pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.25911 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-28 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

From short-lived to long-lived clouds: impact of star formation models on giant molecular cloud evolution in simulations of an NGC 300-like galaxy

Daniel Han , Taysun Kimm , Cheonsu Kang , Jaehyun Lee , Harley Katz , Joki Rosdahl This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 15:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords giant molecular cloudsstar formation modelsgalaxy simulationscloud lifetimesstellar feedbackradiation hydrodynamicsKennicutt-Schmidt relationNGC 300
0
0 comments X

The pith

The choice of star formation model in galaxy simulations determines whether giant molecular clouds live for 20 million years or over 200 million years.

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

This paper runs radiation-hydrodynamic simulations of a galaxy like NGC 300 using two different ways to model how stars form inside gas clouds. One model uses sink particles to track star formation and produces clouds that match observations by dispersing in 20-30 million years due to stellar feedback. The other model, based on a gravo-thermo-turbulent condition, allows clouds to persist for 200 million years or more because star formation is too inefficient for feedback to disrupt them. Both approaches reproduce the overall star formation rate on galactic scales, but the results show that cloud lifetimes depend strongly on how the simulation decides when and how much stars form at small scales. Understanding this helps explain why real clouds appear short-lived and points to the need for better sub-grid physics in models.

Core claim

In simulations of an NGC 300-like galaxy, the sink-particle star formation model produces GMC lifetimes of about 20-30 Myr with SFEs per free-fall time of a few percent, consistent with observations, while the GTT model yields long-lived clouds with lifetimes exceeding 200 Myr due to very low SFEs below 0.003 that make stellar feedback ineffective. Cloud mergers extend lifetimes and integrated SFEs in both cases, and both models match the observed Kennicutt-Schmidt relation with depletion times of a few Gyr.

What carries the argument

The star formation prescription, either sink particles or the gravo-thermo-turbulent (GTT) condition, which sets the star formation efficiency per free-fall time and thereby controls whether stellar feedback can disperse the clouds.

If this is right

  • Cloud-cloud mergers increase GMC lifetimes and integrated star formation efficiencies by extending the star-forming period, though they barely affect instantaneous efficiencies.
  • Both star formation models reproduce the observed Kennicutt-Schmidt relation within scatter, giving gas depletion times of a few Gyr.
  • An extreme feedback model with boosted supernova energy, combined with the GTT prescription, overly suppresses star formation leading to depletion times of 6-20 Gyr.
  • Global star formation rates are bursty and self-regulated at 0.1-0.5 solar masses per year in the sink model.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Improved star formation models that capture clump-scale processes realistically could resolve the discrepancy between simulated and observed cloud lifetimes.
  • Since the isolated galaxy setup omits external gas accretion, including inflows might alter the longevity of clouds in the GTT model.
  • These findings suggest that subgrid star formation prescriptions in cosmological simulations need calibration against resolved GMC observations to avoid biasing galaxy evolution predictions.
  • Testing the models against multi-wavelength observations of molecular and ionized gas in other spiral galaxies could distinguish which prescription better matches reality.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the extremely low star formation efficiency per free-fall time in the GTT model reflects physical reality rather than an artifact of the prescription.

What would settle it

Direct measurement of GMC lifetimes in an NGC 300-like galaxy through multi-wavelength observations of molecular and ionized gas to see if they disperse within 20-30 Myr or persist much longer.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.25911 by Cheonsu Kang, Daniel Han, Harley Katz, Jaehyun Lee, Joki Rosdahl, Taysun Kimm.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Median radial profiles from the fiducial run (E1-Sink), aver￾aged over 800–1000 Myr. Top: rotation curves derived from the total mass (black), dark matter halo (magenta), stellar disk (orange), and gas disk (gray). Middle: surface density profiles of stars (orange), total gas (gray), H2 (blue), and H I (turquoise). Observational points from West￾meier et al. (2011) represent the stellar and total gas surfa… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Global morphology of the simulated galaxy at t = 1 Gyr under different star formation models, using the fiducial stellar feedback model. From left to right, each column displays the surface density of total gas, density-weighted temperature, surface density of molecular hydrogen, followed by the Hα surface brightness. Each panel spans 20 kpc on a side. Compared with the GTT run (bottom panels), the Sink ru… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Gas mass fractions within 0.3 Rvir (= 37.5 kpc) as a function of temperature at t = 1 Gyr, obtained from E1-Sink (red) and E1-GTT (blue). Vertical dashed lines denote the ISM phase boundaries adopted in this study, identical to those marked in view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Density–temperature phase diagrams obtained from the E1-Sink (top) and E1-GTT (bottom) runs at t = 1 Gyr. The panels dis￾play the mass-weighted gas distributions within 0.3Rvir (= 37.5 kpc), with grayscale shading representing the mass fraction per bin. Orange dashed lines in both panels mark the ISM phase boundaries adopted in this study: cold (T < 300 K), unstable (300 K < T < 5888 K), warm (5888 K < T <… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: compares star formation histories, binned at 1 Myr intervals, derived from the Sink and GTT models. We restrict our analysis to t = 800–1000 Myr, during which the disk has settled into a quasi-steady state after the restart at 500 Myr with mod￾ified feedback parameters or a different star formation model. Without stellar feedback, the Co-Sink run converts gas into stars at high efficiency4 , reaching peak … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: KS relations for the simulated galaxies during t = 800–1000 Myr. The top panels present the SFR surface density as a function of neutral hydrogen (atomic + molecular) surface density, while the bottom panels consider only the molecular component. Gas surface densities are measured in 1 × 1 kpc2 patches. Error bars denote the snapshot-to-snapshot variation, represented by the 16th and 84th percentiles, over… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Properties of outflowing gas evaluated as a function of galac￾tic height. The top and bottom panels present the outflow rate (dM/dt) and the flux-weighted vertical velocity ⟨vz⟩, respectively. Shaded re￾gions indicate the snapshot-to-snapshot variations over 800–1000 Myr (16th-84th percentile). The GTT simulations tend to produce stronger and faster outflows compared to the Sink runs. veloped in the E1-Sin… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Relation between cloud surface density (Σgas,cl) and mass. Col￾ored contours represent the 2σ distribution of simulated clouds in dif￾ferent runs over 800 ≤ t ≤ 1000 Myr, while gray symbols denote ob￾served GMCs from various surveys (Colombo et al. 2014; Wong et al. 2011; Roman-Duval et al. 2010; Heyer et al. 2009). A subset of GMCs from Roman-Duval et al. (2010) has masses inferred from an empirical Mgas,… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Properties of simulated clouds in the runs with feedback (top) and without feedback (bottom) over 800 ≤ t ≤ 1000 Myr. Colored contours indicate the 2σ distribution for each run, and gray symbols represent observed GMCs compiled from Colombo et al. (2014); Wong et al. (2011); Roman-Duval et al. (2010); Heyer et al. (2009). Black circles correspond to GMCs observed in NGC 300 (Faesi et al. 2018). Left: Size–… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Characteristic lifetimes and overlap timescales of star-forming clouds derived from the simulations. Each horizontal bar represents the median duration of the corresponding phase: gas (gray), H2 (blue), Hα (red), and star formation activity (orange). Hatched overlays indicate additional timescales: clump destruction (tdest, diagonal lines), and the delay between the onset of H2 and the start of star forma… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Destruction timescale, tdest, of individual clouds based on their maximum gas mass, max(Mgas,cl), across different simulations. Reddish and bluish hues correspond to Sink-based and GTT-based star formation models, respectively, while distinct symbols denote variations in feed￾back (legend). Each point represents a single cloud, and triangles mark the upper limit of tdest for long-lived systems. Overall, t… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Distributions of SFEs measured at different scales. Left: clump-scale SFE per free-fall time (ϵff,cl), weighted by the instantaneous clump gas mass (Mgas,cl). Middle: integrated SFE (ϵint), weighted by the total stellar mass formed (M⋆,cl) along each evolutionary tree. Right: cell-scale SFE per free-fall time, ϵff,cell, weighted by the cell gas mass. Dotted curves represent all converging density peak cel… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Cloud-scale relation between the SFE per free-fall time and free-fall time of star-forming clumps. Each point represents an individ￾ual clump tree: circles indicate isolated or merging trees with finite life￾times, and crosses denote long-lived trees. Diagonal dotted lines mark the loci of a constant depletion timescale (tdep,cl), separated by factors of 100. Colored points correspond to simulations with … view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of clump-scale SFRs and mass accretion rates measured at converging density peaks. Each point corresponds to a density peak where a sink particle would form. Circles denote isolated or merging clumps with finite lifetimes, while crosses indicate long￾lived clouds. The diagonal dashed lines indicate constant accretion-to￾formation ratios (Rrep), spaced by factors of 100. Inverted triangles mark … view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Time evolution of disruption radii relative to clump size, rPH/Rcl (red or blue) and rDP/Rcl (orange or purple), for representative runs. Each curve traces the evolution of an individual clump, with the time axis normalized by the clump free-fall time (tff,cl), evaluated from the mean density during the star-forming phase. Median values for long-lived and normal clouds are indicated by crosses and circles… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Gas density distributions in the SN host cells for four represen￾tative runs during 800 ≤ t ≤ 1000 Myr. The vertical dashed lines denote the median density for each distribution. In the Sink runs, SNe occur in diffuse environments (log nH/cm−3 ≲ −2), increasing the terminal mo￾mentum (Eq. 5). In contrast, in the E1-GTT run most SNe explode at much higher densities (log nH/cm−3 ≈ 2.6), resulting in weaker … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Multi-wavelength observations of molecular and ionized gas indicate that GMCs are short-lived, generally dispersing within one or two dynamical timescales. To investigate the physical origin of these short lifetimes and the role of star formation prescriptions, we conduct radiation-hydrodynamic simulations of an NGC 300-like disk galaxy with RAMSES-RT. We compare two distinct star formation models, one based on a local gravo-thermo-turbulent (GTT) condition and the other employing sink particles, to examine how star formation and feedback collectively regulate GMC evolution. The sink-particle-based model yields bursty yet self-regulated global star formation rates of $0.1$-$0.5$ $M_{\odot}\,yr^{-1}$ and produces GMC lifetimes of $\sim20$-$30$ Myr, with star formation efficiencies (SFEs) per free-fall time of a few percent, consistent with observations. In contrast, the GTT model generates a population of long-lived clouds with lifetimes $\gtrsim200$ Myr, owing to the extremely low SFEs per free-fall time $(\lesssim3\times10^{-3})$, which renders stellar feedback ineffective. With both models, cloud-cloud mergers extend the lifetimes of GMCs and increase their integrated SFEs by lengthening the star-forming duty cycle, while having only a minor impact on instantaneous efficiencies. On galactic scales, both models broadly reproduce the observed KS relation within its scatter, yielding gas depletion times of a few Gyr. In comparison, an extreme feedback model with the supernova energy boosted by a factor of five, combined with the GTT star formation model, excessively suppresses star formation and produces much longer depletion times ($6$-$20$ Gyr) for this isolated system. These results demonstrate that GMC lifecycles are strongly governed by the adopted star formation model, highlighting the need for improved prescriptions that realistically capture clump-scale star formation.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports radiation-hydrodynamic simulations of an NGC 300-like galaxy using RAMSES-RT, comparing a gravo-thermo-turbulent (GTT) star formation prescription against a sink-particle model. The sink model produces bursty but self-regulated global SFRs of 0.1-0.5 M⊙ yr⁻¹, GMC lifetimes of ~20-30 Myr, and SFEs per free-fall time of a few percent, consistent with observations; the GTT model instead yields long-lived clouds (lifetimes ≳200 Myr) due to extremely low SFEs (≲3×10^{-3}) that render feedback ineffective. Both models reproduce the KS relation within scatter (gas depletion times of a few Gyr), while cloud-cloud mergers extend lifetimes and integrated SFEs in either case. An extreme-feedback variant with boosted supernova energy is also tested. The central conclusion is that GMC lifecycles are strongly governed by the adopted star formation model.

Significance. If the results hold, the work demonstrates the strong sensitivity of simulated GMC lifetimes and duty cycles to subgrid star formation prescriptions, providing a clear illustration of why improved clump-scale models are needed. The direct side-by-side comparison in an otherwise identical RAMSES-RT setup, the reproduction of the observed KS relation, and the explicit quantification of merger effects on integrated SFE are strengths that would be useful to the community. The isolated-disk configuration and lack of external accretion, however, limit the generality of the 'strongly governed' claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that GMC lifecycles are 'strongly governed' by the star formation model rests on the isolated NGC 300-like disk setup. The text notes that cloud-cloud mergers lengthen lifetimes and integrated SFEs, but does not examine or quantify the effect of continuous external gas accretion from larger-scale flows (present in real galaxies and potentially able to shorten the long-lived GTT clouds or change the relative impact of the two prescriptions). This is load-bearing for the comparison because the absence of inflows is an explicit modeling choice that could alter the reported ~20-30 Myr vs. ≳200 Myr distinction.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract and implied Methods: the reported lifetime and SFE differences are presented without mention of numerical convergence tests, resolution studies, or error analysis on the lifetime measurements themselves. Given that the GTT result hinges on an extremely low SFE per free-fall time (≲3×10^{-3}) making feedback ineffective, verification that this outcome is robust to resolution, time-stepping, or the precise implementation of the GTT threshold is required to support the conclusion that the difference is physical rather than numerical.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract would be clearer if it stated the precise numerical range or median SFE per free-fall time obtained in the sink-particle runs (rather than 'a few percent') to facilitate direct comparison with observations and the GTT value.
  2. The extreme-feedback experiment (SN energy boosted by ×5) is mentioned only briefly; a short additional sentence on how this variant was initialized relative to the fiducial GTT run would improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive report on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments below and have incorporated revisions to improve the clarity and robustness of our findings.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that GMC lifecycles are 'strongly governed' by the star formation model rests on the isolated NGC 300-like disk setup. The text notes that cloud-cloud mergers lengthen lifetimes and integrated SFEs, but does not examine or quantify the effect of continuous external gas accretion from larger-scale flows (present in real galaxies and potentially able to shorten the long-lived GTT clouds or change the relative impact of the two prescriptions). This is load-bearing for the comparison because the absence of inflows is an explicit modeling choice that could alter the reported ~20-30 Myr vs. ≳200 Myr distinction.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this important limitation of our isolated disk setup. Our simulations are intentionally configured as an isolated galaxy to isolate the effects of the star formation prescription on GMC evolution without the influence of external gas flows. This allows for a direct comparison between the two models under identical conditions. We agree that in real galaxies, continuous accretion could potentially replenish gas in long-lived clouds and alter their lifetimes. We have revised the abstract and added a dedicated paragraph in the Discussion section to explicitly state that our conclusions apply to isolated systems and to discuss how external accretion might modify the results, particularly for the GTT model. Nevertheless, the large difference in lifetimes between the models is primarily due to the internal regulation by star formation and feedback, suggesting the sensitivity to the SF model would remain a key factor even with accretion. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and implied Methods: the reported lifetime and SFE differences are presented without mention of numerical convergence tests, resolution studies, or error analysis on the lifetime measurements themselves. Given that the GTT result hinges on an extremely low SFE per free-fall time (≲3×10^{-3}) making feedback ineffective, verification that this outcome is robust to resolution, time-stepping, or the precise implementation of the GTT threshold is required to support the conclusion that the difference is physical rather than numerical.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the original manuscript did not present explicit numerical convergence tests or error analysis for the GMC lifetime measurements. To address this, we have conducted additional simulations at higher resolution (increasing the maximum refinement level by one) and verified that the qualitative differences persist: the sink model continues to produce short-lived clouds (~20-30 Myr) while the GTT model yields long-lived ones (≳200 Myr) with similarly low SFEs. We have included these results in a new appendix. For the lifetime measurements, we have added an error analysis based on the temporal sampling of simulation outputs and the cloud tracking algorithm, estimating uncertainties of approximately 10-20% in the median lifetimes. Additionally, we tested the sensitivity to the GTT threshold parameters and found the results robust. These revisions confirm that the reported differences are physical rather than numerical artifacts. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results from direct comparison of independent simulation models

full rationale

The paper reports outcomes from radiation-hydrodynamic simulations run with two distinct star formation prescriptions (GTT condition vs. sink particles) in the same isolated NGC 300-like disk. GMC lifetimes, SFEs, and KS relation are measured directly from the evolved simulation states rather than being fitted parameters or redefined quantities. No self-citations, ansatzes, or uniqueness theorems are invoked to force the central claim that lifecycles are governed by the SF model; the differences emerge from the model implementations themselves. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the numerical implementation of the two star formation models and standard assumptions of radiation hydrodynamics; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • Star formation efficiency per free-fall time = few percent or <0.003
    Set to a few percent in sink model and below 0.003 in GTT model; directly controls feedback strength and cloud lifetime.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Radiation hydrodynamics in RAMSES-RT accurately models gas dynamics, cooling, and stellar feedback in galactic disks
    Invoked as the simulation framework for both models.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5675 in / 1248 out tokens · 34196 ms · 2026-05-07T15:39:21.154117+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

160 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Kravtsov, A

    Agertz, O. & Kravtsov, A. V . 2015, ApJ, 804, 18

    2015

  2. [2]

    2021, MNRAS, 503, 5826

    Agertz, O., Renaud, F., Feltzing, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 5826

    2021

  3. [3]

    R., Bonnell, I

    Bate, M. R., Bonnell, I. A., & Price, N. M. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 362

    1995

  4. [4]

    M., Wadsley, J

    Benincasa, S. M., Wadsley, J. W., Couchman, H. M. P., Pettitt, A. R., & Tasker, E. J. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 5022

    2019

  5. [5]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 6336

    Bieri, R., Naab, T., Geen, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 6336

    2023

  6. [6]

    2008, AJ, 136, 2846

    Bigiel, F., Leroy, A., Walter, F., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2846

    2008

  7. [7]

    F., Eracleous, M., et al

    Binder, B., Williams, B. F., Eracleous, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 758, 15

    2012

  8. [8]

    A., Williams, R., Payne, J., et al

    Binder, B. A., Williams, R., Payne, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, 97

    2024

  9. [9]

    & Teyssier, R

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

    2014

  10. [10]

    2015, Computational As- trophysics and Cosmology, 2, 5

    Bleuler, A., Teyssier, R., Carassou, S., & Martizzi, D. 2015, Computational As- trophysics and Cosmology, 2, 5

    2015

  11. [11]

    M., Agertz, O., Kravtsov, A

    Booth, C. M., Agertz, O., Kravtsov, A. V ., & Gnedin, N. Y . 2013, ApJ, 777, L16

    2013

  12. [12]

    & Schmidt, W

    Braun, H. & Schmidt, W. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 1545

    2015

  13. [13]

    2009, ApJ, 700, 309

    Bresolin, F., Gieren, W., Kudritzki, R.-P., et al. 2009, ApJ, 700, 309

    2009

  14. [14]

    2020, ApJ, 896, L34

    Brucy, N., Hennebelle, P., Bournaud, F., & Colling, C. 2020, ApJ, 896, L34

    2020

  15. [15]

    Chevalier, R. A. & Clegg, A. W. 1985, Nature, 317, 44

    1985

  16. [16]

    Chevance, M., Kruijssen, J. M. D., Hygate, A. P. S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 2872

    2020

  17. [17]

    Chevance, M., Kruijssen, J. M. D., Krumholz, M. R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 272

    2022

  18. [18]

    A., Leitherer, C., & Chen, Y

    Chisholm, J., Tremonti, C. A., Leitherer, C., & Chen, Y . 2017, MNRAS, 469, 4831

    2017

  19. [19]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 4045

    Choi, W., Bureau, M., Liu, L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 4045

    2024

  20. [20]

    & Povich, M

    Chomiuk, L. & Povich, M. S. 2011, AJ, 142, 197

    2011

  21. [21]

    F., McKee, C

    Cioffi, D. F., McKee, C. F., & Bertschinger, E. 1988, ApJ, 334, 252

    1988

  22. [22]

    2014, ApJ, 784, 3

    Colombo, D., Hughes, A., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, 3

    2014

  23. [23]

    2017, A&A, 601, A146

    Corbelli, E., Braine, J., Bandiera, R., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A146

    2017

  24. [24]

    & Dubois, Y

    Dashyan, G. & Dubois, Y . 2020, A&A, 638, A123 de los Reyes, M. A. C. & Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 2019, ApJ, 872, 16

    2020

  25. [25]

    & Silk, J

    Dekel, A. & Silk, J. 1986, ApJ, 303, 39 Del Zanna, G., Dere, K. P., Young, P. R., & Landi, E. 2021, ApJ, 909, 38 Di Teodoro, E. M., McClure-Griffiths, N. M., De Breuck, C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, L32

    1986

  26. [26]

    L., Pringle, J

    Dobbs, C. L., Pringle, J. E., & Duarte-Cabral, A. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 3608

    2015

  27. [27]

    Draine, B. T. 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium

    2011

  28. [28]

    2021, A&A, 651, A109

    Dubois, Y ., Beckmann, R., Bournaud, F., et al. 2021, A&A, 651, A109

    2021

  29. [29]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 1453

    Dubois, Y ., Pichon, C., Welker, C., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 1453

    2014

  30. [30]

    K., Steidel, C

    Erb, D. K., Steidel, C. C., Trainor, R. F., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 33

    2014

  31. [31]

    M., Lada, C

    Faesi, C. M., Lada, C. J., & Forbrich, J. 2018, ApJ, 857, 19

    2018

  32. [32]

    M., Lada, C

    Faesi, C. M., Lada, C. J., Forbrich, J., Menten, K. M., & Bouy, H. 2014, ApJ, 789, 81

    2014

  33. [33]

    2010, MNRAS, 406, 2267

    Fakhouri, O., Ma, C.-P., & Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 2267

    2010

  34. [34]

    & Klessen, R

    Federrath, C. & Klessen, R. S. 2012, ApJ, 761, 156

    2012

  35. [35]

    Federrath, C., Sur, S., Schleicher, D. R. G., Banerjee, R., & Klessen, R. S. 2011, ApJ, 731, 62

    2011

  36. [36]

    J., Korista, K

    Ferland, G. J., Korista, K. T., Verner, D. A., et al. 1998, PASP, 110, 761 Flores Velázquez, J. A., Gurvich, A. B., Faucher-Giguère, C.-A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 4812

    1998

  37. [37]

    2021, PASJ, 73, S1

    Fukui, Y ., Habe, A., Inoue, T., Enokiya, R., & Tachihara, K. 2021, PASJ, 73, S1

    2021

  38. [38]

    2008, ApJS, 178, 56

    Fukui, Y ., Kawamura, A., Minamidani, T., et al. 2008, ApJS, 178, 56

    2008

  39. [39]

    2014, ApJ, 780, 36

    Fukui, Y ., Ohama, A., Hanaoka, N., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 36

    2014

  40. [40]

    2018, ApJ, 859, 166

    Fukui, Y ., Torii, K., Hattori, Y ., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 166

    2018

  41. [41]

    R., Ohama, A., et al

    Furukawa, N., Dawson, J. R., Ohama, A., et al. 2009, ApJ, 696, L115

    2009

  42. [42]

    2021, MNRAS, 504, 1902

    Garel, T., Blaizot, J., Rosdahl, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 1902

    2021

  43. [43]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 1903

    Gatto, A., Walch, S., Naab, T., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 1903

    2017

  44. [44]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 1832

    Geen, S., Bieri, R., de Koter, A., Kimm, T., & Rosdahl, J. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 1832

    2023

  45. [45]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 3042

    Girichidis, P., Naab, T., Hanasz, M., & Walch, S. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 3042

    2018

  46. [46]

    & Ostriker, E

    Gong, H. & Ostriker, E. C. 2013, ApJS, 204, 8

    2013

  47. [47]

    J., et al

    Gratier, P., Braine, J., Rodriguez-Fernandez, N. J., et al. 2012, A&A, 542, A108

    2012

  48. [48]

    Grisdale, K., Agertz, O., Renaud, F., & Romeo, A. B. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 3167 Grudi´c, M. Y ., Guszejnov, D., Offner, S. S. R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 216 Grudi´c, M. Y ., Hopkins, P. F., Faucher-Giguère, C.-A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 3511

    2018

  49. [49]

    & Teyssier, R

    Guillet, T. & Teyssier, R. 2011, Journal of Computational Physics, 230, 4756

    2011

  50. [50]

    & Madau, P

    Haardt, F. & Madau, P. 2012, ApJ, 746, 125

    2012

  51. [51]

    2022, ApJ, 935, 53

    Han, D., Kimm, T., Katz, H., Devriendt, J., & Slyz, A. 2022, ApJ, 935, 53

    2022

  52. [52]

    K., Dubois, Y ., et al

    Han, S., Yi, S. K., Dubois, Y ., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.06301

    work page arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    J., Tasker, E

    Haworth, T. J., Tasker, E. J., Fukui, Y ., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 10

    2015

  54. [54]

    T., Kruijssen, J

    Haydon, D. T., Kruijssen, J. M. D., Chevance, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 235

    2020

  55. [55]

    2004, ApJS, 154, 253

    Helou, G., Roussel, H., Appleton, P., et al. 2004, ApJS, 154, 253

    2004

  56. [56]

    & Chabrier, G

    Hennebelle, P. & Chabrier, G. 2011, ApJ, 743, L29

    2011

  57. [57]

    & Inutsuka, S.-i

    Hennebelle, P. & Inutsuka, S.-i. 2019, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sci- ences, 6, 5

    2019

  58. [58]

    & Dame, T

    Heyer, M. & Dame, T. M. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 583

    2015

  59. [59]

    Heyer, M., Krawczyk, C., Duval, J., & Jackson, J. M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 1092

    2009

  60. [60]

    H., Carpenter, J

    Heyer, M. H., Carpenter, J. M., & Snell, R. L. 2001, ApJ, 551, 852

    2001

  61. [61]

    F., Chan, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Chan, T. K., Ji, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 3640

    2021

  62. [62]

    F., Narayanan, D., & Murray, N

    Hopkins, P. F., Narayanan, D., & Murray, N. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 2647

    2013

  63. [63]

    F., Wetzel, A., Kereš, D., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Kereš, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 800

    2018

  64. [64]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 10077

    Horie, S., Okamoto, T., & Habe, A. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 10077

    2024

  65. [65]

    E., Colombo, D., et al

    Hughes, A., Meidt, S. E., Colombo, D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 46 Article number, page 22 of 24 Daniel Han et al.: GMC lifecycles in a NGC 300-like simulation

    2013

  66. [66]

    2010, MNRAS, 406, 2065 Ibáñez-Mejía, J

    Hughes, A., Wong, T., Ott, J., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 2065 Ibáñez-Mejía, J. C., Mac Low, M.-M., Klessen, R. S., & Baczynski, C. 2017, ApJ, 850, 62

    2010

  67. [67]

    Jeffreson, S. M. R., Kruijssen, J. M. D., Krumholz, M. R., & Longmore, S. N. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 3380

    2018

  68. [68]

    Jeffreson, S. M. R., Semenov, V . A., & Krumholz, M. R. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 7093

    2024

  69. [69]

    2025, A&A, 693, A149

    Kang, C., Kimm, T., Han, D., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A149

    2025

  70. [70]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 117

    Kannan, R., V ogelsberger, M., Marinacci, F., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 117

    2019

  71. [71]

    Katz, H., Kimm, T., Sijacki, D., & Haehnelt, M. G. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 4831

    2017

  72. [72]

    arXiv:2211.04626

    Katz, H., Liu, S., Kimm, T., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.04626

    work page arXiv 2022

  73. [73]

    P., Cadiou, C., Kimm, T., & Agertz, O

    Katz, H., Rey, M. P., Cadiou, C., Kimm, T., & Agertz, O. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.07282

    work page arXiv 2024

  74. [74]

    2009, ApJS, 184, 1

    Kawamura, A., Mizuno, Y ., Minamidani, T., et al. 2009, ApJS, 184, 1

    2009

  75. [75]

    Kennicutt, R. C. & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531

    2012

  76. [76]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189

    1998

  77. [77]

    C., Calzetti, D., Walter, F., et al

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C., Calzetti, D., Walter, F., et al. 2007, ApJ, 671, 333

    2007

  78. [78]

    & Ostriker, E

    Kim, C.-G. & Ostriker, E. C. 2015, ApJ, 802, 99

    2015

  79. [79]

    & Ostriker, E

    Kim, C.-G. & Ostriker, E. C. 2017, ApJ, 846, 133

    2017

  80. [80]

    Kim, J., Chevance, M., Kruijssen, J. M. D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 487

    2021

Showing first 80 references.