pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.11185 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-13 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.EP· astro-ph.GA

From Fragments to Flares: Migration, Tidal Disruption, and Observable Bursts in Massive Protostellar Disks

Vardan Elbakyan , Rolf Kuiper , Andr\'e Oliva , Verena Wolf , Jochen Eisl\"offel , Bringfried Stecklum , Christian Andreas This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GA
keywords massive protostarsprotostellar disksaccretion burststidal disruptionfragment migrationradiation hydrodynamicsFU Orionissecond Larson cores
0
0 comments X

The pith

Resolving the inner few AU of massive protostellar disks leads to faster fragment migration, complete tidal disruption, and shorter sharper accretion bursts.

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

The paper compares two radiation-hydrodynamic simulations of a five-solar-mass protostar and its self-gravitating disk, one with a 30 AU sink cell and one with a 1 AU sink cell that resolves the inner disk. Both runs produce a major accretion burst when a migrating fragment is tidally disrupted, but the finer-resolution model shows quicker inward travel, full disruption of the fragment, a narrower and more intense outburst, and stronger near- and mid-infrared emission from a compact hot inner disk. This refined behavior matches the short bursts seen in some massive protostars better than the broader smoother event from the coarser model. The work concludes that diffuse fragments can explain decade-long events, while bursts shorter than about three years require the tidal disruption of more compact objects such as second Larson cores that can migrate close enough to the star to be destroyed.

Core claim

In three-dimensional radiation-hydrodynamic simulations of a roughly five-solar-mass protostar surrounded by a self-gravitating disk, replacing a 30 AU sink with a 1 AU sink produces faster fragment migration, complete tidal disruption, a shorter and sharper accretion outburst with nearly the same peak rate, and much stronger near- and mid-infrared emission from a compact hot inner disk. Diffuse fragment disruption reproduces decade-long events, but the much shorter bursts observed in some massive protostars likely require the tidal disruption of more compact objects such as second Larson cores, which the trajectory analysis shows can migrate sufficiently close to the central star to be tid

What carries the argument

Tidal disruption of inward-migrating fragments, tested by comparing coarse 30 AU versus refined 1 AU sink cells in radiation-hydrodynamic simulations of the inner protostellar disk.

If this is right

  • Diffuse fragment disruption can reproduce decade-long accretion events.
  • Much shorter bursts under three years require tidal disruption of compact objects such as second Larson cores.
  • Second Larson cores can migrate close enough to the protostar to be tidally destroyed.
  • Refined inner-disk resolution produces much stronger near- and mid-infrared emission from a compact hot inner disk.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Burst duration and shape could serve as an observable proxy for the internal compactness of the disrupting object.
  • Extending the simulations to include magnetic fields or chemistry would test whether migration and disruption timescales remain robust.
  • The mechanism supplies a direct link between inner-disk resolution and the range of FU-Orionis-like burst durations seen across massive protostars.

Load-bearing premise

That the 1 AU sink model is sufficiently converged and that no additional physics such as magnetic fields or smaller-scale structure would change the migration speed or disruption outcome.

What would settle it

An observed burst in a massive protostar whose duration and shape fall between the broad event from the 30 AU model and the sharp event from the 1 AU model, or higher-resolution simulations that show second Larson cores failing to reach tidal-disruption distances.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.11185 by Andr\'e Oliva, Bringfried Stecklum, Christian Andreas, Jochen Eisl\"offel, Rolf Kuiper, Vardan Elbakyan, Verena Wolf.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Evolution of the fragment’s central temperature Tc (blue, left axis) and radial distance from the star rc (red, right axis) as a function of time. The dashed blue line marks the critical temperature for H2 dis￾sociation (∼2000 K), while the vertical dashed line indicates the initial time instance for the refined model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Midplane gas density during the tidal disruption of the fragment, shown at six different times. The red circle indicates the 30 AU sink cell radius used in the OK20. Insets in the lower right of each panel provide a zoomed view of the inner 40 AU × 40 AU region, with a 5 AU scale bar for reference. Dashed rectangles on the main panels denote the inset regions. fragment-tracking algorithm (see Appendix C), … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time evolution of fragment properties for the refined (solid; semi-transparent after disruption) and OK20 (dotted) tracks. Top: cen￾tral temperature (left axis) and radial distance from the star (right axis); the horizontal dashed line marks T = 2000 K. Bottom: fragment mass (left axis), Hill radius, and mean fragment radius (right axis); the ver￾tical dashed line marks when the mean fragment radius equals… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Accretion rate onto the central star as a function of time for two models: OK20 (dotted line) and refined (solid line). The vertical dashed lines mark the time instances shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Azimuthally averaged midplane radial profiles of gas density (left y-axis) and temperature (right y-axis) for paired output times from the OK20 run (dashed) and the refined run (solid). Power-law fits (dot￾ted) are shown for two radial ranges: 2–30 AU and 30–500 AU, with fitted exponents annotated at representative radii. Vertical lines mark 2 AU and 30 AU, separating the inner fit region from the outer di… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Time evolution of band flux densities from RADMC-3D post￾processing for two models during an outburst. Shown are K (blue), N (red), and ALMA Band 6 (black) flux densities versus time. Solid lines denote the refined model and dashed lines the OK20 model. Two important caveats follow directly from the super￾Eddington estimate: much of the locally liberated accretion en￾ergy can be trapped by the large optica… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Images from RADMC-3D for the two models (OK20 on left, refined on right). From top to bottom: K, N, and ALMA Band 6. tOK20 = 8630 yr, trefined = 8614.4 yr (peak of the burst in both models) with heating propagating from the sink boundary to the cooler extended dust, while ALMA6 brightens more synchronously in the refined run. Examining band ratios at the IR maxima clarifies these spectral differences: the … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate how resolving the inner few astronomical units of a massive protostellar disk affects the migration, disruption, and accretion signatures of an inward-moving fragment. In particular, we aim to determine whether the predicted burst strength and duration depend on the adopted sink cell size. We present a new three-dimensional radiation-hydrodynamic simulation of a $\sim$5$M_{\odot}$ protostar surrounded by a self-gravitating disk, comparing the original 30 AU sink model to a refined model with a 1 AU sink that resolves the inner disk. The resulting gas structures are post-processed with radiative transfer calculations to derive synthetic photometry and multi-band images. Both simulations produce a major accretion burst as a migrating fragment is tidally disrupted, but their detailed behavior differs markedly. The refined model shows faster migration, a complete tidal disruption of the fragment, and a shorter, sharper outburst (more consistent with observations) with nearly the same peak accretion rate as the 30 AU model, which yields a broader, smoother event. The refined run produces much stronger near- and mid-infrared emission, reflecting the formation of a compact, hot inner disk. Resolving the inner few AU qualitatively changes the dynamics and observable appearance of fragment-driven bursts. Diffuse fragment disruption can reproduce decade-long events, but the much shorter ($<$3 yr) bursts observed in some massive protostars likely require the tidal disruption of more compact objects such as second Larson cores. Our trajectory analysis indicates that second Larson cores can migrate sufficiently close to the star to be tidally destroyed, offering a plausible mechanism for the fastest FU-Ori-like bursts observed in massive protostars.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents 3D radiation-hydrodynamic simulations of a ~5 M_sun protostar with a self-gravitating disk, comparing a 30 AU sink model to a refined 1 AU sink model. Both produce accretion bursts from inward-migrating fragment tidal disruption, but the 1 AU run shows faster migration, complete disruption, shorter/sharper bursts, and stronger near/mid-IR emission. The authors conclude that diffuse fragment disruptions explain decade-long events while shorter (<3 yr) observed bursts require tidal disruption of compact objects such as second Larson cores, whose migration to tidal radii is analyzed.

Significance. If robust, the work demonstrates that inner-disk resolution qualitatively affects fragment-driven burst dynamics and observables, offering a mechanism for the observed range of burst durations in massive protostars. The direct numerical experiment solving the radiation-hydrodynamic equations at two resolutions (with no fitted parameters or circular definitions) and the post-processing via radiative transfer for synthetic photometry/images are strengths that link numerics to observations.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2] §2 (Numerical Methods, sink implementation): The central claim that resolving the inner few AU qualitatively changes migration speed, disruption completeness, and burst duration rests on the 30 AU vs. 1 AU comparison. No further convergence test (e.g., 0.1 AU sink or AMR) is reported, leaving open whether outcomes would shift at smaller scales.
  2. [§5] §5 (Discussion): The inference that <3 yr bursts require second Larson cores assumes the 1 AU model captures the relevant inner-disk thermodynamics and torques. The manuscript notes omission of magnetic fields and detailed chemistry, which could alter migration or disruption and thus weaken the necessity of invoking even more compact objects.
  3. [§4.3] §4.3 (Trajectory analysis for second Larson cores): The analysis treats cores as point masses migrating to tidal radii without resolving internal structure or possible earlier disruption, which underpins the claim that they can reach disruption radii and explain short bursts.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The term 'second Larson cores' is used without a brief definition or reference, which may reduce accessibility for readers outside the immediate subfield.
  2. [Figures] Figures (synthetic images and light curves): Adding annotations for burst phase, fragment position, or time stamps would improve clarity when comparing the two models.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough and constructive review. The comments highlight key aspects of our numerical setup, physical limitations, and analytical approximations. We address each major comment point by point below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional discussion and caveats where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§2] §2 (Numerical Methods, sink implementation): The central claim that resolving the inner few AU qualitatively changes migration speed, disruption completeness, and burst duration rests on the 30 AU vs. 1 AU comparison. No further convergence test (e.g., 0.1 AU sink or AMR) is reported, leaving open whether outcomes would shift at smaller scales.

    Authors: We acknowledge that a further convergence test at 0.1 AU or with AMR would provide stronger evidence. The 1 AU sink was selected specifically to resolve the inner disk scales where tidal disruption of the fragments occurs (tidal radii of a few AU). The direct comparison to the 30 AU model already reveals qualitative differences in migration and burst properties. We have added a paragraph to Section 2 discussing the sink size choice, the relevant physical scales, and why outcomes are not expected to change qualitatively at smaller radii for the fragment masses considered. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§5] §5 (Discussion): The inference that <3 yr bursts require second Larson cores assumes the 1 AU model captures the relevant inner-disk thermodynamics and torques. The manuscript notes omission of magnetic fields and detailed chemistry, which could alter migration or disruption and thus weaken the necessity of invoking even more compact objects.

    Authors: We agree that magnetic fields and chemistry could modify torques and disruption. These omissions are already stated in the manuscript. The 1 AU hydrodynamic run demonstrates faster migration and shorter bursts than the 30 AU case, supporting the need for more compact objects to explain the shortest events. We have expanded §5 to explicitly discuss how magnetic fields might alter migration timescales while preserving the overall conclusion that diffuse fragments alone cannot account for bursts shorter than a few years. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§4.3] §4.3 (Trajectory analysis for second Larson cores): The analysis treats cores as point masses migrating to tidal radii without resolving internal structure or possible earlier disruption, which underpins the claim that they can reach disruption radii and explain short bursts.

    Authors: The §4.3 analysis employs a point-mass approximation to estimate migration times to the tidal radius, which is a standard simplification but does not capture internal structure or potential prior stripping. We have revised §4.3 to add an explicit caveat noting this limitation and stating that the high densities of second Larson cores make survival until close to the star plausible, though full resolution of their structure would be needed for quantitative precision. The analysis is presented as indicating a viable mechanism for short bursts. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct numerical experiment with independent simulation outputs

full rationale

The paper reports results from two radiation-hydrodynamic simulations (30 AU vs. 1 AU sink) that solve the governing equations for gas dynamics, self-gravity, and radiation transport. Claims about faster migration, complete tidal disruption, shorter bursts, and the need for compact second Larson cores are direct outputs of the numerical integration and post-processed radiative transfer, not reductions of any equation to its own fitted inputs or self-citations. No self-definitional relations, parameter-fitting steps renamed as predictions, or load-bearing uniqueness theorems appear. The trajectory analysis for Larson cores is an interpretive extension based on point-mass assumptions, but it does not make the central simulation results equivalent to their inputs by construction. The work is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard radiation-hydrodynamic equations and numerical choices for sink-cell size; no new physical entities or ad-hoc postulates are introduced beyond the resolution comparison itself.

free parameters (1)
  • sink cell size
    Numerical parameter set to 30 AU in the original run and 1 AU in the refined run to test inner-disk resolution effects.
axioms (1)
  • standard math Equations of radiation hydrodynamics govern the disk evolution and fragment migration
    Invoked throughout the simulation to evolve gas, radiation, and self-gravity.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5637 in / 1338 out tokens · 62520 ms · 2026-05-10T16:30:30.672718+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2023, A&A, 677, A171

    Ahmadi, A., Beuther, H., Bosco, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A171

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    2019, A&A, 632, A50

    Ahmadi, A., Kuiper, R., & Beuther, H. 2019, A&A, 632, A50

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Bate, M. R. 2009, MNRAS, 392, 590

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    S., Moscadelli, L., Cesaroni, R., et al

    Bayandina, O. S., Moscadelli, L., Cesaroni, R., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A92

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    2025, ARA&A, 63, 1

    Beuther, H., Kuiper, R., & Tafalla, M. 2025, ARA&A, 63, 1

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    2013, A&A, 558, A81

    Beuther, H., Linz, H., & Henning, T. 2013, A&A, 558, A81

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    C., Ahmadi, A., et al

    Beuther, H., Mottram, J. C., Ahmadi, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A100

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    J., Johnston, K

    Beuther, H., Walsh, A. J., Johnston, K. G., et al. 2017, A&A, 603, A10

    work page 2017

  9. [9]

    2020, A&A, 638, A86

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

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    2018, A&A, 618, A95

    Bhandare, A., Kuiper, R., Henning, T., et al. 2018, A&A, 618, A95

    work page 2018

  11. [11]

    A., Uno, Y ., Sakai, N., et al

    Burns, R. A., Uno, Y ., Sakai, N., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 557 Caratti o Garatti, A., Stecklum, B., Garcia Lopez, R., et al. 2017, Nature Physics, 13, 276

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    T., et al

    Cesaroni, R., Sánchez-Monge, Á., Beltrán, M. T., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A59

    work page 2017

  13. [13]

    V ., Keto, E., Zhang, Q., et al

    Chen, H.-R. V ., Keto, E., Zhang, Q., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 125

    work page 2016

  14. [14]

    2021, ApJ, 922, 90 Contreras Peña, C., Lee, J.-E., Herczeg, G., et al

    Chen, Z., Sun, W., Chini, R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 90 Contreras Peña, C., Lee, J.-E., Herczeg, G., et al. 2025, Journal of Korean Astro- nomical Society, 58, 209

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    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

    work page 2012

  16. [16]

    G., Nayakshin, S., Meyer, D

    Elbakyan, V . G., Nayakshin, S., Meyer, D. M. A., & V orobyov, E. I. 2023, MN- RAS, 518, 791

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    G., Nayakshin, S., V orobyov, E

    Elbakyan, V . G., Nayakshin, S., V orobyov, E. I., Caratti o Garatti, A., & Eislöffel, J. 2021, A&A, 651, L3

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    2023, A&A, 676, A107

    Fedriani, R., Caratti o Garatti, A., Cesaroni, R., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, A107

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    & Rice, K

    Forgan, D. & Rice, K. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 1349

    work page 2010

  20. [20]

    Gammie, C. F. 2001, ApJ, 553, 174 Guzmán, A. E., Sanhueza, P., Zapata, L., Garay, G., & Rodríguez, L. F. 2020, ApJ, 904, 77

    work page 2001

  21. [21]

    R., et al

    Hirota, T., Wolak, P., Hunter, T. R., et al. 2022, PASJ, 74, 1234

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    & Omukai, K

    Hosokawa, T. & Omukai, K. 2009, ApJ, 691, 823

    work page 2009

  23. [23]

    R., Brogan, C

    Hunter, T. R., Brogan, C. L., De Buizer, J. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, L17

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    R., Brogan, C

    Hunter, T. R., Brogan, C. L., MacLeod, G., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, L29

    work page 2017

  25. [25]

    D., Cyganowski, C

    Ilee, J. D., Cyganowski, C. J., Brogan, C. L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, L24

    work page 2018

  26. [26]

    D., Cyganowski, C

    Ilee, J. D., Cyganowski, C. J., Nazari, P., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 4386

    work page 2016

  27. [27]

    & Natta, A

    Isella, A. & Natta, A. 2005, A&A, 438, 899

    work page 2005

  28. [28]

    G., Hoare, M

    Johnston, K. G., Hoare, M. G., Beuther, H., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, L11

    work page 2020

  29. [29]

    G., Robitaille, T

    Johnston, K. G., Robitaille, T. P., Beuther, H., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, L19

    work page 2015

  30. [30]

    Kee, N. D. & Kuiper, R. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4893

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    & Lodato, G

    Kratter, K. & Lodato, G. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 271

    work page 2016

  32. [32]

    Kratter, K. M. & Matzner, C. D. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 1563

    work page 2006

  33. [33]

    M., Matzner, C

    Kratter, K. M., Matzner, C. D., Krumholz, M. R., & Klein, R. I. 2010, ApJ, 708, 1585

    work page 2010

  34. [34]

    M., et al

    Kraus, S., Hofmann, K.-H., Menten, K. M., et al. 2010, Nature, 466, 339

    work page 2010

  35. [35]

    2011, ApJ, 732, 20

    Kuiper, R., Klahr, H., Beuther, H., & Henning, T. 2011, ApJ, 732, 20

    work page 2011

  36. [36]

    J., & Yorke, H

    Kuiper, R., Turner, N. J., & Yorke, H. W. 2016, ApJ, 832, 40

    work page 2016

  37. [37]

    & Yorke, H

    Kuiper, R. & Yorke, H. W. 2013, ApJ, 763, 104

    work page 2013

  38. [38]

    W., & Mignone, A

    Kuiper, R., Yorke, H. W., & Mignone, A. 2020, ApJS, 250, 13

    work page 2020

  39. [39]

    W., & Turner, N

    Kuiper, R., Yorke, H. W., & Turner, N. J. 2015, ApJ, 800, 86

    work page 2015

  40. [40]

    & Draine, B

    Laor, A. & Draine, B. T. 1993, ApJ, 402, 441

    work page 1993

  41. [41]

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

    work page 1969

  42. [42]

    2025, Nature Astronomy [arXiv:2509.06787]

    Li, S., Beuther, H., Oliva, A., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy [arXiv:2509.06787]

    work page arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 472

    Li, S., Sanhueza, P., Beuther, H., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 472

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    2023, ApJ, 951, L24

    Liu, J.-T., Chen, X., Chen, X.-D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, L24

    work page 2023

  45. [45]

    T., Cesaroni, R., Kumar, M

    Maud, L. T., Cesaroni, R., Kumar, M. S. N., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, L6

    work page 2019

  46. [46]

    T., Cesaroni, R., Kumar, M

    Maud, L. T., Cesaroni, R., Kumar, M. S. N., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A31

    work page 2018

  47. [47]

    M.-A., Kuiper, R., Kley, W., Johnston, K

    Meyer, D. M.-A., Kuiper, R., Kley, W., Johnston, K. G., & V orobyov, E. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 3615

    work page 2018

  48. [48]

    Meyer, D. M. A., V orobyov, E. I., Elbakyan, V . G., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 5459

    work page 2019

  49. [49]

    2023, A&A, 672, A88

    Mignon-Risse, R., Oliva, A., González, M., Kuiper, R., & Commerçon, B. 2023, A&A, 672, A88

    work page 2023

  50. [50]

    2007, ApJS, 170, 228

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

    work page 2007

  51. [51]

    2021, A&A, 647, A114

    Moscadelli, L., Beuther, H., Ahmadi, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A114

    work page 2021

  52. [52]

    2019, A&A, 622, A206

    Moscadelli, L., Sanna, A., Cesaroni, R., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A206

    work page 2019

  53. [53]

    2010, MNRAS, 408, L36

    Nayakshin, S. 2010, MNRAS, 408, L36

    work page 2010

  54. [54]

    2015, MNRAS, 454, 64

    Nayakshin, S. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 64

    work page 2015

  55. [55]

    & Lodato, G

    Nayakshin, S. & Lodato, G. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 70

    work page 2012

  56. [56]

    Oliva, G. A. & Kuiper, R. 2020, A&A, 644, A41

    work page 2020

  57. [57]

    C., Heever, S

    Proven-Adzri, E., MacLeod, G. C., Heever, S. P. v. d., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 2407 Ramírez-Tannus, M. C., Derkink, A. R., Backs, F., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A178

    work page 2019

  58. [58]

    E., de Koter, A., et al

    Sana, H., de Mink, S. E., de Koter, A., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 444

    work page 2012

  59. [59]

    2021, A&A, 655, A72

    Sanna, A., Giannetti, A., Bonfand, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 655, A72

    work page 2021

  60. [60]

    2019, A&A, 623, A77

    Sanna, A., Kölligan, A., Moscadelli, L., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A77

    work page 2019

  61. [61]

    2025, A&A, 697, A206

    Sanna, A., Oliva, A., Moscadelli, L., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A206

    work page 2025

  62. [62]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.25538

    Schneider, J.-E., Beuther, H., Gieser, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.25538

    work page arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    2021, A&A, 646, A161

    Stecklum, B., Wolf, V ., Linz, H., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A161

    work page 2021

  64. [64]

    2021, A&A, 655, A84

    Suri, S., Beuther, H., Gieser, C., et al. 2021, A&A, 655, A84

    work page 2021

  65. [65]

    2015, MNRAS, 446, 4088

    Tapia, M., Roth, M., & Persi, P. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 4088

    work page 2015

  66. [66]

    2013, ApJ, 763, 6

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

    work page 2013

  67. [67]

    1964, ApJ, 139, 1217

    Toomre, A. 1964, ApJ, 139, 1217

    work page 1964

  68. [68]

    N., & Inutsuka, S

    Tsukamoto, Y ., Iwasaki, K., Okuzumi, S., Machida, M. N., & Inutsuka, S. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 278

    work page 2015

  69. [69]

    2013, A&A, 557, A90

    Vaytet, N., Chabrier, G., Audit, E., et al. 2013, A&A, 557, A90

    work page 2013

  70. [70]

    & Haugbølle, T

    Vaytet, N. & Haugbølle, T. 2017, A&A, 598, A116

    work page 2017

  71. [71]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261 V orobyov, E. I. & Basu, S. 2010, ApJ, 719, 1896 V orobyov, E. I. & Basu, S. 2015, ApJ, 805, 115 V orobyov, E. I. & Elbakyan, V . G. 2018, A&A, 618, A7 V orobyov, E. I. & Elbakyan, V . G. 2019, A&A, 631, A1 V orobyov, E. I., Skliarevskii, A. M., Elbakyan, V . G., et al. 2019,...

    work page 2020

  72. [72]

    Wells, M. R. A., Beuther, H., Molinari, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A185

    work page 2024

  73. [73]

    2019, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 13080, 1

    Wolak, P., Olech, M., Szymczak, M., Bartkiewicz, A., & Durjasz, M. 2019, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 13080, 1

    work page 2019

  74. [74]

    2024, A&A, 688, A8

    Wolf, V ., Stecklum, B., Caratti o Garatti, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A8

    work page 2024

  75. [75]

    A., Garay, G., Palau, A., et al

    Zapata, L. A., Garay, G., Palau, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 176

    work page 2019

  76. [76]

    J., Henshaw, J

    Zhang, S., Cyganowski, C. J., Henshaw, J. D., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 1075

    work page 2024

  77. [77]

    M., et al

    Zhang, Y .-K., Chen, X., Sobolev, A. M., et al. 2022, ApJS, 260, 34

    work page 2022

  78. [78]

    Zhao, B., Caselli, P., Li, Z.-Y ., & Krasnopolsky, R. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4868 Article number, page 10 of 14 Elbakyan et al.: Fragment-driven bursts Appendix A: Physics of the numerical model Here, we briefly describe the main properties of our model, while more details can be found in OK20. Our simulations model the three-dimensional evolution of an astrop...

    work page 2018