pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2601.11830 · v2 · submitted 2026-01-16 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

On the role of gravity, turbulence, and the magnetic field in angular momentum transfer within molecular clouds

Griselda Arroyo-Chavez , Enrique Vazquez-Semadeni , James Wurster
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 13:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords molecular cloudsangular momentumturbulencegravitymagnetic fieldshydrodynamic torquesj-R relationSPH simulations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Hydrodynamic torques exceed gravitational, magnetic, and pressure torques in magnitude for angular momentum transfer in simulated molecular clouds.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper uses three SPH simulations of giant molecular cloud formation, progressively including turbulence, gravity, and magnetic fields, to test what produces the observed scaling of specific angular momentum j with radius R as j proportional to R to the 3/2. Clumps are divided into full samples and reduced samples limited to aspect ratios below 3 to separate shape effects from physics. The j-R relation matches observations best in the gravity-plus-turbulence run for the reduced sample, while the purely hydrodynamic case yields correct j values but no dense filaments and the full magnetic run produces many filaments whose geometry may mask other effects. Torque measurements show hydrodynamic torques, arising from turbulent viscosity, are largest in magnitude, consistent with gravity assembling the clouds and turbulence exchanging angular momentum between fluid parcels.

Core claim

In the simulations, hydrodynamic torques have the largest magnitudes compared to gravitational, magnetic, and pressure-gradient torques on the clumps. This supports the view that gravity drives cloud formation and contraction while turbulence redistributes angular momentum through exchanges between fluid parcels.

What carries the argument

Hydrodynamic torques (incorporating turbulent viscosity) measured on clumps extracted from the SPH simulations with varying physics.

If this is right

  • The j ~ R^{3/2} relation is reproduced most accurately by the gravity-plus-turbulence simulation when using only clumps with aspect ratio below 3.
  • Purely hydrodynamic simulations produce no dense elongated structures, showing turbulence alone cannot generate filaments.
  • Adding the magnetic field creates mostly filamentary clumps, where the full sample may appear to follow the relation only due to competing increases in j from geometry and decreases from suppressed turbulence.
  • Hydrodynamic torques being largest in magnitude indicates turbulence is the main agent redistributing angular momentum at clump scales.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If hydrodynamic torques dominate, cloud evolution models should emphasize turbulent mixing over magnetic braking for angular momentum transport.
  • The sample split implies that observations limited to rounder clumps may more reliably trace the underlying physical scaling without geometric bias.
  • Varying magnetic field strength in follow-up simulations could reveal whether stronger fields further reduce hydrodynamic torque contributions.

Load-bearing premise

The definitions of full and reduced clump samples by aspect ratio cleanly separate geometric effects from physical torque effects without selection bias that alters the apparent j-R relation.

What would settle it

Direct measurements from high-resolution observations of molecular cloud velocity fields showing gravitational or magnetic torques exceeding hydrodynamic torques in magnitude would falsify the dominance result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.11830 by Enrique Vazquez-Semadeni, Griselda Arroyo-Chavez, James Wurster.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Evolution of runs HD3 (top panels), HDG3 (middle panels) and MHDG3 (bottom panels). The columns show increasing times from left to right, as indicated by the labels at the top. The color bar shows the column density along the z-axis of the entire numerical box, with the same range of values for the three simulations. Sinks are represented by white dots. Sink formation is noticeably delayed in the magnetic … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Representative round (left column) and elongated (right column) clumps of each numerical sample in the HD3 (top row), HDG3 (middle row) and MHDG3 (bottom row) simulations. The color code represents the density in units of cm−3 . The most elon￾gated clumps are recovered in the HDG3 and MHDG3 simulations, the latter having the most defined and narrow filaments. Densities around 105 cm−3 are only reached in t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left column: plots of the 𝑗-𝑅 relation for the three full numerical clump samples corresponding to each simulation. Right column: plots of the 𝑗-𝑅 relation for the three reduced numerical clump samples, i.e., after removing structures with aspect ratios > 3. The density thresholds is represented by the color code. The solid black line represents the fitting to the observational sample compiled in [PITH_FU… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Histogram of aspect ratios obtained as the ratio between the largest and shorted principal axis of inertia for the full sample of clumps in simulations HD3, HDG3, and MHDG3. Color represents the density threshold used to define the clumps samples, following a similar color patter as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left column: 𝑗-𝑅 relation for the full samples in each simulation (as in the left column of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: 𝑗Σ as function of 𝜎𝑣 for the full (left column) and reduced (right column) samples in HD3, HDG3 and MHDG3 simulations. The density thresholds is represented by the color code. Dashed red line represents the fitting to the numerical clump samples. The shaded gray region represents a variation in fitting parameters of 1𝜎. The reduction in scatter can be seen more clearly for the full sample case in the MHDG3… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Larson’s 𝜎-𝑅 scaling relation for the full (left) and reduced (right) samples in HD3 (first row), HDG3 (middle row), and MHDG3 (bottom row) simulations. The relation is marginally recovered only in the reduced sample in run HDG3. Elongated structures deviate from this relation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: 𝑗/𝑅 3/2 vs Σ for the full (left) and reduced (right) samples in HD3 (first row), HDG3 (middle row), and MHDG3 (bottom row) simulations. Color represents the density threshold used to defined the clumps. Clumps tend to follow a trend similar to that expected, although the scatter is not significantly reduced compared to the 𝑗-𝑅 plots shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Histograms of the value of hydrodynamic (blue) and pressure-gradient (yellow) torques for the full (first row) and re￾duced (second row) clump samples in the HD3 simulation, respect to the center of mass of each clump. The density threshold used to defined the clumps is shown on top of each plot. In general, the hydrodynamic torque is larger compared to the pressure-gradi￾ent torque. This difference is mor… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Histograms of the value of hydrodynamic (blue), pressure-gradient (yellow) and gravitational (red) torques for the full (first row) and reduced (second row) clump samples in the HDG3 simulation, respect to the center of mass of each clump. The density threshold used to defined the clumps is shown on top of each plot. In general, the hydrodynamic torque is larger compare to the others, followed by gravitat… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Histograms of the value of hydrodynamic (blue), pressure-gradient (yellow), gravitational (red) and magnetic (green) torques for the full (first row) and reduced (second row) clump samples in the MHDG3 simulation, respect to the center of mass of each clump. The density threshold used to defined the clumps is shown on top of each plot. In general, the hydrodynamic torque is larger compare to the others, f… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Specific angular momentum measured relative to the density peak (𝑗DP) versus the specific angular momentum measured relative to the center of mass (𝑗CM) for the simulations HD3, HDG3, and MHDG3. The full samples are shown in orange, and the reduced ones in blue (𝐴 < 3). A second reduced sample is shown in magenta that corresponds to clumps with aspect ratios < 1.5. The black line in each plot represents t… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Decomposition of particle position vectors in a cloud, represented by blue density contours, relative to two reference frames: the density peak (DP) and the center of mass (CM). • We measured the gravitational, magnetic, hydrody￾namic, and pressure-gradient torques in the clumps of the three simulations, finding that hydrodynamic torques tend to be larger as the density threshold for defining the structur… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Observations of molecular structures on scales of $\sim 0.1-50$ pc show that the specific angular momentum ($j$) scales with radius ($R$) as $j\sim R^{3/2}$. We study the effects of turbulence, gravity, and the magnetic field in shaping this scaling, by measuring clump size and specific angular momentum in three SPH simulations of the formation of giant molecular clouds, progressively adding these three ingredients. In each simulation, we define ``full'' and ``reduced'' clump samples, the latter restricted to aspect ratios $A<3$. We find that, in the non-magnetic runs, elongated clumps deviate the most from the \jR\ relation, which is best reproduced by the reduced sample in the gravity+turbulence run. In the purely hydrodynamic case, no dense elongated structures form, suggesting that turbulence alone is insufficient to generate dense filaments, although clumps have $j$ magnitudes consistent with observations. In the gravity+turbulence+magnetic field run, most of the clumps are filamentary, yet the full sample appears to follow the observed \jR\ relation. This result, rather than being a real trend, could be the combination of the increase in $j$ by the filamentary geometry, and its reduction by turbulence inhibition by the magnetic field. Finally, we measure the gravitational, magnetic, pressure-gradient, and hydrodynamic torques (which involve turbulent viscosity) in our clump samples. We find that, in magnitude, the hydrodynamic torques tend to be larger than the rest. This result is consistent with our previous work, where we proposed that gravity drives cloud formation and contraction, while turbulence redistributes angular momentum through fluid-parcel exchanges.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper uses three SPH simulations of giant molecular cloud formation (hydrodynamic, gravity+turbulence, and gravity+turbulence+magnetic) to examine how these ingredients shape the observed j ~ R^{3/2} scaling of specific angular momentum with clump radius. Clumps are identified in full and reduced (aspect ratio A<3) samples; the reduced sample in the gravity+turbulence run best matches the observed relation, while the magnetic run produces mostly filamentary clumps whose apparent compliance is attributed to geometric j boost offset by magnetic suppression of turbulence. Torque measurements show hydrodynamic (turbulent-viscosity) torques dominating in magnitude over gravitational, magnetic, and pressure-gradient torques, interpreted as consistent with gravity driving contraction and turbulence redistributing angular momentum via fluid-parcel exchanges.

Significance. If the torque-dominance result survives quantitative checks, the work would strengthen the picture that turbulence, rather than magnetic or gravitational torques, is the primary agent redistributing angular momentum inside molecular clouds, with direct implications for models of cloud evolution and star formation. The progressive inclusion of physics across runs is a clear methodological strength, but the absence of error bars, convergence tests, and torque histograms currently limits the strength of the central claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract (torque paragraph): the statement that 'in magnitude, the hydrodynamic torques tend to be larger than the rest' is presented without histograms, time-averaged values, uncertainties, or resolution checks. Because the comparison uses the same full/reduced samples as the j-R analysis, and the magnetic run is dominated by A>3 filaments that are excluded from the reduced sample, the reported dominance could be an artifact of the A<3 cut rather than a physical result.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (j-R discussion for magnetic run): the interpretation that the full-sample compliance with j ~ R^{3/2} is 'rather than being a real trend' but instead a cancellation between filamentary geometry and magnetic suppression of turbulence is offered post hoc and is explicitly tied to consistency with the authors' prior work rather than derived independently from the new torque measurements.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract does not report the number of clumps in each sample or any quantitative fit statistics (e.g., R^2 or slope uncertainties) for the j-R relations, which would help readers assess how well the reduced gravity+turbulence sample reproduces the observed scaling.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and valuable feedback on our paper. Below we provide point-by-point responses to the major comments. We have revised the abstract and plan to include additional figures and quantitative measures in the next version of the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (torque paragraph): the statement that 'in magnitude, the hydrodynamic torques tend to be larger than the rest' is presented without histograms, time-averaged values, uncertainties, or resolution checks. Because the comparison uses the same full/reduced samples as the j-R analysis, and the magnetic run is dominated by A>3 filaments that are excluded from the reduced sample, the reported dominance could be an artifact of the A<3 cut rather than a physical result.

    Authors: We agree that additional quantitative details are needed to support the torque dominance claim. In the revised manuscript, we will add histograms showing the distribution of torque magnitudes for gravitational, magnetic, pressure-gradient, and hydrodynamic components. We will also report time-averaged torque values with uncertainties derived from the temporal variations in the simulations. We will examine whether the hydrodynamic torque dominance holds in the full sample for the magnetic run (including A>3 filaments) and clarify the results accordingly. We note that the current simulations do not include resolution variations for convergence tests. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (j-R discussion for magnetic run): the interpretation that the full-sample compliance with j ~ R^{3/2} is 'rather than being a real trend' but instead a cancellation between filamentary geometry and magnetic suppression of turbulence is offered post hoc and is explicitly tied to consistency with the authors' prior work rather than derived independently from the new torque measurements.

    Authors: The interpretation draws from both the new simulation results, which show the formation of filamentary structures only when the magnetic field is included, and the torque measurements indicating that hydrodynamic torques dominate, supporting the role of turbulence in angular momentum redistribution. While it is consistent with our prior work, the current study provides independent evidence through the progressive addition of physics. We will revise the abstract to better highlight how the torque results support the interpretation independently, reducing reliance on prior work. This addresses the post hoc concern by strengthening the link to the new data. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Resolution checks and convergence tests for the torque analysis, as additional simulations at varying resolutions are not available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in simulation-based torque and j-R measurements

full rationale

The paper reports direct measurements of clump sizes, specific angular momenta, and torques (gravitational, magnetic, pressure-gradient, hydrodynamic) extracted from three SPH simulations that progressively include gravity, turbulence, and magnetic fields. These quantities are computed from the simulation outputs on defined full and reduced (A<3) samples and compared against the observed j ~ R^{3/2} scaling; no parameters are fitted to the target relation and then relabeled as predictions. The single reference to prior work appears only as an interpretive note on the torque-magnitude ordering and does not supply the numerical result or forbid alternative interpretations. The analysis of filamentary geometry versus magnetic suppression in the MHD run is presented as a post-hoc possibility rather than a deductive step that reduces to the input data by construction. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against the simulation data and external observational benchmark.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard SPH numerical assumptions and the authors' prior torque interpretation; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption SPH simulations with the chosen resolution and initial conditions faithfully capture the relevant fluid dynamics and torque exchanges in molecular clouds
    Invoked implicitly by running the three progressive simulations and measuring torques inside defined clumps.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5624 in / 1275 out tokens · 39885 ms · 2026-05-16T13:00:29.259984+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2022, ApJ, 925, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3915

    Álvarez-Gutiérrez,R.H.,Stutz,A.M.,Law,C.Y.,etal.2021,ApJ, 908, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd47c Arroyo-Chávez, G., & Vázquez-Semadeni, E. 2022, ApJ, 925, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3915

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd47c 2021

  2. [2]

    2013, A&A, 553, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220822

    Arzoumanian, D., André, P., Peretto, N., & Könyves, V. 2013, A&A, 553, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220822

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220822 2013

  3. [3]

    Heitsch, F., & Zamora-Avilés, M. A. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 65, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17657.x Bate,M.R.,Bonnell,I.A.,&Bromm,V.2003,MNRAS,339,577, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06210.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17657.x 2011

  4. [4]

    1995, ARA&A, 33, 199, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.001215

    Bodenheimer, P. 1995, ARA&A, 33, 199, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.001215

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.001215 1995

  5. [5]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/113

    Camacho, V., Vázquez-Semadeni, E., Ballesteros-Paredes, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/113

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/113 2016

  6. [6]

    J., Myers, P

    Caselli, P., Benson, P. J., Myers, P. C., & Tafalla, M. 2002, ApJ, 572, 238, doi: 10.1086/340195

    work page doi:10.1086/340195 2002

  7. [7]

    Chen, C.-Y., & Ostriker, E. C. 2018, ApJ, 865, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad905

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad905 2018

  8. [8]

    H.-H., Pineda, J

    Chen, H. H.-H., Pineda, J. E., Offner, S. S. R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 886, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4ce9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4ce9 2019

  9. [9]

    2007, ApJ, 669, 1058, doi: 10.1086/521868

    Chen, X., Launhardt, R., & Henning, T. 2007, ApJ, 669, 1058, doi: 10.1086/521868

    work page doi:10.1086/521868 2007

  10. [10]

    S., Schmidt, W., & Mac Low, M

    Federrath, C., Roman-Duval, J., Klessen, R. S., Schmidt, W., & Mac Low, M. M. 2010, A&A, 512, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912437

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912437 2010

  11. [11]

    Fleck, R. C., J. 1982, ApJ, 261, 631, doi: 10.1086/160374

    work page doi:10.1086/160374 1982

  12. [12]

    C., J., & Clark, F

    Fleck, R. C., J., & Clark, F. O. 1981, ApJ, 245, 898, doi: 10.1086/158866

    work page doi:10.1086/158866 1981

  13. [13]

    J., Belloche, A., et al

    Gaudel, M., Maury, A. J., Belloche, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 637, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936364

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936364 2020

  14. [14]

    F., & Arquilla, R

    Goldsmith, P. F., & Arquilla, R. 1985, in Protostars and Planets II, ed. D. C. Black & M. S. Matthews (The University of Arizona Press), 137–149 21

    work page 1985

  15. [15]

    A., Benson, P

    Goodman, A. A., Benson, P. J., Fuller, G. A., & Myers, P. C. 1993, ApJ, 406, 528, doi: 10.1086/172465

    work page doi:10.1086/172465 1993

  16. [16]

    2020, ApJ, 903, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abba1f

    Guerrero-Gamboa, R., & Vázquez-Semadeni, E. 2020, ApJ, 903, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abba1f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abba1f 2020

  17. [17]

    2016, A&A, 587, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526015

    Hacar, A., Kainulainen, J., Tafalla, M., Beuther, H., & Alves, J. 2016, A&A, 587, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526015

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526015 2016

  18. [18]

    2023, The Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 5263, doi: 10.21105/joss.05263

    Harris, A., & Tricco, T. 2023, The Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 5263, doi: 10.21105/joss.05263

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.05263 2023

  19. [19]

    2013, A&A, 556, A153, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321292

    Hennebelle, P. 2013, A&A, 556, A153, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321292

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321292 2013

  20. [20]

    Heyer, M., Krawczyk, C., Duval, J., & Jackson, J. M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 1092, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1092

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/2/1092 2009

  21. [21]

    H., & Brunt, C

    Heyer, M. H., & Brunt, C. M. 2004, ApJL, 615, L45, doi: 10.1086/425978

    work page doi:10.1086/425978 2004

  22. [22]

    G., Mardones, D., Kong, S., & Plunkett, A

    Hsieh, C.-H., Arce, H. G., Mardones, D., Kong, S., & Plunkett, A. 2021, ApJ, 908, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd034

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd034 2021

  23. [23]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 Ibáñez-Mejía,J.C.,MacLow,M.-M.,Klessen,R.S.,&Baczynski, C. 2016, ApJ, 824, 41, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/41

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  24. [24]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S53, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx089

    Inoue, T., Hennebelle, P., Fukui, Y., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S53, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx089

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psx089 2018

  25. [25]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 10, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/833/1/10

    Inoue, T., & Inutsuka, S.-i. 2016, ApJ, 833, 10, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/833/1/10

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/833/1/10 2016

  26. [26]

    K., & Klessen, R

    Jappsen, A. K., & Klessen, R. S. 2004, A&A, 423, 1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040220

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20040220 2004

  27. [27]

    R., & Myers, P

    Keto, E. R., & Myers, P. C. 1986, ApJ, 304, 466, doi: 10.1086/164181

    work page doi:10.1086/164181 1986

  28. [28]

    S., & Hennebelle, P

    Klessen, R. S., & Hennebelle, P. 2010, A&A, 520, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913780

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913780 2010

  29. [29]

    2000, ApJ, 532, 980, doi: 10.1086/308594

    Koyama, H., & Inutsuka, S.-I. 2000, ApJ, 532, 980, doi: 10.1086/308594

    work page doi:10.1086/308594 2000

  30. [30]

    2019, ApJ, 876, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab12ce

    Kuznetsova, A., Hartmann, L., & Heitsch, F. 2019, ApJ, 876, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab12ce

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab12ce 2019

  31. [31]

    Larson, R. B. 1981, MNRAS, 194, 809, doi: 10.1093/mnras/194.4.809

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/194.4.809 1981

  32. [32]

    Larson, R. B. 1984, MNRAS, 206, 197, doi: 10.1093/mnras/206.1.197

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/206.1.197 1984

  33. [33]

    2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1884, doi: 10.21105/joss.01884

    Mentiplay, D. 2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1884, doi: 10.21105/joss.01884

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.01884 2019

  34. [34]

    2019, ApJ, 881, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2382

    Misugi, Y., Inutsuka, S.-i., & Arzoumanian, D. 2019, ApJ, 881, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2382

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2382 2019

  35. [35]

    2023a, ApJ, 943, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca88d

    Misugi, Y., Inutsuka, S.-i., & Arzoumanian, D. 2023a, ApJ, 943, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca88d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca88d

  36. [36]

    2023b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.16920, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.16920 Mouschovias,T.C.1991,inNATOAdvancedStudyInstitute(ASI) Series C, Vol

    Misugi, Y., Inutsuka, S.-i., Arzoumanian, D., & Tsukamoto, Y. 2023b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.16920, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.16920 Mouschovias,T.C.1991,inNATOAdvancedStudyInstitute(ASI) Series C, Vol. 342, The Physics of Star Formation and Early Stellar Evolution, ed. C. J. Lada & N. D. Kylafis (Springer, Dordrecht), 449

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.16920 1991

  37. [37]

    2015, ApJ, 804, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/44

    Murray, N., & Chang, P. 2015, ApJ, 804, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/44

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/804/1/44 2015

  38. [38]

    Offner, S. S. R., Klein, R. I., & McKee, C. F. 2008, ApJ, 686, 1174, doi: 10.1086/590238

    work page doi:10.1086/590238 2008

  39. [39]

    2020, ApJ, 900, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaa47

    Padoan, P., Pan, L., Juvela, M., Haugbølle, T., & Nordlund, Å. 2020, ApJ, 900, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaa47

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abaa47 2020

  40. [40]

    K., Fissel, L., et al

    Pandhi, A., Friesen, R. K., Fissel, L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 364, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2283

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2283 2023

  41. [41]

    2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    work page 2011

  42. [42]

    E., Zhao, B., Schmiedeke, A., et al

    Pineda, J. E., Zhao, B., Schmiedeke, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2cd1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2cd1 2019

  43. [43]

    Myers, P. C. 2003, A&A, 405, 639, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030659

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030659 2003

  44. [44]

    P., Cole , S., Frenk , C

    Price, D. J., & Federrath, C. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 1659, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16810.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16810.x 2010

  45. [45]

    J., Wurster, J., Tricco, T

    Price, D. J., Wurster, J., Tricco, T. S., et al. 2018, PASA, 35, e031, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2018.25

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2018.25 2018

  46. [46]

    2012, ApJL, 750, L31, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/750/2/L31

    Robertson, B., & Goldreich, P. 2012, ApJL, 750, L31, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/750/2/L31

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/750/2/l31 2012

  47. [47]

    2012, APLpy: Astronomical Plotting Library in Python„ Astrophysics Source Code Library http://ascl.net/1208.017

    Robitaille, T., & Bressert, E. 2012, APLpy: Astronomical Plotting Library in Python„ Astrophysics Source Code Library http://ascl.net/1208.017

    work page 2012

  48. [48]

    W., Pineda, J

    Rosolowsky, E. W., Pineda, J. E., Kauffmann, J., & Goodman, A. A. 2008, ApJ, 679, 1338, doi: 10.1086/587685

    work page doi:10.1086/587685 2008

  49. [49]

    H., Adams, F

    Shu, F. H., Adams, F. C., & Lizano, S. 1987, ARA&A, 25, 23, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.25.090187.000323

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.25.090187.000323 1987

  50. [50]

    1978, Physical processes in the interstellar medium (Wiley-VCH), doi: 10.1002/9783527617722

    Spitzer, L. 1978, Physical processes in the interstellar medium (Wiley-VCH), doi: 10.1002/9783527617722

    work page doi:10.1002/9783527617722 1978

  51. [51]

    Springel, V., Yoshida, N., & White, S. D. M. 2001, NewA, 6, 79, doi: 10.1016/S1384-1076(01)00042-2

    work page doi:10.1016/s1384-1076(01)00042-2 2001

  52. [52]

    Z., Tomida, K., Machida, M

    Takahashi, S. Z., Tomida, K., Machida, M. N., & Inutsuka, S.-i. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 1390, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1994

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1994 2016

  53. [53]

    2016, PASJ, 68, 24, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psw002

    Tatematsu, K., Ohashi, S., Sanhueza, P., et al. 2016, PASJ, 68, 24, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psw002

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psw002 2016

  54. [54]

    S., Price, D

    Tricco, T. S., Price, D. J., & Federrath, C. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1260, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1280

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1280 2016

  55. [55]

    S., Price, D

    Tricco, T. S., Price, D. J., & Laibe, G. 2017, MNRAS, 471, L52, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx096 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science & Engineering, 13, 22, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 Vázquez-Semadeni, E., Ballesteros-Paredes, J., & Scalo, J. M. 1998,inAmericanAstronomicalSocietyMeetingAbstracts,Vol. 193, American Astronom...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slx096 2017

  56. [56]

    J., Alexander , R

    Gazol, A., & Kim, J. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 769, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13778.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13778.x 2008

  57. [57]

    1996, ApJ, 473, 881, doi: 10.1086/178200

    Vazquez-Semadeni, E., Passot, T., & Pouquet, A. 1996, ApJ, 473, 881, doi: 10.1086/178200

    work page doi:10.1086/178200 1996

  58. [58]

    Methods17, 261–272, DOI: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 (2020)

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  59. [59]

    2020, ApJ, 890, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6e63

    Xu, S., & Lazarian, A. 2020, ApJ, 890, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6e63

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6e63 2020

  60. [60]

    S., Fuller, G

    Xu, X., Li, D., Dai, Y. S., Fuller, G. A., & Yue, N. 2020a, ApJL, 894, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8ad7

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab8ad7 2041

  61. [61]

    S., Goldsmith, P

    Xu, X., Li, D., Dai, Y. S., Goldsmith, P. F., & Fuller, G. A. 2020b, ApJ, 898, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9a45

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9a45