, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, 30, 301

    1941

  17. [25]

    & Yorke, H

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

    2013

  18. [26]

    S., Mezger, P

    Mathis, J. S., Mezger, P. G., & Panagia, N. 1983, A&A, 128, 212

    1983

  19. [27]

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

    Mathis, J. S., Rumpl, W., & Nordsieck, K. H. 1977, ApJ, 217, 425

    1977

  20. [28]

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

    2003

  21. [29]

    Merello, M., Molinari, S., Rygl, K. L. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 5355

    2019

  22. [30]

    P., Dominik, C., de Koter, A., & Hovenier, J

    Min, M., Dullemond, C. P., Dominik, C., de Koter, A., & Hovenier, J. W. 2009, A&A, 497, 155

    2009

  23. [31]

    2008, A&A, 481, 345

    Molinari, S., Pezzuto, S., Cesaroni, R., et al. 2008, A&A, 481, 345

    2008

  24. [32]

    2025, A&A, 696, A149

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

    2025

  25. [33]

    2010, PASP, 122, 314

    Molinari, S., Swinyard, B., Bally, J., & et al. 2010, PASP, 122, 314

    2010

  26. [34]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 171

    Morii, K., Sanhueza, P., Zhang, Q., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 171

    2024

  27. [35]

    2022, A&A, 662, A8

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

    2022

  28. [36]

    2018, AR&A, 56, 41

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

    2018

  29. [37]

    2018, A&A, 618, L5

    Nony, T., Louvet, F., Motte, F., & et al. 2018, A&A, 618, L5

    2018

  30. [38]

    Paulson, S. T. & Pandian, J. D. 2018, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 336, Astrophys- ical Masers: Unlocking the Mysteries of the Universe, ed. A. Tarchi, M. J. Reid, & P. Castangia, 323–324

    2018

  31. [39]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 3482

    Peretto, N., Rigby, A., André, P., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 3482

    2020

  32. [40]

    2012, A&A, 547, A54

    Pezzuto, S., Elia, D., Schisano, E., & et al. 2012, A&A, 547, A54

    2012

  33. [41]

    2010, A&A, 518, L2

    Poglitsch, A., Waelkens, C., Geis, N., & et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L2

    2010

  34. [42]

    2022, A&A, 664, A26

    Pouteau, Y ., Motte, F., Nony, T., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A26

    2022

  35. [43]

    Robitaille, T. P. 2010, A&A, 520, A70

    2010

  36. [44]

    E., Shirley, Y

    Svoboda, B. E., Shirley, Y . L., Battersby, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 822, 59

    2016

  37. [45]

    E., Shirley, Y

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

    2019

  38. [46]

    2002, A&A, 385, 337

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

    2002

  39. [47]

    2011, MNRAS, 416, 2932

    Traficante, A., Calzoletti, L., Veneziani, M., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 2932

    2011

  40. [48]

    A., Duarte-Cabral, A., & et al

    Traficante, A., Fuller, G. A., Duarte-Cabral, A., & et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 4310

    2020

  41. [49]

    M., Avison, A., et al

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

    2023

  42. [50]

    2024, A&A, 684, A36

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

    2024

  43. [51]

    2025, A&A, 696, A11 Vázquez-Semadeni, E., Palau, A., Ballesteros-Paredes, J., & et al

    Valeille-Manet, M., Bontemps, S., Csengeri, T., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A11 Vázquez-Semadeni, E., Palau, A., Ballesteros-Paredes, J., & et al. 2019, MN- RAS, 490, 3061 Vázquez-Semadeni, E., Palau, A., Gómez, G. C., & et al. 2024, MNRAS, sub- mitted, arXiv:2408.10406

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    A., Kirk, J

    Wilcock, L. A., Kirk, J. M., Stamatellos, D., & et al. 2011, A&A, 526, A159

    2011

  45. [53]

    2016, A&A, 586, A103

    Woitke, P., Min, M., Pinte, C., et al. 2016, A&A, 586, A103

    2016

  46. [54]

    ground truth

    Xu, F., Wang, K., Liu, T., et al. 2024, ApJS, 270, 9 Article number, page 11 of 14 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aa54773-25 Appendix A: Herschel noise rms The instrumental noise used to generate Hi-GAL synthetic ob- servations are derived from the noise rms for fiveHerschelbands a...

    2016

Pith tools

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