Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 108 references

The Influence of Magnetic Fields on Second-Generation Star Formation in Globular Clusters

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

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

Pith's one-line read In 3D simulations of a massive proto-globular cluster, a strong magnetic field aligned with the cluster's motion raises the final second-generation stellar mass by about 25 percent, while the same field oriented perpendicular to the…

desk verdict First RMHD magnetic-field study in the AGB scenario: solid, honest, but the headline 25/70 numbers come from single realizations and an idealized uniform field. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12528 v1 pith:BDHNVG52 submitted 2025-07-16 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Asiyeh Yaghoobi , Fatemeh Tabatabaei , Joakim Rosdahl , Benoit Commercon , Somayeh Sheikhnezami , Francesco Calura This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords globularclustersmultiplestellarpopulationssecond-generationstarformationAGBscenariomagneticfieldsradiation-magnetohydrodynamicsheliumabundanceanomaliescluster
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

Many globular clusters contain two generations of stars with different helium and light-element abundances, and the leading explanation is the AGB scenario: winds from dying first-generation stars, diluted by pristine gas, form a second stellar generation. This paper asks whether magnetic fields—left out of most previous models—bend that process. In 3D radiation-magnetohydrodynamical simulations of a $10^6\,M_\odot$ proto-globular cluster moving at $23\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ through a magnetized interstellar medium, weak and moderate fields ($0.5$ and $5\,\mu$G) leave the total second-generation mass nearly unchanged but confine new stars closer to the cluster center. At $50\,\mu$G the field becomes a first-order control: aligned with the cluster's motion it raises the second-generation mass by 25 percent, while perpendicular it cuts it by 70 percent and shifts the stellar helium distribution to the extreme AGB-rich end. If real globular clusters formed in ordered fields of this strength, magnetic orientation could explain part of the scatter in their observed SG fractions and helium spreads.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a set of 3D radiation-magnetohydrodynamical simulations of a $10^6\,M_\odot$ proto-globular cluster held fixed at the center of a box while uniform ISM gas flows past it at $23\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$, with an initially uniform magnetic field of $0.5$, $5$, or $50\,\mu$G oriented either parallel or perpendicular to the flow. The argument runs through the plasma $\beta$ parameter ($\beta$, the ratio of thermal to magnetic pressure) and the propagation of fast magnetosonic waves. A strong parallel field keeps the cluster potential dominant along the field while raising the effective accretion cross-section perpendicular to the flow; a strong perpendicular field couples the incoming gas to field lines, deflecting it around the cluster and starving the center of pristine gas. Ionizing radiation acts as a competing pressure source that temporarily raises $\beta$ and weakens the magnetic control, which is why the field's largest effects appear in runs with radiation once the shell weakens. The helium abundance of SG stars is tracked as a passive scalar, connecting magnetic suppression of gas accretion to the helium spread.

What would settle it

Run the same $50\,\mu$G setup with a turbulent or clumpy magnetic field and a multiphase ISM: if the parallel versus perpendicular difference in final second-generation mass shrinks to well below the predicted 25 percent versus 70 percent split, the orientation effect is an artifact of the idealized uniform background. Observationally, measuring the magnetic field geometry in high-redshift star-forming regions where proto-globular clusters form would similarly test whether ordered fields of this strength are common.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the AGB scenario for second-generation star formation is robust to magnetic fields up to a point: fields of $0.5$ and $5\,\mu$G leave the total SG mass nearly unchanged (around $10^5\,M_\odot$) but make the SG cluster more centrally concentrated. At $50\,\mu$G the field stops being a perturbation. Parallel to the cluster's motion, it enlarges the accretion cross-section and raises the final SG mass by roughly 25 percent relative to the radiation-only run, raising the SG-to-FG mass ratio from 0.1 to 0.12. Perpendicular, it suppresses pristine-gas accretion so efficiently that the SG mass falls by roughly 70 percent, the SG-to-FG ratio drops to 0.02, and nearly all SG stars form from AGB ejecta with the highest helium abundance, $Y\approx0.36$, above the observed maximum of 0.315 for a cluster of this mass. The paper reads the strong perpendicular-field case as the one configuration that seriously challenges the AGB scenario's match to observations.

Load-bearing premise

The results assume the cluster moves through a perfectly uniform magnetic field and a homogeneous interstellar medium, leaving out the turbulent, multiphase structure of real gas and the hot bubble blown by earlier supernova explosions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With weak and moderate fields ($0.5$ and $5\,\mu$G), the AGB scenario's predicted SG masses and helium spreads survive essentially unchanged, so present-day observations of multiple populations do not by themselves require a magnetic explanation.
  • A strong parallel field raises the SG-to-FG ratio from 0.1 to 0.12, which after long-term dynamical evolution can reach the observed $\sim 0.5$–$0.8$ SG fractions in massive globular clusters.
  • A strong perpendicular field leaves an SG fraction of at most 0.16 even after dynamical evolution and a maximum helium abundance near 0.35–0.36, both outside the observed range for a $10^6\,M_\odot$ cluster.
  • Magnetic confinement makes SG stars more centrally concentrated than FG stars, which should make them more resistant to ejection during long-term cluster evolution.
  • In the runs without radiation, SG mass responds non-monotonically to field strength ($5\,\mu$G gives the most SG mass), meaning magnetic effects in this regime are a genuine dynamical interplay, not a simple suppression.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If real proto-globular clusters formed in turbulent or tangled magnetic fields rather than a uniform one, the clean 25 percent versus 70 percent orientation asymmetry would likely be averaged out; the present results should be read as an upper bound on orientation sensitivity.
  • The strong predicted dichotomy suggests a testable environmental selection: clusters forming in galaxies with ordered large-scale fields, such as those observed at high redshift, should show a bimodal distribution of SG fraction and helium spread depending on their orbital direction relative to the field.
  • The non-monotonic dependence of SG mass on field strength implies that simply strengthening the field does not monotonically suppress star formation; sub-grid models of cluster formation that ignore magnetic fields may misestimate SG masses by tens of percent.
  • Because the strong perpendicular-field run drives the SG helium maximum above observed values, comparing helium spread with cluster mass could constrain the ambient field strength at the epoch of globular cluster formation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents 3D radiation-MHD simulations (Ramses-rt) of a 10^6 Msun proto-globular cluster moving at 23 km/s through a uniform, 500 K, homogeneous ISM, following the AGB scenario for second-generation (SG) star formation. It performs a parameter study over magnetic field strengths 0.5, 5, and 50 microG, oriented either parallel or perpendicular to the cluster's motion, and includes photoionization, stellar winds, cooling, and star formation. The central result is that a strong 50 microG field parallel to the motion increases final SG mass by about 25% relative to the RHD run, while the perpendicular orientation decreases it by about 70%, and that magnetic fields generally confine SG formation to the cluster center and modify helium abundances.

Significance. The study opens a previously unexplored axis in the AGB scenario for multiple populations: magnetic field strength and orientation. It uses a well-established RMHD code with AMR, includes a resolution test (Appendix B), and produces SG masses and helium distributions as predictions from prescribed yields and star-formation criteria rather than as fits to observations. If robust, the predicted 25%/70% orientation asymmetry would establish magnetic field orientation as a first-order control on SG formation in massive proto-GCs. The main risk is that the prediction is defined only for a uniform, laminar, homogeneous background; the paper itself acknowledges that turbulent fields are neglected and that the SN bubble is dropped, but it does not quantitatively demonstrate that these choices leave the headline result unchanged.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2] The neglect of the SN-driven bubble is load-bearing but is asserted rather than demonstrated. The text states that the authors 'chose to neglect the bubble' for timestep reasons and that 'primary simulations have shown that the final results are not significantly affected by this change,' yet no comparison run with the hot, diffuse bubble is shown anywhere in the paper. Because the entire orientation effect is defined against a uniform, laminar background field, the applicability of the 25%/70% result to real proto-GCs depends on this assumption. Please provide a quantitative comparison, or explicitly re-frame the conclusions as conditional on the idealized environment.
  2. [Section 3.2, Figure 6] The headline percentages (8%, 25%, 70%) are derived from single realizations with stochastic Poisson star formation, and no error estimates or run-to-run scatter are reported. Before the orientation asymmetry can be considered robust, the authors should quantify the stochastic variance (e.g., repeated runs with different random seeds or a bootstrap estimate of the star-formation sampling noise) and show that the 25%/70% differences exceed this noise. In addition, there is an internal inconsistency: the text gives BX50RT final SG mass as 1.2e5 Msun versus 0.92e5 Msun for RHD, which is about 30%, while the abstract and Section 4 state 25%; the actual values and the quoted percentage should be reconciled.
  3. [Appendix B] The resolution convergence test is reported inconsistently. The Appendix text says the adopted resolution is tested against '0.2 and 0.1 pc', but the Figure B1 caption says the comparison is between '0.25 pc' and '0.125 pc', and the main-run minimum cell size is given elsewhere as 0.25 pc. Moreover, the test is shown only for the RT runs, not the NoRT runs. Because the paper invokes convergence to support the SG mass values, the actual resolution parameters and the quantitative difference between resolutions need to be stated correctly and unambiguously.
  4. [Section 4] The discussion acknowledges that turbulent magnetic fields and an inhomogeneous ISM are neglected, but the central claim depends on a uniform, laminar field geometry. For a turbulent field with coherence length smaller than the accretion region around the cluster (tens of pc), 'parallel' and 'perpendicular' to the cluster motion are not well-defined, and the predicted 25%/70% asymmetry may be washed out. This is not merely a generic caveat: it directly concerns whether the headline result survives in realistic environments. Please add a concrete scale estimate or a test with a turbulent field realization, or explicitly restrict the claim to the idealized setup.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1.1] The text says the cluster moves at '20 km s−1' when discussing the BX5NoRT run, which is inconsistent with the 23 km s−1 velocity stated in Section 2 and elsewhere.
  2. [Appendix B] There is a typo in '0.2and 0.1 pc' in the Appendix B text; a space is missing.
  3. [Section 5] The fourth bullet contains 'into the cluster's cluster'; this should read 'into the cluster'.
  4. [Figure B1] The figure legend labels curves as 'Resolution = 0.25 pc' and 'Resolution = 0.125 pc', but the text says 0.2 and 0.1 pc; these should be made consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: SG masses and the orientation-dependent 25%/70% effect are forward simulation outputs, with prior-work inputs used as fixed parameters rather than fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claims are produced by 3D RMHD simulations that evolve the gas and magnetic field self-consistently from prescribed initial conditions. The SG masses, SFRs, and their dependence on magnetic field strength and orientation are simulation outputs, not fitted constants or parameters renamed as predictions. Inputs such as the AGB injection rate (alpha = 0.065 (t/yr)^-1.01), the star formation timescale (0.1 Gyr), the helium abundances of AGB ejecta and pristine gas, and the cluster model are adopted from previous published work (e.g., Calura et al. 2019; Ventura & D'Antona 2011; Yaghoobi et al. 2024) and are not tuned to produce the reported magnetic-field effects. The 25% increase and 70% decrease in SG mass for parallel versus perpendicular 50 microG fields emerge from the time-dependent gas dynamics, accretion, and star formation criteria; no equation in the paper reduces these percentages to an input by construction. Likewise, the high helium abundance of SG stars in the BY50RT run follows from the assumed AGB ejecta composition, but the paper uses this as a diagnostic of the stellar origin rather than presenting it as an independently predicted observable; this is a model implication, not a circular derivation. The self-citations to PaperI and prior Calura/Yaghoobi works provide the simulation setup and context, but the magnetic-field result is not imported from them; it is computed here for the first time. The acknowledged neglect of the SN-driven bubble and magnetic turbulence is a modeling limitation with potential impact on applicability, but it is not a circular step: it does not make any output equal to an input. No load-bearing self-citation chain, imported uniqueness theorem, or ansatz-smuggling pattern is present. The paper is self-contained against its own simulations, and comparisons with observations are presented as consistency checks rather than as fits. Therefore the appropriate circularity score is 0.

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

All quantitative predictions are produced by the simulation with prescribed subgrid models; the only 'free' knobs are the parameter-study magnetic field values and standard star formation/feedback parameters from prior work. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Initial magnetic field strength B0 = 0.5, 5, 50 microG
    Parameter-study inputs spanning observed ISM fields; not fitted to the simulation outputs.
  • Magnetic field orientation = 0 deg (parallel) and 90 deg (perpendicular) to cluster motion
    Two orientations chosen to test anisotropy; not fitted.
  • Star formation timescale t* = 0.1 Gyr
    Adopted from Calura et al. (2019); sets the rate at which gas converts to star particles (Eq. 4). Central to absolute SG masses.
  • Star formation density threshold = 4.7e-22 g/cm3
    Chosen from resolution and minimum particle mass; determines where SF can occur.
  • AGB wind velocity = 20 km/s
    Assumed value used in wind heating term (Eq. 5).
  • AGB specific injection rate normalization = 0.065 yr^-1.01
    From Calura et al. (2019) stellar evolution models; controls the mass of AGB ejecta.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The AGB scenario: FG stars formed first; SG stars form from AGB ejecta diluted by pristine ISM gas, with SN ejecta not contributing significantly.
    Framing assumption from Section 1, based on D'Ercole et al. (2008, 2016) and Calura et al. (2019).
  • domain assumption FG cluster is a static Plummer sphere with fixed mass and radius for the 66 Myr simulation.
    Section 2.2 Eq. 1; neglects dynamical evolution of FG stars during SG formation.
  • ad hoc to paper The ISM is homogeneous with uniform density and temperature, and the magnetic field is uniform and laminar; the SN bubble is neglected.
    Section 2.2; chosen for computational feasibility, asserted not to affect results, but no quantitative proof shown.
  • standard math Ideal MHD with the induction equation and no resistivity/ambipolar diffusion.
    Section 2.3 Eq. 2; standard for these scales.
  • standard math Radiation transfer uses the M1 closure and reduced speed of light (0.002c).
    Section 2.6; standard Ramses-rt approximation.
  • domain assumption AGB ejecta injection follows an analytical decaying rate (Eq. 3) and He abundance decreases from Y=0.36 to 0.32 over time.
    Section 2.4, from Calura et al. (2019) and Ventura & D'Antona (2011).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Influence of Magnetic Fields on Second-Generation Star Formation in Globular Clusters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BDHNVG52

@misc{pith2026250712528,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Influence of Magnetic Fields on Second-Generation Star Formation in Globular Clusters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BDHNVG52}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12528}
}
abstract

We investigate the previously unexplored role of magnetic fields in the formation of second-generation (SG) stars in proto-globular clusters (GCs) using 3D radiation-magnetohydrodynamical simulations. This study is based on the asymptotic giant branch (AGB) scenario and incorporates photoionization feedback and stellar winds from AGB stars. We model SG formation within a young ($34$ Myr) massive ($10^6 $ Msun) proto-GC moving through a magnetized, homogeneous interstellar medium. Our results indicate that variations in magnetic field strength and orientation significantly influence the gas geometry and SG star-forming regions around the cluster. Overall, magnetic fields limit SG formation to the very center of the cluster, with stronger magnetic fields tending to form more compact SG clusters. For magnetic field strengths of $0.5$ and $5$ microG, we observe no substantial changes in the mass of formed SG stars. However, with a strong $50$ microG field, we see a $25$ percent increase or a $70$ percent decrease in total SG mass, for a field aligned parallel or perpendicular to the cluster's motion, respectively. This variation reflects how magnetic fields influence gas accretion, as our results suggest that gas accreted from the interstellar medium (ISM) slightly dominates over AGB ejecta in the cluster, except in cases of strong perpendicular fields, where gas accretion is efficiently suppressed. Additionally, stronger magnetic fields limit the cluster's ability to retain its ejecta, leading to the formation of stars with lower helium abundances. On the other hand, a strong perpendicular magnetic field produces SG stars that originate from AGB ejecta and exhibit the highest helium abundances.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.12528 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Gas density slices computed in the x-y plane and covered by magnetic field lines, at 𝑡 = 44 Myr (first row), 𝑡 = 64 Myr (second row), and 𝑡 = 100 Myr (third row) for models without photoionization feedback and with the initial magnetic field strengths of 0, 0.5, 5, 50 𝜇 G (left to right) which are parallel to the inflowing gas motion. White contours indicate the extent of SG stars with a projected SG stellar density… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The plasma beta slices in the x-y plane, covered by magnetic field lines, for our magnetized runs with the initial magnetic field strengths of 0.5 (first column), 5 (second column), and 50 𝜇 G (third column) at the end of simulations (100 Myr). The first row corresponds runs with magnetic fields parallel to the gas motion but without ionizing radiation. The second and third rows correspond to runs with both ionizing… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Zoomed-in gas density maps on the plane 𝑧 = 0 for our strong field models. In all cases, the gas can collapse along the direction of the background magnetic field, but not perpendicular to it. Consequently, the magnetic field lines are dragged along with dense gas. the tail, the magnetic field remains too weak to have a significant impact on the gas dynamics. In the BX5NoRT case, the cluster moves (at a velocity of … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Gas density slices computed in the x-y plane and covered by magnetic field lines, for models including both photoionization feedback and initial magnetic field strengths of 0, 0.5, 5, 50 𝜇 G (left to right) parallel to the inflowing gas motion. White contours indicate …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top panels: cumulative masses of SG stars formed in the NoRT (left), parallel RT magnetized (𝐵𝑥) (middle), and perpendicular RT magnetized (𝐵𝑦) simulations as a function of time. Bottom: SFR of the SG stars versus time for these runs. The dash-dotted lines in both the …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Cumulative AGB ejecta mass converted to SG stars (top panels) and same for accreted pristine gas (bottom panels) in the NoRT (left), RHD with parallel magnetic fields (middle), and RHD with perpendicular magnetic fields (right) runs, as a function of time. The total AG…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mass distribution of SG stars at the end of simulations versus He abundance Y for our simulation. The He abundance of the SG stars varies between Y = 0.24, corresponding to the SG stars formed from the pure pristine gas, and Y = 0.36, corresponding to the SG stars form…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: SG stellar density profiles for NoRT (left), radiative simulations with magnetic fields parallel (middle), and perpendicular (right) to the cluster’s motion. The gray dashed line represents the assumed FG profile, and the shaded area indicates the resolution of our sim…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bastian N., Lardo C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051839 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ARA&A..56...83B 56, 83

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051839 2018

  2. [2]

    Bastian N., Lamers H. J. G. L. M., de Mink S. E., Longmore S. N., Goodwin S. P., Gieles M., 2013a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1745 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.436.2398B 436, 2398

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1745

  3. [3]

    S., 2013b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1779 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.436.2852B 436, 2852

    Bastian N., Cabrera-Ziri I., Davies B., Larsen S. S., 2013b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1779 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.436.2852B 436, 2852

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1779

  4. [4]

    Baumgardt H., Hilker M., Sollima A., Bellini A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2997 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.5138B 482, 5138

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2997 2019

  5. [5]

    Beck R., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066988 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...470..539B 470, 539

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066988 2007

  6. [6]

    Beck R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-015-0084-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&ARv..24....4B 24, 4

    doi:10.1007/s00159-015-0084-4 2015

  7. [7]

    Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 641--723, @doi 10.1007/978-94-007-5612-0_13 , https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5612-0_13

    Beck R., Wielebinski R., 2013, Magnetic Fields in Galaxies. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 641--723, @doi 10.1007/978-94-007-5612-0_13 , https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5612-0_13

    doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5612-0_13 2013

  8. [8]

    Bekki K., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx110 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.1857B 467, 1857

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx110 2017

Show all 108 references
  1. [9]

    Bekki K., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz999 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.2570B 486, 2570

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    Bekki K., Je r \'a bkov \'a T., Kroupa P., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1609 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471.2242B 471, 2242

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Vesperini E., Lattanzio D., Beccari G., Gomez M., Monaco L., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2759 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.499.2390C 499, 2390

    Cadelano M., Dalessandro E., Webb J. J., Vesperini E., Lattanzio D., Beccari G., Gomez M., Monaco L., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2759 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.499.2390C 499, 2390

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    Cadelano M., Dalessandro E., Vesperini E., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202349021 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...685A.158C 685, A158

    2024 doi

  5. [14]

    G., Romano D., D'Ercole A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/814/1/L14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...814L..14C 814, L14

    Calura F., Few C. G., Romano D., D'Ercole A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/814/1/L14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...814L..14C 814, L14

    2015 doi

  6. [15]

    Calura F., D'Ercole A., Vesperini E., Vanzella E., Sollima A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2055 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.3269C 489, 3269

    2019 doi

  7. [16]

    Calura F., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2387 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.5914C 516, 5914

    2022 doi

  8. [17]

    arXiv:2411.02502

    Calura F., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.02502 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241102502C p. arXiv:2411.02502

    2024 doi

  9. [18]

    Carretta E., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912096 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...505..117C 505, 117

    2009 doi

  10. [19]

    G., Recio-Blanco A., Lucatello S., D'Orazi V., Cassisi S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913451 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...516A..55C 516, A55

    Carretta E., Bragaglia A., Gratton R. G., Recio-Blanco A., Lucatello S., D'Orazi V., Cassisi S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913451 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...516A..55C 516, A55

    2010 doi

  11. [20]

    T., Knapik J., Bomans D

    Chy \.z y K. T., Knapik J., Bomans D. J., Klein U., Beck R., Soida M., Urbanik M., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030628 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...405..513C 405, 513

    2003 doi

  12. [21]

    N., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/726/1/36 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...726...36C 726, 36

    Conroy C., Spergel D. N., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/726/1/36 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...726...36C 726, 36

    2011 doi

  13. [22]

    Cournoyer-Cloutier C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad90b3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...977..203C 977, 203

    2024 doi

  14. [25]

    D'Ercole A., D'Antona F., Vesperini E., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18776.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.415.1304D 415, 1304

    2011

  15. [26]

    D'Ercole A., D'Antona F., Vesperini E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1583 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461.4088D 461, 4088

    2016 doi

  16. [27]

    Dalessandro E., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab45f7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...884L..24D 884, L24

    2019 doi

  17. [28]

    A., Hartwick F

    Denissenkov P. A., Hartwick F. D. A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slt133 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.437L..21D 437, L21

    2014 doi

  18. [29]

    J., Croke B

    Dickens R. J., Croke B. F. W., Cannon R. D., Bell R. A., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1038/351212a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991Natur.351..212D 351, 212

    1991 doi

  19. [30]

    L., Wurster J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab150 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.2285D 502, 2285

    Dobbs C. L., Wurster J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab150 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.2285D 502, 2285

    2021 doi

  20. [31]

    Dondoglio E., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202453024 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...697A.135D 697, A135

    2025 doi

  21. [32]

    T., 2010, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium

    Draine B. T., 2010, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium. Princeton University Press

    2010

  22. [33]

    J., Stanway E

    Eldridge J. J., Stanway E. R., Xiao L., McClelland L. A. S., Taylor G., Ng M., Greis S. M. L., Bray J. C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2017.51 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASA...34...58E 34, e058

    2017 doi

  23. [34]

    F.D'Antona Gratton R., Chieffi A., 1983, Memorie della Società Astronomica Italiana, 54, 173

    1983

  24. [35]

    S., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637x/761/2/156 , 761, 156

    Federrath C., Klessen R. S., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637x/761/2/156 , 761, 156

    2012 doi

  25. [36]

    M., Horellou C., Shukurov A., 2004, in Alfaro E

    Fletcher A., Beck R., Berkhuijsen E. M., Horellou C., Shukurov A., 2004, in Alfaro E. J., Pérez E., Franco J., eds, , Vol. 315, Astrophysics and Space Science Library. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 299--315

    2004

  26. [37]

    G., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab443 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503..867F 503, 867

    Frelijj H., Villanova S., Mu \ n oz C., Fern \'a ndez-Trincado J. G., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab443 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503..867F 503, 867

    2021 doi

  27. [38]

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

    2006 doi

  28. [39]

    E., Lopez-Rodriguez E., Doherty M

    Geach J. E., Lopez-Rodriguez E., Doherty M. J., Chen J., Ivison R. J., Bendo G. J., Dye S., Coppin K. E. K., 2023, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-023-06346-4 , 621, 483–486

    2023 doi

  29. [40]

    Gratton R., Sneden C., Carretta E., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.133945 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ARA&A..42..385G 42, 385

    2004

  30. [41]

    G., Carretta E., Bragaglia A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-012-0050-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&ARv..20...50G 20, 50

    Gratton R. G., Carretta E., Bragaglia A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-012-0050-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&ARv..20...50G 20, 50

    2012 doi

  31. [42]

    G., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219976 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...549A..41G 549, A41

    Gratton R. G., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219976 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...549A..41G 549, A41

    2013 doi

  32. [43]

    H., Springel V., White S

    Greif T. H., Springel V., White S. D. M., Glover S. C. O., Clark P. C., Smith R. J., Klessen R. S., Bromm V., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/75 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737...75G 737, 75

    2011 doi

  33. [44]

    Hosseinirad M., Tabatabaei F., Raouf M., Roshan M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2279 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525..577H 525, 577

    2023 doi

  34. [45]

    S., Pudritz R

    Howard C. S., Pudritz R. E., Sills A., Harris W. E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz924 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.1146H 486, 1146

    2019 doi

  35. [46]

    arXiv:2501.08084

    Ishchenko M., Masliukh V., Hradov M., Berczik P., Shukirgaliyev B., Omarov C., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2501.08084 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250108084I p. arXiv:2501.08084

    2025 doi arXiv

  36. [47]

    I., Lattanzio J

    Karakas A. I., Lattanzio J. C., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2014.21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PASA...31...30K 31, e030

    2014 doi

  37. [48]

    Khalaj P., Baumgardt H., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1356 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452..924K 452, 924

    2015 doi

  38. [49]

    Khalaj P., Baumgardt H., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2944 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457..479K 457, 479

    2016 doi

  39. [50]

    Krause M., Charbonnel C., Decressin T., Meynet G., Prantzos N., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220694 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...552A.121K 552, A121

    2013 doi

  40. [51]

    Kroupa P., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.322..231K 322, 231

    2001

  41. [52]

    R., McKee C

    Krumholz M. R., McKee C. F., Bland-Hawthorn J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104430 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ARA&A..57..227K 57, 227

    2019 doi

  42. [53]

    M., Tessema S

    Kumssa G. M., Tessema S. B., 2018, @doi [Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union] 10.1017/S1743921319003909 , 14, 139–139

    2018 doi

  43. [54]

    Lacchin E., Calura F., Vesperini E., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2061 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506.5951L 506, 5951

    2021 doi

  44. [55]

    P., Meneghetti M., Vanzella E., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347268 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...681A..45L 681, A45

    Lacchin E., Mastrobuono-Battisti A., Calura F., Nipoti C., Milone A. P., Meneghetti M., Vanzella E., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347268 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...681A..45L 681, A45

    2024 doi

  45. [56]

    P., Milone A

    Lagioia E. P., Milone A. P., Marino A. F., Cordoni G., Tailo M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab45f2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....158..202L 158, 202

    2019 doi

  46. [57]

    H., Lyu L

    Lai S. H., Lyu L. H., 2006, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1029/2004JA010724 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006JGRA..111.1202L 111, A01202

    2006 doi

  47. [58]

    H., Lyu L

    Lai S. H., Lyu L. H., 2008, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1029/2007JA012790 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JGRA..113.6217L 113, A06217

    2008 doi

  48. [59]

    H., Yang Y.-H., Ip W.-H., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0a8a , 961, 83

    Lai S. H., Yang Y.-H., Ip W.-H., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0a8a , 961, 83

    2024 doi

  49. [60]

    Bellazzini, M

    Lardo, C. Bellazzini, M. Pancino, E. Carretta, E. Bragaglia, A. Dalessandro, E. 2011, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015662 , 525, A114

    2011 doi

  50. [61]

    Leitinger E., Baumgardt H., Cabrera-Ziri I., Hilker M., Pancino E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad093 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.1456L 520, 1456

    2023 doi

  51. [62]

    Lin D. N. C., Murray S. D., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/515387 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...661..779L 661, 779

    2007 doi

  52. [63]

    D., Broby Nielsen P., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11915.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.379..151M 379, 151

    Mackey A. D., Broby Nielsen P., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11915.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.379..151M 379, 151

    2007

  53. [64]

    Maeder A., Meynet G., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200600012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...448L..37M 448, L37

    2006 doi

  54. [65]

    F., et al., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz1415 , 487, 3815

    Marino A. F., et al., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz1415 , 487, 3815

    2019 doi

  55. [66]

    J., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2542 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.536.1077M 536, 1077

    Mehta V. J., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2542 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.536.1077M 536, 1077

    2025 doi

  56. [67]

    J., 1956, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/116.5.503 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1956MNRAS.116..503M 116, 503

    Mestel L., Spitzer L. J., 1956, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/116.5.503 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1956MNRAS.116..503M 116, 503

    1956 doi

  57. [68]

    Mignon-Risse R., Gonz \'a lez M., Commer c on B., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202345845 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...673A.134M 673, A134

    2023 doi

  58. [69]

    P., Marino A

    Milone A. P., Marino A. F., 2022, @doi [Universe] 10.3390/universe8070359 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Univ....8..359M 8, 359

    2022 doi

  59. [71]

    P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2531 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464.3636M 464, 3636

    Milone A. P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2531 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464.3636M 464, 3636

    2017 doi

  60. [72]

    P., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2999 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491..515M 491, 515

    Milone A. P., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2999 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491..515M 491, 515

    2020 doi

  61. [73]

    C., Claria J

    Minniti D., Geisler D., Peterson R. C., Claria J. J., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173024 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...413..548M 413, 548

    1993 doi

  62. [74]

    P., Ramirez-Ruiz E., Lin D

    Naiman J. P., Ramirez-Ruiz E., Lin D. N. C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/735/1/25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...735...25N 735, 25

    2011 doi

  63. [75]

    P., Ramirez-Ruiz E., Lin D

    Naiman J. P., Ramirez-Ruiz E., Lin D. N. C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1198 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.2794N 478, 2794

    2018 doi

  64. [76]

    Nakayama Y., 2018, in Nakayama Y., ed., , Introduction to Fluid Mechanics (Second Edition), second edition edn, Butterworth-Heinemann, pp 255--275, @doi https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102437-9.00013-9 , https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780081024379000139

    2018 doi

  65. [77]

    534, Protostars and Planets VII

    Pattle K., Fissel L., Tahani M., Liu T., Ntormousi E., 2023, in Inutsuka S., Aikawa Y., Muto T., Tomida K., Tamura M., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII. p. 193 ( @eprint arXiv 2203.11179 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2203.11179

    2023 doi arXiv

  66. [78]

    C., 1911, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/71.5.460 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1911MNRAS..71..460P 71, 460

    Plummer H. C., 1911, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/71.5.460 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1911MNRAS..71..460P 71, 460

    1911 doi

  67. [79]

    Polak B., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348840 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A..94P 690, A94

    2024 doi

  68. [80]

    J., Bate M

    Price D. J., Bate M. R., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12976.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.385.1820P 385, 1820

    2008

  69. [81]

    J., Bate M

    Price D. J., Bate M. R., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14969.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398...33P 398, 33

    2009

  70. [82]

    Rasera Y., Teyssier R., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053116 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...445....1R 445, 1

    2006 doi

  71. [83]

    Renzini A., 1988, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev.aa.26.0888.001211 , 26, 199

    1988

  72. [84]

    Renzini A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2268 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.4197R 454, 4197

    2015 doi

  73. [85]

    Rosdahl J., Teyssier R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.4380R 449, 4380

    2015 doi

  74. [86]

    Rosdahl J., Blaizot J., Aubert D., Stranex T., Teyssier R., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1722 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.436.2188R 436, 2188

    2013 doi

  75. [87]

    N., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175303 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...440..634R 440, 634

    Rosen A., Bregman J. N., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175303 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...440..634R 440, 634

    1995 doi

  76. [88]

    H., Adams F

    Shu F. H., Adams F. C., Lizano S., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.25.090187.000323 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ARA&A..25...23S 25, 23

    1987

  77. [89]

    P., Bedin L

    Simioni M., Milone A. P., Bedin L. R., Aparicio A., Piotto G., Vesperini E., Hong J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.463..449S 463, 449

    2016 doi

  78. [90]

    P., Prosser C

    Sneden C., Kraft R. P., Prosser C. F., Langer G. E., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/116388 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992AJ....104.2121S 104, 2121

    1992 doi

  79. [91]

    Soam A., Eswaraiah C., Seta A., Dewangan L., Maheswar G., 2024, @doi [Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy] 10.1007/s12036-024-10005-z , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024JApA...45...17S 45, 17

    2024 doi

  80. [92]

    Sollima A., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab154 , 502, 1974

    2021 doi

  81. [93]

    Subramanian K., 2010, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.200911312 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AN....331..110S 331, 110

    2010 doi

  82. [94]

    S., Krause M., Fletcher A., Beck R., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200810590 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...490.1005T 490, 1005

    Tabatabaei F. S., Krause M., Fletcher A., Beck R., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200810590 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...490.1005T 490, 1005

    2008 doi

  83. [95]

    S., Martinsson T

    Tabatabaei F. S., Martinsson T. P. K., Knapen J. H., Beckman J. E., Koribalski B., Elmegreen B. G., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/818/1/L10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...818L..10T 818, L10

    2016 doi

  84. [96]

    S., Minguez P., Prieto M

    Tabatabaei F. S., Minguez P., Prieto M. A., Fern \'a ndez-Ontiveros J. A., 2018, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-017-0298-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018NatAs...2...83T 2, 83

    2018 doi

  85. [97]

    S., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2514 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.2990T 517, 2990

    Tabatabaei F. S., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2514 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.2990T 517, 2990

    2022 doi

  86. [98]

    Teyssier R., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20011817 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A&A...385..337T 385, 337

    2002 doi

  87. [99]

    K., Klein R

    Truelove J. K., Klein R. I., McKee C. F., Holliman II J. H., Howell L. H., Greenough J. A., Woods D. T., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305329 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...495..821T 495, 821

    1998 doi

  88. [100]

    Ventura P., D'Antona F., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17651.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.410.2760V 410, 2760

    2011

  89. [101]

    Ventura P., Di Criscienzo M., Carini R., D'Antona F., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt444 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.431.3642V 431, 3642

    2013 doi

  90. [102]

    Vesperini E., Hong J., Giersz M., Hypki A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab223 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.4290V 502, 4290

    2021 doi

  91. [103]

    C., Xu X

    Wang M., Xie L., Lee L. C., Xu X. J., Kabin K., Lu J. Y., Wang J., Li L., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abbc04 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...903..125W 903, 125

    2020 doi

  92. [104]

    L., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/837/1/12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...837...12W 837, 12

    Wardlow J. L., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/837/1/12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...837...12W 837, 12

    2017 doi

  93. [105]

    M., Jorgenson R

    Wolfe A. M., Jorgenson R. A., Robishaw T., Heiles C., Prochaska J. X., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature07264 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008Natur.455..638W 455, 638

    2008 doi

  94. [106]

    Yaghoobi A., Calura F., Rosdahl J., Haghi H., 2022a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3682 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.4330Y 510, 4330

    doi

  95. [107]

    Yaghoobi A., Rosdahl J., Calura F., Khalaj P., Haghi H., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2941 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.4175Y 517, 4175

    doi

  96. [108]

    Yaghoobi A., Rosdahl J., Calura F., Ataiee S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3771 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.5477Y 528, 5477

    2024 doi

  97. [109]

    Yan Z., Jerabkova T., Kroupa P., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730987 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...607A.126Y 607, A126

    2017 doi

  98. [110]

    E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2334 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446.3319Y 446, 3319

    Yong D., Grundahl F., Norris J. E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2334 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446.3319Y 446, 3319

    2015 doi

  99. [111]

    Zhao X., Seyler C., 2015, @doi [Physics of Plasmas] 10.1063/1.4923426 , 22, 072102

    2015 doi

  100. [112]

    E., Pols O

    de Mink S. E., Pols O. R., Langer N., Izzard R. G., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913205 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...507L...1D 507, L1

    2009 doi

Pith tools

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