Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The Rosetta Stone project. III. ALMA synthetic observations of fragmentation in high-mass star-forming clumps

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 ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Simulated ALMA observations of collapsing high-mass clumps show that magnetic field strength, not initial mass or turbulence, most strongly controls how many fragments an interferometer detects at ~7000 AU: strongly magnetized clumps…

desk verdict Solid, reusable pipeline paper whose headline magnetization claim rests mainly on one turbulent seed and should be softened before it is used to interpret SQUALO fragment counts. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11032 v1 pith:SVDTFHEL submitted 2025-07-15 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM

Alice Nucara , Alessio Traficante , Ugo Lebreuilly , Ngo-Duy Tung , Sergio Molinari , Patrick Hennebelle , Leonardo Testi , Ralf S. Klessen
show 18 more authors
Veli-Matti Pelkonen Adam Avison Milena Benedettini Alessandro Coletta Fabrizio De Angelis Davide Elia Gary A. Fuller Bethany M. Jones Seyma Mercimek Chiara Mininni Stefania Pezzuto Thushara Pillai Veronica Roccatagliata Eugenio Schisano Juan D. Soler Paolo Suin Claudia Toci Daniel Walker
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM
keywords syntheticobservationshigh-massstarformationclumpfragmentationmagneticfieldsmass-to-fluxratioALMAradiativemagnetohydrodynamicsSQUALO
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

This paper tries to establish that the number of fragments seen in ALMA 1.3 mm observations of high-mass star-forming clumps is primarily set by the clump's initial magnetic field, not by its mass or turbulence. The authors build 24 radiative magnetohydrodynamical simulations of 500 and 1000 solar-mass clumps, vary the normalized mass-to-flux ratio, the Mach number, and the turbulent seed, and post-process them into 732 synthetic observations that mimic the ALMA survey's exact array configuration, noise, and cleaning. At ~7000 AU resolution, the synthetic maps show 2 to 14 fragments per field, and the magnetization of the clump has the largest impact on that multiplicity, especially in advanced evolutionary stages where magnetized clumps preferentially host fewer fragments. If correct, this means that a simple ALMA fragment count can act as a magnetic-regime indicator, and the SQUALO clumps, which host 1 to 9 fragments, are most likely magnetized. The comparison also supports a hierarchical, clump-fed star-formation picture, since fragments keep accreting from the parent clump and only about 75% of detected fragments contain sink particles.

What carries the argument

The central object is an end-to-end post-processing chain that turns radiative magnetohydrodynamical simulations into realistic interferometric observations: the simulated density and temperature fields are run through radiative transfer to produce 1.3 mm intensity maps, then through an interferometric simulator tuned to the exact array configuration, elevation, weather, and cleaning settings of the reference ALMA survey, and finally through the same source-extraction and photometry pipeline used on the real data. The physical parameter carrying the argument is the normalized mass-to-flux ratio $\mu$, which orders the models from quasi-hydrodynamic to strongly magnetized states; the turbulence level, set by the Mach number at 7 or 10, has little effect on the recovered multiplicity. This machinery lets the comparison between theory and observation be one-to-one in resolution, noise, spatial filtering, and source-identification bias.

What would settle it

Measure magnetic field strengths toward a sample of SQUALO-like clumps spanning the observed 0 to 14 fragment range at ~7000 AU resolution, using dust polarization or Zeeman observations, and check whether clumps with few fragments are systematically those with low $\mu$ (strong fields) at $L/M > 20$; a null or inverted correlation between fragment count and field strength would falsify the paper's central inference.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At a fixed linear resolution of ~7000 AU, the fragment multiplicity recovered from 1.3 mm dust continuum observations is governed mainly by the clump's magnetization, parameterized by the normalized mass-to-flux ratio $\mu$, with the quasi-hydrodynamic ($\mu=100$) realizations producing more fragments than the magnetized ($\mu=3$ and $\mu=10$) realizations once the clump evolves past $L/M\simeq 20\,L_\odot/M_\odot$. The paper argues that the SQUALO clumps, with 1 to 9 observed fragments, are therefore most likely magnetized, while clumps with more than about 11 fragments require sub-dominant magnetic fields. It also shows that ~75% of the detected fragments correspond to one or several sink particles, that the remaining ~25% are starless overdensities, projection artifacts, or transient structures, and that both fragments and sinks accrete mass throughout the collapse, favoring a hierarchical, clump-fed star-formation scenario over one in which fragments are isolated.

Load-bearing premise

The mapping from fragment counts to magnetization assumes that real high-mass clumps resemble the simulated isolated, uniform, 10 K spheres with a single uniform magnetic field and no outflows or HII regions; if real clumps are fed by filaments, have tangled fields, or are significantly heated by feedback, the fragment-count-to-magnetization link may not transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If fragment counts at ~7000 AU are set mainly by magnetization, then ALMA surveys can use multiplicity as a first-pass magnetic-regime indicator before dedicated polarimetric or Zeeman measurements.
  • The SQUALO clumps with 1 to 9 fragments are probably magnetized, while clumps showing more than about 11 fragments are likely to have sub-dominant magnetic fields.
  • Fragment multiplicity cannot be equated with star multiplicity: about a quarter of detected fragments have no sink counterpart, and multiple sinks can lie inside a single ~7000 AU fragment, supporting hierarchical fragmentation.
  • The fragment formation efficiency exceeding the sink formation efficiency at all stages implies continuous mass accretion from the parent clump, consistent with a clump-fed star-formation scenario.
  • The absence of synthetic clumps with zero or one fragment suggests that such observed cases require either stronger magnetization than explored here or additional physics such as outflows, HII regions, or filamentary accretion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: a direct test of the paper's central claim would be to measure magnetic field strengths, via dust polarization or Zeeman observations, toward a sample of SQUALO-like clumps and check whether low-fragment clumps are systematically those with low $\mu$ at $L/M > 20$.
  • Editorial inference: the same pipeline, adapted to a higher-resolution survey at ~2000 AU, should reveal more fragments overall, and the magnetization signal may shift or weaken as smaller-scale fragmentation is resolved.
  • Editorial inference: the lack of outflows and HII regions likely means the simulations underestimate local temperatures in the most evolved stages, so real feedback could reduce the number and mass of detectable fragments and may explain the observed one- and two-fragment clumps not reproduced by the grid.
  • Editorial inference: because real observers see only one projection, the spread across the three synthetic lines of sight gives a lower bound on how much of the magnetization-versus-multiplicity signal can be recovered in a single ALMA field.
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 presents the third installment of the Rosetta Stone project, an end-to-end framework that connects RMHD simulations of high-mass clump fragmentation to ALMA observations through synthetic observations. The authors run 24 radiative MHD simulations varying clump mass (500, 1000 Msun), turbulent Mach number (7, 10), normalized mass-to-flux ratio (3, 10, 100), and turbulent seed (1, 2), post-process the outputs with RADMC-3D and CASA to mimic the SQUALO survey's 1.3 mm observing strategy, and extract compact sources with the Hyper code. They then compare fragment multiplicities, masses, distances, and fragment formation efficiencies across 732 synthetic fields with the 13 SQUALO clumps. The central claims are that magnetic fields have the largest impact on fragment multiplicity at ~7000 AU, that low fragment counts preferentially indicate magnetized clumps, that ~75% of fragments are associated with sink particles, and that fragments continuously accrete from the parent clump, supporting a clump-fed scenario.

Significance. If the magnetization-fragment multiplicity relation is robust, the paper offers a direct observational diagnostic of the magnetic regime of parsec-scale clumps from ALMA continuum counts alone. The strengths of the work are the systematic and reproducible post-processing pipeline (RAMSES -> RADMC-3D -> CASA -> Hyper -> SQUALO comparison), the validation of fragment temperatures and masses against simulation truth in Sec. 3.2, and the quantitative fragment-sink association statistics in Table 3. The forward modeling is not circular: the synthetic observations are post-processed outputs compared with real data rather than fitted to them. The main scientific caveat is the evident seed-dependence of the headline magnetization result, which is documented by the authors themselves in Appendix D.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.1, Fig. 5, Appendix D] The headline claim that magnetic fields have the largest impact on fragment multiplicity at ~7000 AU is not robust across turbulent seeds. The main analysis in Sec. 2.3 is restricted to Seed 2, while Seed 1 is reported only in Appendix D, which states that for S1 'the impact of the clump magnetization on the number of fragments is less clear, especially across the M500 realizations' and that 'stochasticity has larger impact on the fragmentation, and its effects seem to counteract the magnetic regulation.' With two seeds and no significance test, the separation between mu=100 and mu=3/10 seen in Fig. 5 for L/M > 20 could be a single-random-realization effect. Appendix E reinforces this concern by showing that seed variations can dominate fragmentation (e.g., M1000_mu10_M7_S4). Because the Abstract and Sec. 6 state the 'largest impact' claim unconditionally, and because Sec. 5.2.1 uses it to infer that SQUALO clumps with 1-9 fragments are magnetized, the central result needs a quantitative seed-level analysis (e.g., per-parameter distributions of S1 vs S2, or a permutation test) and a revised statement that is conditional on the seed dependence.
  2. [Sec. 2.3, Figs. 5-7] The statistical basis for the 'largest impact' comparison is not established because the 732 synthetic fields are not independent samples: they are three fixed orthogonal projections of the same time series for each of the 24 realizations, and adjacent time steps are strongly correlated. The shaded bands in Figs. 5-7 combine projection scatter with time-step correlations, so statements such as 'only a few maps are characterized by the presence of two fragments' and the relative ranking of mu values are not supported by a stated statistical test. I ask the authors to report the number of independent realization-time steps per parameter cell and to provide a proper test (e.g., bootstrap over realizations, or mixed-effects model) for the multiplicity differences they report.
  3. [Sec. 5.2.1, Appendix E] The inference that the SQUALO clumps (1-9 fragments) are preferentially magnetized is weakened by the acknowledged inability of the RS1.0 grid to reproduce the low-fragment tail. The text states that no synthetic field shows a single fragment and only a few show two, and Appendix E shows that the control models (Bonnor-Ebert, Mach 3, additional seeds) do not systematically populate this region either. The comparison in Fig. 9 thus rests on an incomplete empirical anchor on the low-multiplicity side. Please make the conditional nature of the magnetization inference explicit and quantify how much of the SQUALO sample actually falls inside the simulated parameter space, rather than in extrapolated regions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1, Eq. (1)] The symbol M is used both for the clump mass (M(Msun)) and for the Mach number (M), which is confusing; please use e.g. M_cl for mass and a script M or Mach for the Mach number.
  2. [Sec. 3.2.2, Fig. 6, Sec. 5.2.2] The total fragment mass is reported to exceed the initial clump mass in the most evolved synthetic stages; although this is attributed to the temperature prescription, the same prescription underlies the total-mass and FFE comparisons with SQUALO in Fig. 10. Please add an explicit caveat in Sec. 5.2.2 that the FFE values at high L/M are affected by this known overestimate.
  3. [Appendix E, first paragraph] The phrase 'to test the effect of of two additional seeds' contains a duplicated 'of'.
  4. [Abstract] The sentence 'Among the initial conditions of the simulations, magnetic fields have the largest impact on the fragment multiplicity at these scales' is stated without the seed-dependence caveat documented in Appendix D; please qualify it in the abstract as well.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fragment-multiplicity results are forward-model outputs benchmarked against external SQUALO data; only the internal SFE-to-L/M calibration (Paper II) is a minor self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: RMHD simulations with clearly stated initial conditions (Sec. 2.1) -> RADMC-3D radiative transfer -> CASA post-processing mimicking the SQUALO observing strategy (Sec. 2.2) -> Hyper source extraction (Sec. 2.3) -> fragment counts and properties (Secs. 3-4) -> comparison with the external SQUALO sample (Sec. 5.2). The central claims - that within this grid the magnetic field has the largest impact on fragment multiplicity at ~7000 AU, and that low-multiplicity SQUALO clumps are likely magnetized - are not obtained by fitting any parameter to the SQUALO fragment counts. The grid is not tuned to reproduce SQUALO: the paper explicitly reports that the 1-2-fragment SQUALO sources are not reproduced (Sec. 5.2.1, App. E), and the control models also fail to systematically produce them. The only imported calibration is the SFE-to-L/M relation of Paper II, Eq. 4, which is used as the evolutionary coordinate. This is a self-citation with overlapping authors, and it is mildly load-bearing for the SQUALO overlay; however, the mu-dependent separation in Fig. 5 is a direct simulation output and would persist on an SFE axis, so the main inference does not reduce to the fit. The paper's own caveats (Appendix D: seed S1 makes the magnetization effect 'less clear' and stochasticity 'counteract[s] the magnetic regulation'; Sec. 5.2.3: isolated boxes without large-scale dynamics) are robustness limitations, not evidence of definitional circularity. Score 2 reflects one minor internal calibration/self-citation; no prediction in the paper is equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results are constrained by a discrete grid of initial conditions (mass, radius, temperature, Mach number, mass-to-flux ratio, seed), by numerical prescriptions (sink threshold, accretion luminosity factor), and by the Paper II SFE-to-L/M calibration. None of these are fitted to SQUALO data, which is a strength; however, the interpretation of the synthetic-to-observed comparison is bounded by the same assumptions. The paper introduces no new physical entities.

free parameters (9)
  • Initial clump mass M = 500, 1000 Msun
    Two discrete values chosen to bracket observed high-mass clump masses; the fragment mass distributions and total fragment mass trends depend on this grid.
  • Initial clump radius R = 0.383 pc
    Fixed at a typical observed value; sets initial density and free-fall time for all models.
  • Initial gas temperature = 10 K
    Chosen from observed prestellar clump temperatures; sets the sound speed and Jeans mass.
  • Turbulent Mach number = 7 and 10
    Two turbulence levels from clump measurements; the paper finds fragment multiplicity insensitive to this range, but only two levels are tested.
  • Normalized mass-to-flux ratio mu = 3, 10, 100
    Three magnetization levels defining the main parameter of interest; the magnetization-fragmentation result is a comparison across these discrete values.
  • Turbulent seed = 1, 2 (plus S3, S4 controls)
    Stochastic realization of the turbulent velocity field; the main analysis uses Seed 2, while Seed 1 shows a weaker magnetization effect.
  • Sink formation density threshold = 1e9 cm^-3
    Numerical prescription for when sink particles form; determines the sink population used for fragment-sink matching.
  • Accretion luminosity factor f_acc = 0.1 reference, tested 0.01-1
    Prescription for stellar accretion luminosity; varying it changes which faint sinks are detected as fragments (Appendix E).
  • Paper II L/M-SFE calibration coefficients = slope 1.20, intercept 3.28
    Used to map simulated SFE onto the observed L/M evolutionary axis throughout Sections 4 and 5; the comparison inherits this fitted calibration.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Ideal MHD is sufficient for the collapse of ~0.4 pc high-mass clumps
    Invoked in Sec. 2.1; non-ideal effects such as ambipolar diffusion and Ohmic dissipation are neglected and can change magnetic support and fragmentation.
  • domain assumption An isolated, uniform-density spherical clump with no incoming large-scale flow is representative of SQUALO clumps
    Used to initialize all RS1.0 models (Sec. 2.1); Sec. 5.2.3 attributes the missing spread in d_max,2D to the absence of large-scale dynamics.
  • domain assumption Accretion luminosity (without outflows or HII regions) is adequate feedback for the evolved stages studied
    Sec. 2.1 states outflows and HII regions are planned for future models; Sec. 3.2.1 shows temperature and mass mismatches above L/M about 300 Lsun/Msun that are attributed to missing feedback.
  • domain assumption A single dust opacity at 1.3 mm with gas-to-dust ratio 100 applies to all fragments
    Used in Eq. 5 for both synthetic and real mass estimates; opacity and dust properties are not varied.
  • domain assumption One dust temperature per clump, assigned from L/M ranges in Table 2, is adequate for fragment mass estimates
    Used in Eq. 5; Secs. 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 show this prescription can under- or overestimate fragment masses by factors of about 2 to 10 depending on evolutionary stage.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Rosetta Stone project. III. ALMA synthetic observations of fragmentation in high-mass star-forming clumps." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SVDTFHEL

@misc{pith2026250711032,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Rosetta Stone project. III. ALMA synthetic observations of fragmentation in high-mass star-forming clumps},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SVDTFHEL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11032}
}
read the original abstract

The physical mechanisms that regulate the collapse of high-mass parsec-scale clumps and allow them to form clusters of new stars represent a crucial aspect of star formation. To investigate these mechanisms, we developed the Rosetta Stone project: an end-to-end (simulations-observations) framework that is based on the systematic production of realistic synthetic observations of clump fragmentation and their comparison with real data. In this work, we compare ALMA 1.3mm continuum dust emission observations from the SQUALO survey with a new set of 24 radiative magnetohydrodynamical simulations of high-mass clump fragmentation, post-processed using the CASA software to mimic the observing strategy of SQUALO. The simulations were initialized combining typical values of clump mass (500,1000 solar masses) and radius (~0.4pc) with two levels of turbulence (Mach number of 7,10) and three levels of magnetization (mass-to-flux ratio of ~3,10,100). Following the clump evolution over time with two random seeds projected along three orthogonal directions, we produced a collection of 732 synthetic fields. The synthetic observations of clump fragmentation at ~7000AU revealed between 2 and 14 fragments per field. Among the initial conditions of the simulations, magnetic fields have the largest impact on the fragment multiplicity at these scales. In advanced stages of clump evolution, a lower number of fragments is preferentially associated with magnetized clumps. Fragments identified at ~7000AU correspond to individual or multiple sink particles in ~75% of the cases, suggesting that not all fragments are actively forming stars. Both sinks and fragments accrete mass throughout the whole clump evolution, favoring a scenario in which fragments are not isolated from the environment. Our study demonstrates the importance of synthetic observations in interpreting results from interferometric observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11032 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flowchart of the Rosetta Stone end-to-end framework: Scheme of the comparison between observations and simulations by means of the production of realistic synthetic observations. Real data and inherent information are highlighted in green, synthetic data (RMHD simulations, radiative transfer, synthetic observations) in purple, and the steps of the analysis performed on both real and synthetic maps in orange. In the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example of the post-processing routine on a snapshot of clump collapse. This snapshot, belonging to the M1000_µ10_M7_S2 realization, corresponds to an intermediate level of SFE (∼ 15%). The displayed projection corresponds to the x-axis, i.e., the y−z plane. Left to right: a) column density map obtained projecting the RAMSES volume density cube. The blue stars mark the projected positions of the sink particles; b) i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Mass distribution. The distributions relative to the M500 and M1000 samples are displayed in purple and orange, respectively. The dashed vertical lines represent the median values of 4 and 11 M⊙. The mass distribution relative to the SQUALO sample is overlaid in blue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Number of fragments identified in each clump as a function of the clump L/M. Left: Realizations with initial clump mass of 500 M⊙. Right: Realizations with initial clump mass of 1000 M⊙. Shaded areas illustrate the range in number of fragments recovered across the thre…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Total mass accreted onto the fragments as a function of the clump L/M. Left: Realizations with initial clump mass of 500 M⊙. Right: Realizations with initial clump mass of 1000 M⊙. The temperature of each fragment used to convert the fluxes into total mass (scatter plo…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Minimum (top) and maximum (bottom) relative distance between the fragments as a function of the clump L/M. Left: Realizations with initial clump mass of 500 M⊙. Right: Realizations with initial clump mass of 1000 M⊙. Shaded areas illustrate the range in relative distan…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: , the FFE consistently exceeds the SFE at each evolution￾ary stage. Fragments at ∼ 7000 AU are more than the simple product of the convolution of one/more sink particles with the telescope beam. Rather, they are real, compact structures that are made up of gas which is…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Number of fragments identified in each clump as a function of the clump L/M and comparison with the SQUALO sample. All the combinations of parameters presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Top: Minimum distance between fragments as a function of the clump L/M and comparison with the SQUALO sample. Bottom: Maximum distance between fragments as a function of the clump L/M and comparison with the SQUALO sample. All the combinations of parameters presented …

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

105 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    M., et al

    A \ n ez-L \'o pez , N., Busquet , G., Koch , P. M., et al. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202039152 magenta , 644, A52 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...644A..52A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039152 2020

  2. [2]

    A., Peretto , N., et al

    Avison , A., Fuller , G. A., Peretto , N., et al. 2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201936043 magenta , 645, A142 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...645A.142A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936043 2021

  3. [3]

    S., Mac Low , M

    Ballesteros-Paredes , J., Klessen , R. S., Mac Low , M. M., & Vazquez-Semadeni , E. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed. B. Reipurth , D. Jewitt , & K. Keil , 63 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007prpl.conf...63B

    2007

  4. [4]

    D., et al

    Beuther , H., Gieser , C., Soler , J. D., et al. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202348117 magenta , 682, A81 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...682A..81B

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348117 2024

  5. [5]

    2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202040106 magenta , 649, A113 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A.113B

    Beuther , H., Gieser , C., Suri , S., et al. 2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202040106 magenta , 649, A113 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A.113B

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040106 2021

  6. [6]

    C., Ahmadi , A., et al

    Beuther , H., Mottram , J. C., Ahmadi , A., et al. 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833021 magenta , 617, A100 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...617A.100B

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833021 2018

  7. [7]

    Bjorkman , J. E. & Wood , K. 2001, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/321336 magenta , 554, 615 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...554..615B

    doi:10.1086/321336 2001

  8. [8]

    & Teyssier , R

    Bleuler , A. & Teyssier , R. 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stu2005 magenta , 445, 4015 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.4015B

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2005 2014

Show all 105 references
  1. [9]

    2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202348920 magenta , 688, A30 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...688A..30B

    Bonanomi , F., Hacar , A., Socci , A., Petry , D., & Suri , S. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202348920 magenta , 688, A30 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...688A..30B

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Bonnell , I. A. & Bate , M. R. 2006, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10495.x magenta , 370, 488 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.370..488B

    2006

  3. [11]

    A., Bate , M

    Bonnell , I. A., Bate , M. R., Clarke , C. J., & Pringle , J. E. 1997, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/285.1.201 magenta , 285, 201 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.285..201B

    1997 doi

  4. [12]

    A., Bate , M

    Bonnell , I. A., Bate , M. R., Clarke , C. J., & Pringle , J. E. 2001, http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04270.x magenta , 323, 785 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.323..785B

    2001

  5. [13]

    2025, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202452706 magenta , 696, A151 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...696A.151C

    Coletta , A., Molinari , S., Schisano , E., et al. 2025, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202452706 magenta , 696, A151 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...696A.151C

    2025 doi

  6. [14]

    2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202348983 magenta , 686, A155 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...686A.155C

    Colman , T., Brucy , N., Girichidis , P., et al. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202348983 magenta , 686, A155 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...686A.155C

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201118706 magenta , 545, A98 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...545A..98C

    Commer c on , B., Launhardt , R., Dullemond , C., & Henning , T. 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201118706 magenta , 545, A98 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...545A..98C

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    F., Testi , L., et al

    Curone , P., Izquierdo , A. F., Testi , L., et al. 2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202142748 magenta , 665, A25 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...665A..25C

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnrasl/slv105 magenta , 453, L73 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453L..73D

    Dipierro , G., Price , D., Laibe , G., et al. 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnrasl/slv105 magenta , 453, L73 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453L..73D

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    M., Dobbs , C

    Duarte-Cabral , A., Acreman , D. M., Dobbs , C. L., et al. 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stu2586 magenta , 447, 2144 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.447.2144D

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    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

  12. [20]

    2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab1038 magenta , 504, 2742 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.2742E

    Elia , D., Merello , M., Molinari , S., et al. 2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab1038 magenta , 504, 2742 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.2742E

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    & Klessen , R

    Federrath , C. & Klessen , R. S. 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/156 magenta , 761, 156 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...761..156F

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

    2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201832672 magenta , 615, A94 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...615A..94F

    Fontani , F., Commer c on , B., Giannetti , A., et al. 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201832672 magenta , 615, A94 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...615A..94F

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    2006, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20065371 magenta , 457, 371 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...457..371F

    Fromang , S., Hennebelle , P., & Teyssier , R. 2006, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20065371 magenta , 457, 371 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...457..371F

    2006 doi

  16. [25]

    Girichidis , P., Federrath , C., Banerjee , R., & Klessen , R. S. 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20073.x magenta , 420, 613 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.420..613G

    2012

  17. [26]

    Goodman , A. A. 2011, in Computational Star Formation, ed. J. Alves , B. G. Elmegreen , J. M. Girart , & V. Trimble , Vol. 270, 511--519 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011IAUS..270..511G

    2011

  18. [27]

    J., Douglas , T

    Harries , T. J., Douglas , T. A., & Ali , A. 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx1490 magenta , 471, 4111 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471.4111H

    2017 doi

  19. [28]

    J., Glover , S

    Haworth , T. J., Glover , S. C. O., Koepferl , C. M., Bisbas , T. G., & Dale , J. E. 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.newar.2018.06.001 magenta , 82, 1 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018NewAR..82....1H

    2018 doi

  20. [29]

    2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201016052 magenta , 528, A72 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...528A..72H

    Hennebelle , P., Commer c on , B., Joos , M., et al. 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201016052 magenta , 528, A72 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...528A..72H

    2011 doi

  21. [30]

    & Falgarone , E

    Hennebelle , P. & Falgarone , E. 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00159-012-0055-y magenta , 20, 55 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&ARv..20...55H

    2012 doi

  22. [31]

    & Inutsuka , S.-i

    Hennebelle , P. & Inutsuka , S.-i. 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fspas.2019.00005 magenta Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences , 6, 5 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019FrASS...6....5H

    2019

  23. [32]

    2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202243803 magenta , 668, A147 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...668A.147H

    Hennebelle , P., Lebreuilly , U., Colman , T., et al. 2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202243803 magenta , 668, A147 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...668A.147H

    2022 doi

  24. [33]

    2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201219429 magenta , 543, L3 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...543L...3H

    Hennemann , M., Motte , F., Schneider , N., et al. 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201219429 magenta , 543, L3 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...543L...3H

    2012 doi

  25. [34]

    2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201014635 magenta , 518, L95 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...518L..95H

    Henning , T., Linz , H., Krause , O., et al. 2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201014635 magenta , 518, L95 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...518L..95H

    2010 doi

  26. [35]

    Hildebrand , R. H. 1983, , 24, 267 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983QJRAS..24..267H

    1983

  27. [36]

    M., Galv \'a n-Madrid , R., Fritz , J., et al

    J \'a quez-Dom \' nguez , J. M., Galv \'a n-Madrid , R., Fritz , J., et al. 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/accae7 magenta , 950, 88 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...950...88J

    2023 doi

  28. [37]

    2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201935882 magenta , 629, A63 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...629A..63J

    Juvela , M., Padoan , P., Ristorcelli , I., & Pelkonen , V.-M. 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201935882 magenta , 629, A63 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...629A..63J

    2019 doi

  29. [38]

    Klessen , R. S. & Burkert , A. 2000, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/313371 magenta , 128, 287 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJS..128..287K

    2000 doi

  30. [39]

    Klessen , R. S. & Glover , S. C. O. 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47890-5_2 magenta Saas-Fee Advanced Course , 43, 85 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016SAAS...43...85K

    2016 doi

  31. [40]

    M., Robitaille , T

    Koepferl , C. M., Robitaille , T. P., Dale , J. E., & Biscani , F. 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/233/1/1 magenta , 233, 1 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJS..233....1K

    2017 doi

  32. [41]

    R., Klein , R

    Krumholz , M. R., Klein , R. I., & McKee , C. F. 2007 a , http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/519305 magenta , 665, 478 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...665..478K

    2007 doi

  33. [42]

    R., Klein , R

    Krumholz , M. R., Klein , R. I., & McKee , C. F. 2007 b , http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/510664 magenta , 656, 959 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...656..959K

    2007 doi

  34. [43]

    Lada , C. J. & Lada , E. A. 2003, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094844 magenta , 41, 57 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ARA&A..41...57L

    2003 arXiv

  35. [44]

    2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad047 magenta , 522, 3719 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.3719L

    Liu , H.-L., Tej , A., Liu , T., et al. 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad047 magenta , 522, 3719 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.3719L

    2023 doi

  36. [45]

    2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1674-4527/ad0d5c magenta Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics , 24, 025009 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024RAA....24b5009L

    Liu , X., Liu , T., Zhu , L., et al. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1674-4527/ad0d5c magenta Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics , 24, 025009 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024RAA....24b5009L

    2024 doi

  37. [46]

    2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202040053 magenta , 653, A157 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...653A.157L

    Louvet , F., Hennebelle , P., Men'shchikov , A., et al. 2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202040053 magenta , 653, A157 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...653A.157L

    2021 doi

  38. [47]

    Mairs , S., Johnstone , D., Offner , S. S. R., & Schnee , S. 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/60 magenta , 783, 60 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...783...60M

    2014 doi

  39. [48]

    C., Lunttila , T., & Padoan , P

    Malinen , J., Juvela , M., Collins , D. C., Lunttila , T., & Padoan , P. 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201015767 magenta , 530, A101 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...530A.101M

    2011 doi

  40. [49]

    Maury , A., Hennebelle , P., & Girart , J. M. 2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fspas.2022.949223 magenta Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences , 9, 949223 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022FrASS...9.9223M

    2022

  41. [50]

    McKee , C. F. & Ostriker , E. C. 2007, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110602 magenta , 45, 565 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ARA&A..45..565M

    2007 arXiv

  42. [51]

    McKee , C. F. & Tan , J. C. 2003, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/346149 magenta , 585, 850 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...585..850M

    2003 doi

  43. [52]

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

    McMullin , J. P., Waters , B., Schiebel , D., Young , W., & Golap , K. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw , F. Hill , & D. J. Bell , 127 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs...

    2007

  44. [53]

    2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202038956 magenta , 646, A74 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...646A..74M

    M \`e ge , P., Russeil , D., Zavagno , A., et al. 2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202038956 magenta , 646, A74 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...646A..74M

    2021 doi

  45. [54]

    2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8205/826/1/L8 magenta , 826, L8 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...826L...8M

    Molinari , S., Merello , M., Elia , D., et al. 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8205/826/1/L8 magenta , 826, L8 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...826L...8M

    2016 doi

  46. [55]

    2025, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202452702 magenta , 696, A149 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...696A.149M

    Molinari , S., Schilke , P., Battersby , C., et al. 2025, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202452702 magenta , 696, A149 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...696A.149M

    2025 doi

  47. [56]

    2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201014659 magenta , 518, L100 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...518L.100M

    Molinari , S., Swinyard , B., Bally , J., et al. 2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201014659 magenta , 518, L100 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...518L.100M

    2010 doi

  48. [57]

    2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad32d0 magenta , 966, 171 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...966..171M

    Morii , K., Sanhueza , P., Zhang , Q., et al. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad32d0 magenta , 966, 171 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...966..171M

    2024 doi

  49. [58]

    2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202141677 magenta , 662, A8 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...662A...8M

    Motte , F., Bontemps , S., Csengeri , T., et al. 2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202141677 magenta , 662, A8 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...662A...8M

    2022 doi

  50. [59]

    2025, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202451931 magenta , 694, A24 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...694A..24M

    Motte , F., Pouteau , Y., Nony , T., et al. 2025, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202451931 magenta , 694, A24 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...694A..24M

    2025 doi

  51. [60]

    Mouschovias , T. C. & Spitzer , Jr., L. 1976, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/154835 magenta , 210, 326 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...210..326M

    1976 doi

  52. [61]

    Offner , S. S. R. & Arce , H. G. 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/61 magenta , 784, 61 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...784...61O

    2014 doi

  53. [62]

    2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abaa47 magenta , 900, 82 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...900...82P

    Padoan , P., Pan , L., Juvela , M., Haugb lle , T., & Nordlund , A . 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abaa47 magenta , 900, 82 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...900...82P

    2020 doi

  54. [63]

    M., Juvela , M., Haugb lle , T., & Nordlund , A

    Padoan , P., Pelkonen , V. M., Juvela , M., Haugb lle , T., & Nordlund , A . 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad1213 magenta , 522, 3548 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.3548P

    2023 doi

  55. [64]

    2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv1834 magenta , 453, 3785 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453.3785P

    Palau , A., Ballesteros-Paredes , J., V \'a zquez-Semadeni , E., et al. 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv1834 magenta , 453, 3785 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453.3785P

    2015 doi

  56. [65]

    M., et al

    Palau , A., Zhang , Q., Girart , J. M., et al. 2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abee1e magenta , 912, 159 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...912..159P

    2021 doi

  57. [66]

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

    Pattle , K., Fissel , L., Tahani , M., Liu , T., & Ntormousi , E. 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 , 193 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A...

    2023

  58. [67]

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

    Peretto , N., Fuller , G. A., Duarte-Cabral , A., et al. 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201321318 magenta , 555, A112 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...555A.112P

    2013 doi

  59. [68]

    2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa1656 magenta , 496, 3482 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496.3482P

    Peretto , N., Rigby , A., Andr \'e , P., et al. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa1656 magenta , 496, 3482 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496.3482P

    2020 doi

  60. [69]

    S., & Mac Low , M.-M

    Peters , T., Banerjee , R., Klessen , R. S., & Mac Low , M.-M. 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/72 magenta , 729, 72 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...729...72P

    2011 doi

  61. [70]

    C., et al

    Pillai , T., Kauffmann , J., Tan , J. C., et al. 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/74 magenta , 799, 74 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...799...74P

    2015 doi

  62. [71]

    Pillai , T., Kauffmann , J., Wiesemeyer , H., & Menten , K. M. 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201527803 magenta , 591, A19 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...591A..19P

    2016 doi

  63. [72]

    2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201015899 magenta , 530, A118 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...530A.118P

    Pillai , T., Kauffmann , J., Wyrowski , F., et al. 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201015899 magenta , 530, A118 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...530A.118P

    2011 doi

  64. [73]

    2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202142951 magenta , 664, A26 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...664A..26P

    Pouteau , Y., Motte , F., Nony , T., et al. 2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202142951 magenta , 664, A26 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...664A..26P

    2022 doi

  65. [74]

    W., & Henning , T

    Preibisch , T., Ossenkopf , V., Yorke , H. W., & Henning , T. 1993, , 279, 577 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993A&A...279..577P

    1993

  66. [75]

    2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202346413 magenta , 685, A67 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...685A..67R

    Redaelli , E., Bovino , S., Lupi , A., et al. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202346413 magenta , 685, A67 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...685A..67R

    2024 doi

  67. [76]

    2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201424930 magenta , 593, A87 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...593A..87R

    Reissl , S., Wolf , S., & Brauer , R. 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201424930 magenta , 593, A87 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...593A..87R

    2016 doi

  68. [77]

    2018, POLARIS: POLArized RadIation Simulator , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1807.001

    Reissl , S., Wolf , S., & Brauer , R. 2018, POLARIS: POLArized RadIation Simulator , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1807.001

    2018

  69. [78]

    L., Offner , S

    Rosen , A. L., Offner , S. S. R., Sadavoy , S. I., et al. 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11214-020-00688-5 magenta , 216, 62 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020SSRv..216...62R

    2020 doi

  70. [79]

    Rygl , K. L. J., Wyrowski , F., Schuller , F., & Menten , K. M. 2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/200913510 magenta , 515, A42 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...515A..42R

    2010 doi

  71. [80]

    2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab45e9 magenta , 886, 102 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...886..102S

    Sanhueza , P., Contreras , Y., Wu , B., et al. 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab45e9 magenta , 886, 102 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...886..102S

    2019 doi

  72. [81]

    J., Glover , S

    Smith , R. J., Glover , S. C. O., Clark , P. C., Klessen , R. S., & Springel , V. 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stu616 magenta , 441, 1628 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.1628S

    2014 doi

  73. [82]

    C., Tre , R

    Sormani , M. C., Tre , R. G., Ridley , M., et al. 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx3258 magenta , 475, 2383 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.2383S

    2018 doi

  74. [83]

    E., Shirley , Y

    Svoboda , B. E., Shirley , Y. L., Traficante , A., et al. 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab40ca magenta , 886, 36 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...886...36S

    2019 doi

  75. [84]

    P., Pohl , A., & Quanz , S

    Szul \'a gyi , J., Dullemond , C. P., Pohl , A., & Quanz , S. P. 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz1326 magenta , 487, 1248 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487.1248S

    2019 doi

  76. [85]

    C., Beltr \'a n , M

    Tan , J. C., Beltr \'a n , 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 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014prpl.conf..149T

    2014

  77. [86]

    M., Peretto , N., et al

    Tang , Y.-W., Koch , P. M., Peretto , N., et al. 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab1484 magenta , 878, 10 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...878...10T

    2019 doi

  78. [87]

    2002, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20011817 magenta , 385, 337 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A&A...385..337T

    Teyssier , R. 2002, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20011817 magenta , 385, 337 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A&A...385..337T

    2002 doi

  79. [88]

    A., Billot , N., et al

    Traficante , A., Fuller , G. A., Billot , N., et al. 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx1375 magenta , 470, 3882 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.3882T

    2017 doi

  80. [89]

    A., Pineda , J

    Traficante , A., Fuller , G. A., Pineda , J. E., & Pezzuto , S. 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201323254 magenta , 574, A119 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...574A.119T

    2015 doi

  81. [90]

    M., Avison , A., et al

    Traficante , A., Jones , B. M., Avison , A., et al. 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad272 magenta , 520, 2306 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.2306T

    2023 doi

  82. [91]

    2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202348730 magenta , 684, A36 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...684A..36T

    Tung , N.-D., Testi , L., Lebreuilly , U., et al. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202348730 magenta , 684, A36 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...684A..36T

    2024 doi

  83. [92]

    S., Moore , T

    Urquhart , J. S., Moore , T. J. T., Csengeri , T., et al. 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stu1207 magenta , 443, 1555 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.443.1555U

    2014 doi

  84. [93]

    C., & Gonz \'a lez-Samaniego , A

    V \'a zquez-Semadeni , E., G \'o mez , G. C., & Gonz \'a lez-Samaniego , A. 2024 a , http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stae1090 magenta , 530, 3445 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.3445V

    2024 doi

  85. [94]

    C., & Zamora-Avil \'e s , M

    V \'a zquez-Semadeni , E., Palau , A., Ballesteros-Paredes , J., G \'o mez , G. C., & Zamora-Avil \'e s , M. 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz2736 magenta , 490, 3061 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490.3061V

    2019 doi

  86. [95]

    C., et al

    V \'a zquez-Semadeni , E., Palau , A., G \'o mez , G. C., et al. 2024 b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240810406V http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2408.10406 magenta black Submitted to MNRAS, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2408.10406

    2024 doi arXiv

  87. [96]

    M., Clarke , S

    Wang , J.-W., Koch , P. M., Clarke , S. D., et al. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad165b magenta , 962, 136 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...962..136W

    2024 doi

  88. [97]

    2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/735/1/64 magenta , 735, 64 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...735...64W

    Wang , K., Zhang , Q., Wu , Y., & Zhang , H. 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/735/1/64 magenta , 735, 64 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...735...64W

    2011 doi

  89. [98]

    2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/acfee5 magenta , 270, 9 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJS..270....9X

    Xu , F., Wang , K., Liu , T., et al. 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/acfee5 magenta , 270, 9 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJS..270....9X

    2024 doi

  90. [99]

    2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad012 magenta , 520, 3259 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.3259X

    Xu , F.-W., Wang , K., Liu , T., et al. 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad012 magenta , 520, 3259 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.3259X

    2023 doi

  91. [100]

    2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acdf42 magenta , 953, 40 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...953...40Y

    Yang , D., Liu , H.-L., Tej , A., et al. 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acdf42 magenta , 953, 40 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...953...40Y

    2023 doi

  92. [101]

    2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/141 magenta , 804, 141 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...804..141Z

    Zhang , Q., Wang , K., Lu , X., & Jim \'e nez-Serra , I. 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/141 magenta , 804, 141 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...804..141Z

    2015 doi

  93. [102]

    2009, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/268 magenta , 696, 268 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...696..268Z

    Zhang , Q., Wang , Y., Pillai , T., & Rathborne , J. 2009, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/268 magenta , 696, 268 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...696..268Z

    2009 doi

  94. [103]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sent...

  95. [104]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

  96. [105]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint doi url journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year adsurl label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state befo...

  97. [106]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

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