Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 64 references

The most massive star clusters in molecular clouds: Insights from the integrated cloud-wide initial mass function (ICIMF) theory

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the observed scaling between the mass of the most massive star cluster in a molecular cloud and the cloud's mass arises from the integrated cloud-wide IMF (ICIMF) theory, in which a cloud's stars are assembled from…

desk verdict The paper's real value is the new empirical cloud–cluster matching and SFE measurement; the ICIMF 'explanation' is a consistency check, not a prediction. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.23096 v1 pith:4PQDPGOC submitted 2025-06-29 astro-ph.GA

J. W. Zhou , Pavel Kroupa , Sami Dib This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords integratedcloud-wideIMFembeddedclustermassfunctionmostmassivemolecularcloudsstarformationefficiencyoptimalsamplingnearbygalaxies
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that the mass of the most massive star cluster inside a molecular cloud follows from a simple quantitative rule: every cloud builds its stars out of embedded clusters whose masses are drawn from one power-law distribution, and the biggest cluster is the one that optimal sampling places at the top of that distribution. Applied to the molecular clouds of five nearby galaxies, this rule with slope $\beta\approx 1.8$ and a cloud-scale star-formation efficiency of about 1.4 percent reproduces the observed $M_{\rm cluster,max}$-$M_{\rm cloud}$ relation, along with correlations between the most massive cluster and cloud column density, star-formation rate, and SFR surface density. If true, the theory gives a common explanation for why larger clouds host disproportionately massive clusters and ties the statistics of star clusters directly to the statistics of their parent molecular clouds.

What carries the argument

The central object is the integrated cloud-wide IMF (ICIMF), the cloud-scale analogue of the galaxy-scale integrated IMF idea. The machinery is the pair formed by a universal embedded cluster mass function $\xi_{\rm ecl}(M_{\rm ecl})=k_{\rm ecl}M_{\rm ecl}^{-\beta}$ over $5\,M_\odot\le M_{\rm ecl}\le10^9\,M_\odot$ and the optimal-sampling normalization, which places exactly one cluster in the interval $[M_{\rm ecl,max},M_{\rm ecl,up}]$. Combined with $M_{*,\rm tot}={\rm SFE}\times M_{\rm cloud}$, these yield closed-form expressions (Eqs. 12-13) for how the most massive embedded cluster, identified with $M_{\rm cluster,max}$, scales with total stellar mass and hence with cloud mass. A useful property of the solution is that for $\beta>1$ the result is insensitive to the exact value of $M_{\rm ecl,up}$ as long as it is much larger than $M_{\rm ecl,max}$.

What would settle it

Count all embedded clusters down to the completeness limit in molecular clouds spanning a wide range of $M_{\rm cloud}$, fit the cluster mass function separately for each cloud, and test two predictions: that the fitted slope $\beta$ is the same across cloud mass, and that the observed most massive cluster in each cloud lies at the value predicted by Eq. 11 given the cloud's measured SFE and $\beta$. A systematic drift of $\beta$ with $M_{\rm cloud}$, or a most massive cluster consistently above the predicted $M_{\rm cluster,max}$, would falsify the ICIMF interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the observed $M_{\rm cluster,max}$-$M_{\rm cloud}$ relation, with log-log slope $0.796\pm0.082$ in the five-galaxy sample, is a direct consequence of the integrated cloud-wide IMF (ICIMF) theory. If each cloud's stellar population is built from embedded clusters drawn from $\xi_{\rm ecl}(M_{\rm ecl})=k_{\rm ecl}M_{\rm ecl}^{-\beta}$ with minimum mass $5\,M_\odot$, and if the most massive cluster is fixed by the optimal-sampling condition $1=\int_{M_{\rm ecl,max}}^{M_{\rm ecl,up}}\xi_{\rm ecl}\,dM_{\rm ecl}$ with $M_{\rm ecl,up}\approx10^9\,M_\odot$, then solving mass conservation $M_{*,\rm tot}={\rm SFE}\times M_{\rm cloud}$ gives a predicted $M_{\rm ecl,max}(M_{\rm cloud})$ that matches the data when $\beta\approx1.8$ and ${\rm SFE}\approx1.4\%$. The paper shows that the same framework also reproduces the observed correlations between the most massive cluster and cloud column density, star-formation rate, and SFR surface density, and it notes that smaller $\beta$ can be traded against larger SFE, so low-mass clouds with higher SFE fit the relation equally well.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the embedded clusters in every molecular cloud follow one universal power-law mass function with a single slope $\beta$ and that the most massive cluster is set by optimal sampling, so if the cluster mass function bends, varies with cloud properties, or is randomly sampled instead, the predicted $M_{\rm cluster,max}$-$M_{\rm cloud}$ relation changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $M_{\rm cluster,max}$-$M_{\rm cloud}$ relation needs no special mechanism for forming the heaviest cluster; it is the statistical top of a power-law embedded cluster mass function.
  • A cloud-scale star-formation efficiency near 1.4 percent is enough to link cloud mass to stellar mass, with more massive clouds showing lower SFE as expected from self-regulated star formation.
  • Because $M_{\rm cluster,max}$ also tracks cloud column density, SFR, and SFR surface density, the most massive cluster in a cloud can serve as a cloud-scale star-formation-rate indicator, the local analogue of the galaxy-scale $M_{\rm ecl,max}$-SFR relation.
  • With SFE fixed, the only free parameter is the embedded cluster mass function slope $\beta$; $\beta\approx1.8$, flatter than the canonical value near 2, fits the observed relation, and a lower $\beta$ can be mimicked by a higher SFE.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the ICIMF interpretation is right, the same embedded cluster mass function and optimal-sampling rule should predict the full distribution of cluster masses inside each cloud, not just the maximum; comparing predicted and observed cluster mass functions per cloud would be a stricter test than the maximum alone.
  • The degeneracy between $\beta$ and SFE in the fit means the success of the model does not by itself pin down either quantity; independent measurements of cloud-scale SFE, for example from resolved young stellar objects, are needed to break the degeneracy.
  • The paper's analogy with the galaxy-scale $\beta$-SFR relation suggests a testable prediction: clouds with higher star-formation rates should host relatively more massive clusters, a trend that can be searched for in a larger sample spanning a wider range of cloud SFR.
  • Because the 64-pc stellar association catalogs show a very similar $M_{\rm assoc,max}$-$M_{\rm cloud}$ relation to the cluster relation, the ICIMF framework may also describe how the largest stellar association forms, unifying the cluster and association views of the same cloud population.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper uses ALMA CO(2-1), JWST 21 micron, and HST cluster/association catalogs for five PHANGS galaxies to identify molecular clouds, match them to stellar populations, and quantify correlations between cloud mass, column density, SFR, and the most massive cluster mass. It derives a median cloud-scale star formation efficiency of about 1.4% and claims that the integrated cloud-wide IMF (ICIMF) theory, with an embedded-cluster mass function slope beta≈1.82 and optimal sampling, reproduces the observed M_cluster,max–M_cloud relation. The central deliverable is therefore both an empirical correlation study and a theoretical interpretation in the IGIMF/ICIMF framework.

Significance. The empirical correlations are potentially useful, and the authors make good use of public PHANGS data with clearly described cloud identification and cluster-matching procedures. The strongest quantitative result, the M_cluster,max–M_cloud slope of 0.80±0.08 with r≈0.62, is a clean observational statement. However, the ICIMF interpretation as presented is not an independent test: beta and SFE are estimated from the same sample used to define the relation, and the constant-beta, constant-SFE model predicts a log-log slope near unity that is about 2.5 sigma steeper than observed. With a reframing as a consistency check and a proper slope test, the framework could be useful; in its current form the central theoretical claim is overstated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.5, Fig. 10(a) and Fig. 11] The model's only free parameter beta is fitted from the CCDF of the very same M_cluster,max values that Fig. 11 then 'fits'. Because Eqs. (11)-(12) make M_cluster,max a deterministic function of M_*tot and beta once SFE is fixed, the agreement in Fig. 11 is a consistency check with in-sample parameters, not an out-of-sample prediction or a confirmation of the universal power-law ECMF and optimal-sampling assumptions. The abstract and Conclusion 3 should be reworded to avoid claiming independent theoretical confirmation.
  2. [Sec. 3.5, Eq. (12) and Table 3] For beta<2 and M_ecl,max >> M_ecl,min, Eq. (12) reduces to M_*tot ≈ [(beta-1)/(2-beta)] M_ecl,max, so with Eq. (10) and fixed SFE the model predicts log M_cluster,max versus log M_cloud with slope ≈1. The observed slope in Table 3 is 0.796±0.082, which is shallower than 1 by about 2.5 sigma. The authors' own Table 3 and Fig. 9 show that SFE decreases with M_cloud (slope -0.320±0.058), so matching the data requires SFE or beta to vary with cloud mass; those variations are not predicted by the ICIMF model but are taken from the same clouds. The stated 'good fit' therefore does not validate the model's assumptions.
  3. [Sec. 3.5 and Conclusion 3] The text claims that 'when fixing SFE=1.4%, there is only one free parameter β', but immediately afterwards it invokes a beta-SFR relation (Eq. 14) and argues that low-mass clouds have higher SFE to improve the fit. This means the actual number of effective free parameters is larger than claimed, and the final comparison in Fig. 11 is not a single-parameter prediction. Please state the effective number of free parameters and provide a quantitative comparison (e.g., chi-square or bootstrap confidence band) between the model curve and the data.
  4. [Sec. 3.5, Eq. (14)] Equation (14) is a galaxy-scale beta-SFR relation from Weidner et al. (2013), but it is applied here to cloud-scale SFR without a derivation or explicit validation at that scale. The discussion of a cloud-scale beta-SFR relation is speculative; if it is needed to explain Fig. 11, it should be presented as a conjecture with a testable prediction rather than as part of the ICIMF explanation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 4] There is a typo in the abstract and conclusion: 'SFR sand the SFR surface density' should read 'SFR and the SFR surface density'.
  2. [Sec. 3.3, Eq. (2)] The SFR surface density calibration in Eq. (2) is from WISE 22 micron data but is applied to JWST F2100W 21 micron maps, and the embedded-phase timescale t_fb,21um≈5.1 Myr is taken from NGC 628 and assumed for five other galaxies. Please justify these transfers and quantify the resulting systematic uncertainty on the embedded stellar masses and SFRs.
  3. [Sec. 3.2.1 and Table 3] The M_assoc,tot–M_cloud and M_assoc,max–M_cloud fits have nearly identical slopes (0.577±0.064 and 0.563±0.064), consistent with the statement that one cloud typically contains one 64 pc association. This limits the information content of the association-based correlations and should be stated explicitly when interpreting Fig. 4.
  4. [Sec. 3.5, Fig. 10] The mass range used for the linear fit in Fig. 10 is indicated by vertical dashed lines but not given numerically. Please specify the fitting interval and the fitting procedure (e.g., unweighted least squares, maximum likelihood) so that the reported beta values are reproducible.
  5. [Sec. 3.5, Eq. (12)] The displayed formula for Eq. (12) is ambiguous because the fraction formatting is unclear. Please rewrite it with explicit parentheses, for example y ≈ [(beta-1)/(2-beta)] (x^(2-beta) - z^(2-beta)) / x^(1-beta), to avoid confusion about the placement of the factor (C^(1-beta)-x^(1-beta)).

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The Fig. 11 'fit' is an in-sample consistency check: beta and SFE are measured from the same clouds whose M_cluster,max-M_cloud relation is then 'predicted', and the model's unit slope does not reproduce the observed shallower slope.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.5, Eqs. 12-13, Figs. 10(a) and 11]
    "Using the most massive clusters associated with molecular clouds presented in Fig.5(a), we fitted the cluster mass function in Fig.10(a). It indeed provides a slightly flatter slope, with β≈1.82. Since we will use the model to fit the M_cluster,max-M_cloud relation, taking the slope fitted in Fig.10(a) is more appropriate."

    Beta is measured from the CCDF of the very same M_cluster,max values that Fig. 11 claims to predict. For beta<2, Eq. 12 reduces (for M_ecl,max >> M_ecl,min) to M_*,tot roughly [(beta-1)/(2-beta)] M_cluster,max, so once beta and SFE are fixed the model line is a deterministic mapping from observed M_cloud to M_cluster,max. The observed slope in Table 3 is 0.796 +/- 0.082, shallower than the model's forced unit slope, so the agreement in Fig. 11 is an in-sample amplitude check, not an out-of-sample prediction of the relation.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.4 Eq. 7 and Sec. 3.5 Eq. 10]
    "The median value of the SFE in Fig.9 is≈1.4%, which is comparable with the values listed in Kim et al. (2022); Chevance et al. (2023). ... M∗,tot≈ SFE∗Mcloud."

    SFE is computed from the same clouds as the ratio M_*,tot/M_cloud (Eq. 7) and then substituted back as Eq. 10. Consequently Eq. 12 only rewrites the observed M_*,tot into a predicted M_cluster,max; it does not independently predict the stellar mass of a cloud. For beta<2, M_cluster,max is approximately [(2-beta)/(beta-1)] SFE M_cloud, so the Fig. 11 line is a rescaled version of the data used to set SFE and beta, making the apparent agreement largely constructed from fitted inputs.

full rationale

The empirical correlations and the cloud/cluster catalogs are independent data products, and the ICIMF framework has prior theoretical grounding in earlier work by Kroupa and collaborators. However, the specific claim that the model 'provides a good fit' to the M_cluster,max-M_cloud relation is weakened by in-sample calibration: the slope beta of the embedded-cluster mass function is fitted from the same M_cluster,max values that the model then 'predicts', and the cloud-scale SFE is measured from the same clouds. Under the model's own optimal-sampling equations, beta and SFE fully set the normalization of the predicted relation, which has unit logarithmic slope for beta<2, whereas the observed slope is 0.796 +/- 0.082. The paper acknowledges the need for SFE or beta to vary with cloud properties, which further indicates that the fixed-parameter model is not an independent theoretical prediction. The core circularity is partial, not total: the existence of a correlation is not manufactured, but the quality of the theoretical 'fit' is largely a consistency check with in-sample parameters.

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

The central analysis adopts a uniform CO-to-H2 conversion factor, transfers a WISE 22 micron SFR calibration to JWST 21 micron maps, assumes a 5.1 Myr embedded phase from NGC 628, and assumes a single power-law embedded cluster mass function with optimal sampling. The most load-bearing free parameters are beta (from Fig. 10a) and SFE (from the same clouds). No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • beta (ECMF power-law slope) = ≈1.82 (Fig. 10a)
    Fitted to the mass function of the most massive clusters that define the M_cluster,max-M_cloud relation; central to the model curve.
  • SFE (cloud-scale star formation efficiency) = ≈1.4%
    Median SFE measured from the same clouds (Sec. 3.4), fixed in Eq 10 and the model fit.
  • alpha_CO (CO-to-H2 conversion factor) = 6.7 M_sun pc^-2 (K km s^-1)^-1
    Uniform conversion applied to all clouds via Eq 1; the paper acknowledges it may vary by galaxy and location.
  • t_fb,21um (embedded phase timescale) = ≈5.1 Myr
    Adopted from Kim et al. (2023) for NGC 628 and assumed to hold for all five galaxies in Eq 3.
  • M_ecl,min = 5 M_sun
    Lower bound of the ECMF in Eq 8, adopted from Kuhn et al. (2015).
  • M_ecl,up = 1e9 M_sun
    Upper bound in the normalization Eq 11, following Yan et al. (2017); paper says its value is unimportant when much larger than M_ecl,max.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The WISE 22 micron SFR surface density calibration (Eq 2) transfers to JWST F2100W 21 micron maps at cloud scale.
    Used to compute SFR and embedded stellar masses; no direct F2100W SFR calibration is presented.
  • domain assumption The embedded phase duration of 5.1 Myr measured in NGC 628 applies to all five galaxies.
    Stated in Sec 3.3: 'We assume this timescale is also applicable to the five galaxies in this work.'
  • domain assumption The embedded cluster mass function is a single power law with constant slope beta across all clouds.
    Eq 8 is the model's core functional form; beta is measured, but the power-law shape is assumed.
  • domain assumption Optimal sampling with the exact-one-object normalization (Eq 11) correctly determines the most massive cluster.
    The derivation of Eqs 12-13 relies on this sampling rule from Schulz et al. (2015).
  • domain assumption Ionized gas mass M_I is negligible relative to cloud mass, so Eq 7 omits it.
    Justified by low electron densities (about 1 cm^-3); if densities are underestimated, SFE shifts.
  • domain assumption Projected center matching within R_eff assigns clusters and associations to the correct cloud.
    All matching in Sec 3.2 uses projected distances only; line-of-sight associations are not accounted for.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The most massive star clusters in molecular clouds: Insights from the integrated cloud-wide initial mass function (ICIMF) theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4PQDPGOC

@misc{pith2026250623096,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The most massive star clusters in molecular clouds: Insights from the integrated cloud-wide initial mass function (ICIMF) theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4PQDPGOC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.23096}
}
abstract

The combination of the high-resolution ALMA, JWST and HST observations provides unprecedented insights into the connection between individual molecular clouds and their internal stellar populations in nearby galaxies. The molecular clouds in five nearby galaxies were identified based on the integrated intensity maps of CO (2$-$1) emission from ALMA observations. We used the JWST 21 $\mu$m data to estimate the star formation rate (SFR) surface density of the clouds and calculate the masses of the embedded stellar populations in the clouds. After matching the star cluster and stellar association catalogs derived from the HST observations with the identified molecular clouds, we found clear correlations between the physical parameters of molecular clouds and their internal stellar populations. Based on the masses of the total stellar populations and their corresponding clouds, we obtained a typical value of the cloud-scale star formation efficiency (SFE), $\approx$1.4\%. The mass of the most massive cluster ($M_{\rm cluster, max}$) in a cloud is positively proportional to the mass ($M_{\rm cloud}$), the column density, the SFR sand the SFR surface density of the cloud. The observed $M_{\rm cluster, max}$-$M_{\rm cloud}$ relation can be interpreted theoretically on the basis of the integrated cloud-wide IMF (ICIMF) theory, which provides a quantitative framework for understanding the correlations between molecular clouds and their internal stellar populations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.23096 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Correspondence between hierarchical gas structures (star-forming regions) and hierarchically integrated IMFs. "ICIMF" and "IGIMF" are the inte￾grated cloud-wide IMF and the integrated galaxy-wide IMF, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Some examples from Zhou et al. (2024a) are used to demonstrate the spatial distribution of molecular clouds in ALMA observation (the first row) and stellar populations in JWST (the second row) and HST (the third row) observations. Dashed cyan ellipses represent the effective ellipses of the molecular clouds. nearby galaxies. The JWST (James Webb Space Telescope) and HST (Hubble Space Telescope) observations can reve… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Background is the intergrated intensity map of CO (2−1) emission. Black ellipses represent leaf structures identified by the dendrogram algorithm. The scalebar shows the scale of 10 beam sizes. gas kinematics. Large-scale velocity gradients from the galaxy’s ro￾tation contribute to the non-thermal velocity dispersion. To address this, before extracting the average spectra, we removed the bulk mo￾tion due to galaxy r… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) The correlation between the mass of the cloud (𝑀cloud) and the total mass of the associations in the cloud (𝑀assoc,tot), i.e. the 𝑀assoc,tot- 𝑀cloud relation; (b) The correlation between 𝑀cloud and the mass of the most massive association (𝑀assoc,max) in the cloud,…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) and (b) The correlation between the mass of the cloud and the mass of the most massive cluster (𝑀cluster,max) in the cloud, i.e. the 𝑀cluster,max- 𝑀cloud relation. 𝑀cluster,max and 𝑀cluster,max,hum are derived from the machine learning-classified and the human-clas…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The correlation between the mass of the cloud and the mass of the total stellar populations (𝑀∗,tot) in the cloud, i.e. the 𝑀∗,tot-𝑀cloud relation. 𝑟 is the Pearson correlation coefficient. ΣSFR of the cloud and the mass of the most massive cluster in the cloud, i.e. t…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Comparison between 𝑀∗,tot,emb and 𝑀∗,tot; (b) Comparison between 𝑀cluster,max,emb and 𝑀cluster,max. 𝑟 is the Pearson correlation coef￾ficient. cloud is less than the effective radius of the cloud, we distributed these HII regions to the cloud. Generally, HII region…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) The correlation between the star formation rate (SFR) of the cloud and the mass of the most massive cluster in the cloud, i.e. the 𝑀cluster,max-SFRcloud relation; (b) The correlation between the SFR surface density of the cloud and 𝑀cluster,max, i.e. the 𝑀cluster,m…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The correlation between the star formation efficiency (SFE) of the cloud and the mass of the cloud. (a) Embedded stellar populations were not considered in the calculation of SFE; (b) Embedded stellar populations were considered. 𝑟 is the Pearson correlation coefficien…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The complementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF) plot and the linear fitting of the cluster mass function. The vertical dashed lines mark the mass range of the linear fitting. (a) The mass function of the most massive clusters associated with molecular clouds…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The 𝑀cluster,max-𝑀cloud relation fitted by the model based on the ICIMF theory presented in Sec.3.5. 𝑟 is the Pearson correlation coefficient. 𝛽 is the slope of the cluster mass function. SFE is the star formation efficiency. (2015); Yan et al. (2017, 2023). The optim…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2021, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Chevance , M. 2021, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 237, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 223.03

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    R., McLeod , A

    Chevance , M., Krumholz , M. R., McLeod , A. F., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 1, 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09570

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.09570 2023

  3. [3]

    Chevance , M., Kruijssen , J. M. D., Krumholz , M. R., et al. 2022, , 509, 272, 10.1093/mnras/stab2938

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2938 2022

  4. [4]

    D., Arriaga-Hern \'a ndez , J., Puerari , I., & Bruzual , G

    Cuevas-Otahola , B., Mayya , Y. D., Arriaga-Hern \'a ndez , J., Puerari , I., & Bruzual , G. 2023, , 525, 5262, 10.1093/mnras/stad2643

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2643 2023

  5. [5]

    A., Alatalo , K., Bureau , M., et al

    Davis , T. A., Alatalo , K., Bureau , M., et al. 2013, , 429, 534, 10.1093/mnras/sts353

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts353 2013

  6. [6]

    2022, , 666, A113, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243793

    Dib , S. 2022, , 666, A113, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243793

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243793 2022

  7. [7]

    Dib , S., Helou , G., Moore , T. J. T., Urquhart , J. S., & Dariush , A. 2012, , 758, 125, 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/125

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/758/2/125 2012

  8. [8]

    Dinnbier , F., Kroupa , P., & Anderson , R. I. 2022, , 660, A61, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142082

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142082 2022

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    V., Kreckel , K., Glover , S

    Egorov , O. V., Kreckel , K., Glover , S. C. O., et al. 2023, , 678, A153, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346919

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Elmegreen , B

    Elmegreen , D. M., Elmegreen , B. G., Adamo , A., et al. 2014, , 787, L15, 10.1088/2041-8205/787/1/L15

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    2022, , 659, A191, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141727

    Emsellem , E., Schinnerer , E., Santoro , F., et al. 2022, , 659, A191, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141727

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    A., Thilker , D., Elmegreen , B

    Gouliermis , D. A., Thilker , D., Elmegreen , B. G., et al. 2015, , 452, 3508, 10.1093/mnras/stv1325

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    A., Elmegreen , B

    Gouliermis , D. A., Elmegreen , B. G., Elmegreen , D. M., et al. 2017, , 468, 509, 10.1093/mnras/stx445

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    2017, , 840, 113, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6f15

    Grasha , K., Calzetti , D., Adamo , A., et al. 2017, , 840, 113, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6f15

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    2023, , 520, 4902, 10.1093/mnras/stad114

    Groves , B., Kreckel , K., Santoro , F., et al. 2023, , 520, 4902, 10.1093/mnras/stad114

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.05313, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.05313

    Haslbauer , M., Yan , Z., Jerabkova , T., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.05313, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.05313

    2024 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    2018, , 620, A39, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833055

    Jerabkova , T., Hasani Zonoozi , A., Kroupa , P., et al. 2018, , 620, A39, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833055

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    Kim , J., Chevance , M., Kruijssen , J. M. D., et al. 2021, , 504, 487, 10.1093/mnras/stab878

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    2022, , 516, 3006, 10.1093/mnras/stac2339

    ---. 2022, , 516, 3006, 10.1093/mnras/stac2339

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    2023, , 944, L20, 10.3847/2041-8213/aca90a

    ---. 2023, , 944, L20, 10.3847/2041-8213/aca90a

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    Kim , J.-G., Kim , W.-T., & Ostriker , E. C. 2016, , 819, 137, 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/137

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    1995 a , , 277, 1491, 10.1093/mnras/277.4.1491

    Kroupa , P. 1995 a , , 277, 1491, 10.1093/mnras/277.4.1491

    1995 doi

  15. [23]

    1995 b , , 277, 1507, 10.1093/mnras/277.4.1507

    ---. 1995 b , , 277, 1507, 10.1093/mnras/277.4.1507

    1995 doi

  16. [24]

    2005, in ESA Special Publication, Vol

    Kroupa , P. 2005, in ESA Special Publication, Vol. 576, The Three-Dimensional Universe with Gaia, ed. C. Turon , K. S. O'Flaherty , & M. A. C. Perryman , 629, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0412069

    2005 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    2015, Canadian Journal of Physics, 93, 169, 10.1139/cjp-2014-0179

    ---. 2015, Canadian Journal of Physics, 93, 169, 10.1139/cjp-2014-0179

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    2003, , 598, 1076, 10.1086/379105

    Kroupa , P., & Weidner , C. 2003, , 598, 1076, 10.1086/379105

    2003 doi

  19. [27]

    2013, in Planets, Stars and Stellar Systems

    Kroupa , P., Weidner , C., Pflamm-Altenburg , J., et al. 2013, in Planets, Stars and Stellar Systems. Volume 5: Galactic Structure and Stellar Populations, ed. T. D. Oswalt & G. Gilmore , Vol. 5, 115, 10.1007/978-94-007-5612-0_4

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    Kruijssen , J. M. D., Schruba , A., Chevance , M., et al. 2019, , 569, 519, 10.1038/s41586-019-1194-3

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    R., McKee , C

    Krumholz , M. R., McKee , C. F., & Bland-Hawthorn , J. 2019, , 57, 227, 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104430

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    A., Feigelson , E

    Kuhn , M. A., Feigelson , E. D., Getman , K. V., et al. 2015, , 812, 131, 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/131

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    J., & Lada , E

    Lada , C. J., & Lada , E. A. 2003, , 41, 57, 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094844

    2003 arXiv

  24. [32]

    L., Lee , J

    Larson , K. L., Lee , J. C., Thilker , D. A., et al. 2023, , 523, 6061, 10.1093/mnras/stad1600

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    C., Whitmore , B

    Lee , J. C., Whitmore , B. C., Thilker , D. A., et al. 2022, , 258, 10, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1fe5

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    C., Sandstrom , K

    Lee , J. C., Sandstrom , K. M., Leroy , A. K., et al. 2023, , 944, L17, 10.3847/2041-8213/acaaae

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    K., Schinnerer , E., Hughes , A., et al

    Leroy , A. K., Schinnerer , E., Hughes , A., et al. 2021 a , , 257, 43, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac17f3

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    K., Hughes , A., Liu , D., et al

    Leroy , A. K., Hughes , A., Liu , D., et al. 2021 b , , 255, 19, 10.3847/1538-4365/abec80

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    K., Rosolowsky , E., Usero , A., et al

    Leroy , A. K., Rosolowsky , E., Usero , A., et al. 2022, , 927, 149, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3490

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    C., Bolatto , A

    Levy , R. C., Bolatto , A. D., Mayya , D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.04135, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.04135

    2024 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    R., Vera-Ciro , C., Murray , C

    Lindner , R. R., Vera-Ciro , C., Murray , C. E., et al. 2015, , 149, 138, 10.1088/0004-6256/149/4/138

    2015 doi

  32. [40]

    T., Gutermuth , R., Muzerolle , J., et al

    Megeath , S. T., Gutermuth , R., Muzerolle , J., et al. 2016, , 151, 5, 10.3847/0004-6256/151/1/5

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    Miville-Desch \^e nes , M.-A., Murray , N., & Lee , E. J. 2017, , 834, 57, 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/57

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    Mok , A., Chandar , R., & Fall , S. M. 2020, , 893, 135, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7a14

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    D., et al

    Riener , M., Kainulainen , J., Henshaw , J. D., et al. 2019, , 628, A78, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935519

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    K., et al

    Rosolowsky , E., Hughes , A., Leroy , A. K., et al. 2021, , 502, 1218, 10.1093/mnras/stab085

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    W., Pineda , J

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

    2008 doi

  38. [46]

    2022, , 658, A188, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141907

    Santoro , F., Kreckel , K., Belfiore , F., et al. 2022, , 658, A188, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141907

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    2015, , 582, A93, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425296

    Schulz , C., Pflamm-Altenburg , J., & Kroupa , P. 2015, , 582, A93, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425296

    2015 doi

  40. [48]

    A., Whitmore , B

    Thilker , D. A., Whitmore , B. C., Lee , J. C., et al. 2022, , 509, 4094, 10.1093/mnras/stab3183

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    A., Dale , D

    Turner , J. A., Dale , D. A., Lee , J. C., et al. 2021, , 502, 1366, 10.1093/mnras/stab055

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    A., Dale , D

    Turner , J. A., Dale , D. A., Lilly , J., et al. 2022, , 516, 4612, 10.1093/mnras/stac2559

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    S., Wells , M

    Urquhart , J. S., Wells , M. R. A., Pillai , T., et al. 2022, , 510, 3389, 10.1093/mnras/stab3511

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    M., Johnson , L

    Wainer , T. M., Johnson , L. C., Seth , A. C., et al. 2022, , 928, 15, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac51cf

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    J., Kreckel , K., Groves , B., et al

    Watkins , E. J., Kreckel , K., Groves , B., et al. 2023, , 676, A67, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346075

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    2005, , 625, 754, 10.1086/429867

    Weidner , C., & Kroupa , P. 2005, , 625, 754, 10.1086/429867

    2005 doi

  47. [55]

    Weidner , C., Kroupa , P., & Larsen , S. S. 2004, , 350, 1503, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07758.x

    2004

  48. [56]

    2013, , 436, 3309, 10.1093/mnras/stt1806

    Weidner , C., Kroupa , P., Pflamm-Altenburg , J., & Vazdekis , A. 2013, , 436, 3309, 10.1093/mnras/stt1806

    2013 doi

  49. [57]

    C., Lee , J

    Whitmore , B. C., Lee , J. C., Chandar , R., et al. 2021, , 506, 5294, 10.1093/mnras/stab2087

    2021 doi

  50. [58]

    G., Lee , J

    Williams , T. G., Lee , J. C., Larson , K. L., et al. 2024, , 273, 13, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad4be5

    2024 doi

  51. [59]

    2017, , 607, A126, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730987

    Yan , Z., Jerabkova , T., & Kroupa , P. 2017, , 607, A126, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730987

    2017 doi

  52. [60]

    2023, , 670, A151, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244919

    ---. 2023, , 670, A151, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244919

    2023 doi

  53. [61]

    W., Dib , S., & Davis , T

    Zhou , J. W., Dib , S., & Davis , T. A. 2024 a , , 534, 683, 10.1093/mnras/stae2101

    2024 doi

  54. [63]

    2024 c , , 682, A128, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347377

    ---. 2024 c , , 682, A128, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347377

    2024 doi

  55. [64]

    2023, , 676, A69, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346500

    ---. 2023, , 676, A69, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346500

    2023 doi

  56. [65]

    W., Dib , S., Wyrowski , F., et al

    Zhou , J. W., Dib , S., Wyrowski , F., et al. 2024 d , , 682, A173, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348108

    2024 doi

Pith tools

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