Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 116 references

UVIT Study of the Magellanic Clouds (U-SMAC). III. Hierarchical Star Formation in the Small Magellanic Cloud Regulated by Turbulence

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Small Magellanic Cloud's youngest stars are distributed in a scale-free fractal hierarchy that matches the structure of the turbulent interstellar medium.

desk verdict New FUV catalog confirms SMC hierarchical star formation, but the fractal dimensions are at risk of measuring the KDE-contour pipeline rather than the stars. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08951 v1 pith:AAF6SCXC submitted 2025-06-10 astro-ph.GA

Sipra Hota , Richard de Grijs , Annapurni Subramaniam This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords SmallMagellanicCloudhierarchicalstarformationfractaldimensionsupersonicturbulencefar-ultravioletstarsAstroSatUVITinterstellarmediumstellarclustering
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

This paper claims that the spatial distribution of stars younger than 150 Myr in the Small Magellanic Cloud is hierarchical and scale-free, not random or smoothly clustered. Using far-ultraviolet observations from UVIT on AstroSat, the authors identify 236 young stellar structures whose sizes span from a few parsecs to several hundred parsecs. Their irregular boundaries yield a perimeter-area dimension of $D_p = 1.46 \pm 0.04$, and the number-size and size distributions give two-dimensional fractal dimensions $D_2 = 1.64 \pm 0.03$ and $D_2 = 1.31 \pm 0.16$. The surface density of the structures follows a log-normal distribution. If correct, this shows that the fractal geometry of supersonic turbulence in the interstellar medium is imprinted on the youngest massive stars across an entire galaxy and persists for roughly 200 Myr.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a contour-based analysis of a kernel-density-estimated surface density map. Stars are smoothed with a 10 pc Gaussian kernel; isodensity contours at $1\sigma$ through $10\sigma$ above the median define candidate structures, and each structure's boundary gives its perimeter, area, size, star count, and surface density. The load-bearing relations are the perimeter-area law $P \propto A^{D_p/2}$, which quantifies boundary irregularity, and the fractal relations $M \propto R^{D_2}$ and $N(>R) \propto R^{-D_2}$, which connect the number-size and size distributions to a two-dimensional fractal dimension. These same relations are what allow direct comparison with fractal dimensions of the turbulent interstellar medium.

What would settle it

Recompute the fractal dimensions from the same sample using kernel widths of 2, 5, 15, and 20 pc; if $D_2$ or $D_p$ shifts by more than the quoted uncertainties, the scale-free claim is an artifact of the 10 pc kernel. A Monte Carlo null model with the same number of stars placed in non-fractal random clusters should also fail to reproduce the log-normal surface density distribution and the fitted slopes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that young (less than about 150 Myr), massive FUV-selected stars in the SMC are not distributed uniformly but form a nested hierarchy of overdensities with fractal geometry. The authors derive $D_p = 1.46 \pm 0.04$ from the perimeter-area relation $P \propto A^{D_p/2}$ for structures larger than the 20 pc resolution threshold, and $D_2 = 1.64 \pm 0.03$ and $D_2 = 1.31 \pm 0.16$ from the number-size and size distributions. These values fall in the same range as fractal dimensions measured for the turbulent H I gas and dust in the SMC, and the log-normal surface density distribution likewise matches the signature of supersonic turbulence rather than a self-gravity-dominated power-law tail. The paper therefore concludes that star formation in the SMC is regulated by supersonic turbulence, with the gas's hierarchical structure copied onto the stellar population.

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation assumes the detected contours trace the true stellar clustering even though the 10 pc smoothing is as large as the structures themselves and the same stars are counted again inside larger nested contours.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The SMC's young stellar population has no preferred clustering scale between a few and hundreds of parsecs; structure exists at every level probed.
  • Fractal stellar clustering persists in populations with mean ages up to about 200 Myr, roughly doubling the previously inferred ~75 Myr dispersal timescale.
  • The log-normal surface density distribution points to supersonic turbulence, not self-gravity, as the dominant regulator of structure on these scales.
  • Young stellar structures in the SMC, LMC, and Milky Way show similar fractal dimensions, suggesting the same turbulence-driven mechanism operates across different galactic environments and metallicities.
  • The measured slopes are stable under changes in magnitude cutoff, minimum star count, and age selection, so the result does not depend on one particular completeness choice.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One test the paper leaves implicit is whether the fractal dimensions are independent of the smoothing kernel: if the 10 pc Gaussian is widened or narrowed and the fitted $D_p$ and $D_2$ change, the values describe the smoothed contours rather than the underlying stellar distribution.
  • Because the largest structure contains roughly three-quarters of the sample stars, a substantial fraction of the 'hierarchy' is nested within one giant overdensity; a non-fractal null model with the same nesting would show whether the slopes are forced by the contour-selection rules rather than by real clustering.
  • If turbulence is indeed the regulator, the measured fractal dimension of the stellar distribution should locally track the velocity dispersion of the H I gas; this correlation could be checked with existing 21 cm data.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper uses the FUV catalog of Hota et al. (2024) to study the spatial clustering of ~20,800 SMC stars with FUV magnitudes brighter than 17.5 mag (ages <150 Myr). A KDE surface-density map with a 10 pc Gaussian kernel is contoured at 1–10σ, and 236 candidate structures satisfying Nmin=5 (and nested-enclosure for 1σ/2σ contours) are retained. The authors measure a perimeter-area dimension Dp=1.46±0.04 (Section 3.1), a number-size fractal dimension D2=1.64±0.03 (Section 3.2), a size-distribution dimension D2=1.31±0.16 (Section 3.3), a power-law number distribution slope of -0.8±0.1, and a log-normal surface density distribution. They report stability across magnitude cutoffs 16–18 mag, Nmin=3–5, and two sub-populations, and interpret the results as evidence that hierarchical star formation in the SMC is regulated by supersonic turbulence and persists to ~200 Myr.

Significance. If the quantitative dimensions were robust, this would be an important result: the first FUV galaxy-wide demonstration that the spatial distribution of young massive stars in the SMC is scale-free/hierarchical and similar to the turbulent ISM, extending the age range over which such structure is seen and complementing VMC-based studies. The paper's strengths are its explicit robustness checks of magnitude cutoff, Nmin, and age, its consistency of the perimeter-area dimension with literature ISM values, and the FUV tracer's sensitivity to the youngest massive stars. However, the Dp and D2 values are fitted slopes of structures defined by a smoothed contour pipeline, and the major comments below identify unresolved questions about whether those slopes are intrinsic to the stellar distribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.2–§3.3] The adopted 10 pc KDE kernel is larger than the peak (5.6 pc) and median (8.2 pc) of the structure size distribution, yet §3.3 states that structures smaller than 10 pc are not resolved. The number–size fit in §3.2 that yields D2=1.64 has no stated range and appears to include these unresolved small-R points. Please specify the fit range and rerun the fit with R≥10 pc; if the slope changes materially, the quoted D2 should not be presented as a property of the stellar distribution.
  2. [§2.3, Tables 1–2] The detection rule that 1σ and 2σ structures must enclose higher-σ contours means the same physical stars are counted in nested structures. Table 1 shows one 1σ structure containing 15,424 of the ~20,800 sample stars, and Table 2 gives Nsum=15,734 for all five 1σ structures. The number-size fit is therefore dominated by a single nested object. Please test the sensitivity by (i) counting only stars that are not members of a smaller enclosed structure and (ii) computing a direct star-based fractal dimension (e.g., a two-point correlation dimension) that does not depend on contour nesting.
  3. [§2.2, §4.1, Fig. 8] The robustness tests in Figure 8 vary magnitude cutoff, Nmin, and age, but do not vary the KDE kernel width, despite §2.2 stating that 5–20 pc widths were tested with no quantitative comparison, nor do they vary the nesting criterion. Given that the reported structure sizes are at or below the 10 pc kernel, a kernel-width sweep with the measured Dp and D2 values per kernel is needed to establish that the dimensions are not artifacts of the smoothing scale.
  4. [§4.2] The claim that D2=1.64±0.03 is consistent with the SMC H I and dust fractal dimension of 1.4–1.5 (Stanimirovic et al. 1999, 2000) is not supported by the quoted errors; 1.64 is ~5σ above 1.5. Only the size-distribution value D2=1.31±0.16 overlaps. Please either revise the comparison or discuss the offset, since this agreement is a key part of the turbulence-inheritance argument.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and §3.1] The abstract quotes Dp = 1.46 ± 0.4, while §3.1 and the conclusions quote 1.46 ± 0.04; the abstract is presumably a typo and should be corrected.
  2. [Table 2] The table note says 'columns 1 to 7' but the table has nine columns; update the note.
  3. [§3.3] The log-normal fit to surface density is obtained after excluding two low-density structures and all R≤10 pc structures; state these exclusions explicitly in the main text and quantify how sensitive the log-normal conclusion is to them.
  4. [§4.1] The 'Young 1', 'Young 2', 'Young 3', and 'Blue Loop' populations are referenced without definition in this paper; a sentence defining their CMD selection and age ranges (or a reference to the companion paper) is needed.
  5. [§4.3] The citation 'Miller et al. 2024, ; A. Miller et al., submitted' contains a stray semicolon and an incomplete reference; correct it.
  6. [References] Tobias & Santiago (2020) is cited as an arXiv e-print; if a published version exists, it should be cited instead.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the paper reports fitted measurements and compares them with external data; kernel and nesting choices are robustness risks, not circular steps.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claims—Dp = 1.46 ± 0.04, D2 = 1.64 ± 0.03, D2 = 1.31 ± 0.16, and the log-normal surface-density distribution—are least-squares fits and histogram characterizations of the detected structures; they are measurements, not predictions, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction step. The 10 pc KDE kernel and the 1σ/2σ enclosing criterion are methodological choices that can bias the contours, and the paper itself notes that structures below 10 pc are unresolved and that the missing power-law tail may reflect this resolution limit; these are robustness concerns, not circular reasoning, because no claimed result is assumed in its own derivation. The catalog from Hota et al. (2024b) is a data input, not a self-citation that smuggles in the conclusion, and the comparisons to Sun et al. (2018), Miller et al. (2022), and ISM studies are external benchmarks or analogies. The nesting criterion guarantees some nested geometry at 1σ/2σ by construction, but the fractal dimensions come from the size and number distributions of all 236 structures and are not logically forced by that selection rule. Therefore no specific reduction of the conclusions to the inputs can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a catalog from the authors' own prior work (H24), on standard KDE and contour methods, on the assumption that FUV-selected star counts trace masses, and on the molecular-cloud result that log-normal density distributions indicate supersonic turbulence. The paper introduces no new physical entities. The free parameters that shape the quantitative results are the smoothing kernel width, detection thresholds, and post-hoc fit boundaries; the paper tests some of these choices (magnitude cutoffs, Nmin) but not all (kernel width, nesting bias, goodness of fit).

free parameters (8)
  • KDE kernel width = 10 pc
    Section 2.2: chosen after testing 5 to 20 pc; sets the resolution floor, which is larger than the size-distribution peak (5.6 pc) and similar to the median structure size (8.2 pc).
  • Nmin minimum member count = 5 stars
    Section 2.3: adopted from Bastian et al. 2007, Gouliermis et al. 2017, Sun et al. 2018, and Miller et al. 2022; the authors call the choice arbitrary. Tested at 3 and 4.
  • Significance levels for structure detection = 1σ to 10σ in steps of 1σ
    Section 2.3: the contour levels define which overdensities count as structures; the demographics in Table 2 depend strongly on level.
  • Perimeter-area fit threshold A20 = R = 20 pc (A ≈ 1.3e3 pc²)
    Section 3.1: chosen so resolution effects are negligible; structures below the threshold are excluded from the Dp fit.
  • Size-distribution fit range = 10 to 100 pc
    Section 3.3: chosen post hoc to avoid unresolved structures (R < 10 pc) and the three galaxy-scale structures (R > 100 pc); the fitted slope defines D2 = 1.31 ± 0.16.
  • Number-distribution fit range = N = 30 to 1000
    Section 3.3: chosen to avoid incompleteness at low N and noise at high N; fitted slope is -0.8 ± 0.1.
  • Surface-density exclusions = Exclude 2 structures with Σ < 0.03 pc⁻² and all R ≤ 10 pc
    Section 3.3: applied before fitting the log-normal; the paper notes these structures introduce statistical noise.
  • FUV magnitude cutoff = 17.5 mag (tests at 16, 16.5, 17, 18)
    Section 2.1: selects stars younger than 150 Myr with completeness greater than 90 percent; stability across cutoffs is tested.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption PARSEC isochrones with distance modulus 18.96, Z = 0.002, and E(B-V) = 0.05 map FUV magnitudes brighter than 17.5 to ages younger than 150 Myr.
    Section 2.1: the age selection of the sample rests on these stellar models and reddening assumptions; errors in distance modulus, metallicity, or extinction shift the age boundary.
  • domain assumption The number of detected FUV stars N within a structure is a reliable proxy for the structure's mass, so the N-R slope equals the mass-size fractal dimension D2.
    Section 3.2: the paper states this explicitly, citing that massive-star mass-size relations share the slope of the full population; the IMF is not fully sampled at FUV wavelengths.
  • domain assumption Contour-based isodensity detection on a KDE-smoothed map recovers the physical hierarchy of star-forming structures rather than artifacts of the smoothing or threshold choices.
    Sections 2.2 and 2.3: adopted from Gouliermis et al. 2015, 2017, Sun et al. 2018, and Miller et al. 2022. This is the core methodological premise; the nesting of low- and high-significance contours is imposed by the detection criteria.
  • domain assumption A log-normal surface density distribution of young stellar structures indicates dominance of supersonic turbulence.
    Section 4.2: the link from log-normal density to turbulence (Padoan & Nordlund 2002; Federrath et al. 2010) is taken from the molecular-cloud literature; the paper assumes it transfers to stellar structures.
  • domain assumption Least-squares power-law fitting in log-log space yields unbiased fractal-dimension estimates for the nested structure population.
    Sections 3.1 to 3.3: no treatment of correlated, nested data points and no bootstrap; fit ranges (R > 20 pc for perimeter-area, 10 to 100 pc for size, 30 to 1000 for number) are chosen post hoc.
  • domain assumption The spatial distribution of young stars statistically mirrors the ISM gas distribution, with minimal dynamical evolution between them.
    Section 4.2: the inference that stellar fractal structure is inherited from the ISM requires that stellar motions do not erase the pattern over about 150 to 200 Myr; the paper states 'dynamical evolutionary effects between the two are likely minimal' without quantitative modeling.
  • standard math Zenithal equidistant projection and kernel density estimation with a Gaussian kernel are standard, unbiased tools for this analysis.
    Section 2.2: projection follows van der Marel & Cioni 2001; KDE is a standard estimator, but its bandwidth choice is a free parameter of the analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of UVIT Study of the Magellanic Clouds (U-SMAC). III. Hierarchical Star Formation in the Small Magellanic Cloud Regulated by Turbulence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AAF6SCXC

@misc{pith2026250608951,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: UVIT Study of the Magellanic Clouds (U-SMAC). III. Hierarchical Star Formation in the Small Magellanic Cloud Regulated by Turbulence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AAF6SCXC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08951}
}
read the original abstract

The Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC), a satellite galaxy of the Milky Way, is an irregular dwarf galaxy exhibiting evidence of recent and ongoing star formation. We performed a spatial clustering analysis of far-ultraviolet stars in the SMC younger than 150 Myr using data from the Ultra Violet Imaging Telescope onboard AstroSat. We identified 236 young stellar structures as surface overdensities at different significance levels. The sizes of these structures range from a few parsecs to several hundred parsecs. Their irregular morphologies are characterized by a perimeter-area dimension, derived from the projected boundaries of the young stellar structures, of Dp = 1.46 +/- 0.4. The 2D fractal dimensions obtained from, respectively, the number-size relation and the size distribution are D2 = 1.64 +/- 0.03 and D2 = 1.31 +/- 0.16. These values indicate significant lumpiness among the young stellar structures. In addition, the surface density distribution of the identified structures follows a log-normal distribution. These features are strikingly similar to those of the turbulent interstellar medium, thus supporting the scenario of hierarchical star formation regulated by supersonic turbulence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08951 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FUV–optical color–magnitude Hess diagram of the most probable FUV stars (∼62,900) in the SMC. The color bar represents the number of stars in each color–magnitude bin. The white dashed line represents our FUV magnitude cutoff at 17.5 mag. and visible (VIS; 350—550 nm) wavebands. The VIS observations are used primarily for drift correction result￾ing from the spacecraft’s motion (Tandon et al. 2017a). UVIT has a fiel… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Surface density map (kernel density estimation) of the SMC. The color bar represents the number of stars pc−2 . The bar, shell, and inner wing of the SMC are marked with black arrows. XY are the projected coordinates, with the optical center at αSMC = 00h 52m12s .5, δSMC = −72◦ 49′ 43′′ (J2000; de Vaucouleurs & Freeman 1972). The SMC’s spherical coordinates were projected onto the XY plane using the zenithal equidis… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Detected young stellar structures colored by their significance levels. 3.1. Perimeter–Area relation From the contour plot ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Perimeter vs. area of the detected young stellar structures. The black dashed line represents the area cut-off, A20 ≈ 1.3×103 pc2 , which corresponds to a size of R = 20 pc. For areas beyond this cut-off radius, the data is fitted with a single power-law function (as i…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Power-law fits to the relationship between the numbers and sizes of the detected young stellar structures at different significance levels. Since the number of data points at significance levels > 7σ is small, we combined all data points for significance levels 8–10σ. …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distributions of (a) size, (b) number, and (c) surface density for the identified young stellar structures. In panels (a) and (b), the blue dashed lines indicate the range of data points used for power-law fitting, with the slope of the fit denoted by α. Panel (c) disp…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the power-law slopes derived from the distributions of the number and size, perimeter–area, and number–size relationships, under varying constraints for Nmin, magnitude cut-off, different populations, and literature results for the LMC and SMC. The labels…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

116 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  2. [2]

    2007, MNRAS, 379, 1302, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12064.x

    Bastian, N., Ercolano, B., Gieles, M., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 1302, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12064.x

    arXiv 2007

  3. [4]

    R., Clarke, C

    Bate, M. R., Clarke, C. J., & McCaughrean, M. J. 1998, MNRAS, 297, 1163, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01565.x

    arXiv 1998

  4. [5]

    1991, A&A, 244, 69

    Battinelli, P. 1991, A&A, 244, 69

    1991

  5. [6]

    1987, Ap&SS, 133, 193, doi: 10.1007/BF00637432

    Beech, M. 1987, Ap&SS, 133, 193, doi: 10.1007/BF00637432

    doi:10.1007/bf00637432 1987

  6. [7]

    2009, PASA, 26, 37, doi: 10.1071/AS08020

    Bekki, K., & Chiba, M. 2009, PASA, 26, 37, doi: 10.1071/AS08020

    doi:10.1071/as08020 2009

  7. [8]

    J., et al

    Belokurov, V., Erkal, D., Deason, A. J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4711, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3357

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3357 2017

  8. [9]

    A., & Tafalla, M

    Bergin, E. A., & Tafalla, M. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 339, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.071206.100404

    arXiv 2007

Show all 116 references
  1. [10]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 668, 949

    Besla, G., Kallivayalil, N., Hernquist, L., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 668, 949

    2007

  2. [11]

    P., et al

    Besla, G., Mart ´ ınez-Delgado, D., van der Marel, R. P., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, 20, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/20

    2016 doi

  3. [12]

    M., & Santos, J

    Bica, E., Bonatto, C., Dutra, C. M., & Santos, J. F. C. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 678, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13612.x 13

    2008

  4. [13]

    2010, MNRAS, 403, 996, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16177.x

    Bonatto, C., & Bica, E. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 996, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16177.x

    2010

  5. [14]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    2012

  6. [15]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245, doi: 10.1086/167900

    1989 doi

  7. [16]

    Cartwright, A., & Whitworth, A. P. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 589, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07360.x

    2004

  8. [17]

    Cioni, M. R. L., Habing, H. J., & Israel, F. P. 2000a, A&A, 358, L9, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0005057

    doi arXiv

  9. [18]

    Cioni, M. R. L., van der Marel, R. P., Loup, C., & Habing, H. J. 2000b, A&A, 359, 601, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0003223

    doi arXiv

  10. [19]

    Cioni, M. R. L., Clementini, G., Girardi, L., et al. 2011, A&A, 527, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016137

    2011 doi

  11. [20]

    H., Greason, M

    Cornett, R. H., Greason, M. R., Hill, J. K., et al. 1997, AJ, 113, 1011, doi: 10.1086/118317 de Grijs, R., & Bono, G. 2015, AJ, 149, 179, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/6/179 De Leo, M., Carrera, R., No¨ el, N. E. D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 98, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1122 de Vau...

    1997 doi

  12. [21]

    Ghosh, S. K. 2023, ApJ, 946, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acba9c

    2023 doi

  13. [22]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 2274, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae096

    Subramanian, S. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 2274, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae096

    2024 doi

  14. [23]

    O., Barbuy, B., et al

    Dias, B., Kerber, L. O., Barbuy, B., et al. 2014, A&A, 561, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322092

    2014 doi

  15. [24]

    S., Oliveira, R

    Dias, B., Angelo, M. S., Oliveira, R. A. P., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040015

    2021 doi

  16. [25]

    C., Angelo, M., et al

    Dias, B., Parisi, M. C., Angelo, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 4334, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac259

    2022 doi

  17. [26]

    L., Horvath, M

    Dickman, R. L., Horvath, M. A., & Margulis, M. 1990, ApJ, 365, 586, doi: 10.1086/169512 Duchˆ ene, G., Bouvier, J., Bontemps, S., Andr´ e, P., & Motte, F. 2004, A&A, 427, 651, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041209 El Youssoufi, D., Cioni, M.-R. L., Bell, C. P. M., et al. 2019, MNRAS...

    1990 doi

  18. [27]

    Elmegreen, B. G. 1993, ApJL, 419, L29, doi: 10.1086/187129 —. 2000, ApJ, 530, 277, doi: 10.1086/308361 —. 2011, ApJ, 731, 61, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/61

    1993 doi

  19. [28]

    G., & Efremov, Y

    Elmegreen, B. G., & Efremov, Y. N. 1996, ApJ, 466, 802, doi: 10.1086/177554

    1996 doi

  20. [29]

    G., & Elmegreen, D

    Elmegreen, B. G., & Elmegreen, D. M. 2001, AJ, 121, 1507, doi: 10.1086/319416

    2001 doi

  21. [30]

    G., & Falgarone, E

    Elmegreen, B. G., & Falgarone, E. 1996a, ApJ, 471, 816, doi: 10.1086/178009 —. 1996b, ApJ, 471, 816, doi: 10.1086/178009

    doi

  22. [31]

    G., Kim, S., & Staveley-Smith, L

    Elmegreen, B. G., Kim, S., & Staveley-Smith, L. 2001, ApJ, 548, 749, doi: 10.1086/319021

    2001 doi

  23. [32]

    G., & Scalo, J

    Elmegreen, B. G., & Scalo, J. 2004, ARA&A, 42, 211, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094859

    2004 arXiv

  24. [33]

    G., & Walker, C

    Falgarone, E., Phillips, T. G., & Walker, C. K. 1991a, ApJ, 378, 186, doi: 10.1086/170419 —. 1991b, ApJ, 378, 186, doi: 10.1086/170419

    doi

  25. [34]

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

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

    2010 doi

  26. [35]

    V., & Galinski, T

    Feitzinger, J. V., & Galinski, T. 1987, A&A, 179, 249 Gaia Collaboration, Luri, X., Chemin, L., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039588

    1987 doi

  27. [36]

    T., Sawa, T., & Fujimoto, M

    Gardiner, L. T., Sawa, T., & Fujimoto, M. 1994, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 266, 567, doi: 10.1093/mnras/266.3.567

    1994 doi

  28. [37]

    2008, MNRAS, 391, L93, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00563.x

    Gieles, M., Bastian, N., & Ercolano, B. 2008, MNRAS, 391, L93, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00563.x

    2008

  29. [38]

    2008, PASP, 120, 583, doi: 10.1086/588526

    Girardi, L., Dalcanton, J., Williams, B., et al. 2008, PASP, 120, 583, doi: 10.1086/588526

    2008 doi

  30. [39]

    K., & Koch, A

    Glatt, K., Grebel, E. K., & Koch, A. 2010, A&A, 517, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014187

    2010 doi

  31. [40]

    J., & Hewett, R

    Gomez, M., Hartmann, L., Kenyon, S. J., & Hewett, R. 1993, AJ, 105, 1927, doi: 10.1086/116567

    1993 doi

  32. [41]

    D., Fitzpatrick, E

    Gordon, K. D., Fitzpatrick, E. L., Massa, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4be1

    2024 doi

  33. [42]

    A., Hony, S., & Klessen, R

    Gouliermis, D. A., Hony, S., & Klessen, R. S. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 3775, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu228

    2014 doi

  34. [43]

    A., Schmeja, S., Klessen, R

    Gouliermis, D. A., Schmeja, S., Klessen, R. S., de Blok, W. J. G., & Walter, F. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1717, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/1717

    2010 doi

  35. [44]

    A., Thilker, D., Elmegreen, B

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

    2015 doi

  36. [45]

    A., Elmegreen, B

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

    2017 doi

  37. [46]

    B., et al

    Graczyk, D., Pietrzy´ nski, G., Thompson, I. B., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbb2b

    2020 doi

  38. [47]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6f15

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

    2017 doi

  39. [48]

    Gusev, A. S. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 3711, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1095

    2014 doi

  40. [49]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  41. [50]

    2009, AJ, 138, 1243, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/138/5/1243

    Harris, J., & Zaritsky, D. 2009, AJ, 138, 1243, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/138/5/1243

    2009 doi

  42. [51]

    K., & Duffau, S

    Haschke, R., Grebel, E. K., & Duffau, S. 2011, AJ, 141, 158, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/5/158

    2011 doi

  43. [52]

    Hetem, A., J., & Lepine, J. R. D. 1993, A&A, 270, 451 14

    1993

  44. [53]

    V., Kerr, F

    Hindman, J. V., Kerr, F. J., & McGee, R. X. 1963, Australian Journal of Physics, 16, 570, doi: 10.1071/PH630570

    1963 doi

  45. [54]

    1985, PASP, 97, 530, doi: 10.1086/131564

    Hodge, P. 1985, PASP, 97, 530, doi: 10.1086/131564

    1985 doi

  46. [55]

    R., Cioni, M.-R

    Hota, S., Subramaniam, A., Dhanush, S. R., Cioni, M.-R. L., & Subramanian, S. 2024a, MNRAS, 532, 322, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1438

    doi

  47. [56]

    K., & Subramanian, S

    Hota, S., Subramaniam, A., Nayak, P. K., & Subramanian, S. 2024b, AJ, 168, 255, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad7de2

    doi

  48. [57]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  49. [58]

    J., Demers, S., & Kunkel, W

    Irwin, M. J., Demers, S., & Kunkel, W. E. 1990, AJ, 99, 191, doi: 10.1086/115319

    1990 doi

  50. [59]

    J., Kunkel, W

    Irwin, M. J., Kunkel, W. E., & Demers, S. 1985, Nature, 318, 160, doi: 10.1038/318160a0 Jim´ enez-Arranz,´O., Romero-G´ omez, M., Luri, X., &

    1985 doi

  51. [60]

    2023, A&A, 672, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245720

    Masana, E. 2023, A&A, 672, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245720

    2023 doi

  52. [61]

    P., & Alcock, C

    Kallivayalil, N., van der Marel, R. P., & Alcock, C. 2006, ApJ, 652, 1213, doi: 10.1086/508014

    2006 doi

  53. [62]

    A., et al

    Kim, S., Staveley-Smith, L., Dopita, M. A., et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 473, doi: 10.1086/376980

    2003 doi

  54. [63]

    Klessen, R. S. 2000, ApJ, 535, 869, doi: 10.1086/308854

    2000 doi

  55. [64]

    Konstandin, L., Girichidis, P., Federrath, C., & Klessen, R. S. 2012, ApJ, 761, 149, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/149

    2012 doi

  56. [65]

    R., & Burkhart, B

    Krumholz, M. R., & Burkhart, B. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 1671, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw434

    2016 doi

  57. [66]

    K., Hutchings, J., et al

    Kumar, A., Ghosh, S. K., Hutchings, J., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8443, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2012: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. T. Takahashi, S. S. Murray, & J.-W. A. den Herder, 84431N, d...

    2012 doi

  58. [67]

    J., & Lada, E

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

    2003 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Larson, R. B. 1995, MNRAS, 272, 213, doi: 10.1093/mnras/272.1.213 —. 2003, Reports on Progress in Physics, 66, 1651, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/66/10/R03

    1995 doi

  60. [69]

    2000, ApJ, 537, 720, doi: 10.1086/309040

    Lazarian, A., & Pogosyan, D. 2000, ApJ, 537, 720, doi: 10.1086/309040

    2000 doi

  61. [70]

    S., et al

    Lee, Y., Li, D., Kim, Y. S., et al. 2016, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 49, 255, doi: 10.5303/JKAS.2016.49.6.255

    2016 doi

  62. [71]

    Lemasle, B., Groenewegen, M. A. T., Grebel, E. K., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731370

    2017 doi

  63. [72]

    2018, A&A, 616, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832727

    Lindegren, L., Hern´ andez, J., Bombrun, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832727

    2018 doi

  64. [73]

    1992, A&A, 257, 505

    Liu, Y.-Z. 1992, A&A, 257, 505

    1992

  65. [74]

    J., & Alves, J

    Lombardi, M., Lada, C. J., & Alves, J. 2010, A&A, 512, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912670

    2010 doi

  66. [75]

    J., et al

    Lucchini, S., D’Onghia, E., Fox, A. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 203, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2663-4

    2020 doi

  67. [76]

    B., & Hodge, P

    Lucke, P. B., & Hodge, P. W. 1970, AJ, 75, 171, doi: 10.1086/110959

    1970 doi

  68. [77]

    Mandelbrot, B. B. 1983, The fractal geometry of nature (San

    1983

  69. [78]

    H., et al

    Maragoudaki, F., Kontizas, M., Morgan, D. H., et al. 2001, A&A, 379, 864, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011454

    2001 doi

  70. [79]

    Massana, P., No¨ el, N. E. D., Nidever, D. L., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 1034, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2451

    2020 doi

  71. [80]

    Massana, P., Ruiz-Lara, T., No¨ el, N. E. D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, L40, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac030

    2022 doi

  72. [81]

    E., Cioni, M.-R

    Miller, A. E., Cioni, M.-R. L., de Grijs, R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 1196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac508

    2022 doi

  73. [82]

    E., Slepian, Z., Lada, E

    Miller, A. E., Slepian, Z., Lada, E. A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.14186, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.14186

    2024 doi

  74. [83]

    2019, AJ, 158, 229, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab4ea1 —

    Mondal, C., Subramaniam, A., & George, K. 2019, AJ, 158, 229, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab4ea1 —. 2021a, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 42, 50, doi: 10.1007/s12036-021-09761-z

    2019 doi

  75. [84]

    2021b, ApJ, 909, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe0b4

    Mondal, C., Subramaniam, A., George, K., et al. 2021b, ApJ, 909, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe0b4

    doi

  76. [85]

    2007, MNRAS, 381, L11, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00356.x

    Muller, E., & Bekki, K. 2007, MNRAS, 381, L11, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00356.x

    2007

  77. [86]

    L., et al

    Nestingen-Palm, D., Stanimirovic, S., Babler, B. L., et al. 2017, in American Astronomical Society Meeting

    2017

  78. [87]

    229, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #229, 435.05 O’Donnell, J

    Abstracts, Vol. 229, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #229, 435.05 O’Donnell, J. E. 1994, ApJ, 422, 158, doi: 10.1086/173713

    1994 doi

  79. [88]

    Oliveira, R. A. P., Maia, F. F. S., Barbuy, B., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2244, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1827

    2023 doi

  80. [89]

    2002, ApJ, 576, 870, doi: 10.1086/341790

    Padoan, P., & Nordlund, ˚A. 2002, ApJ, 576, 870, doi: 10.1086/341790

    2002 doi

  81. [90]

    2016, ApJ, 822, 11, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/11

    Padoan, P., Pan, L., Haugbølle, T., & Nordlund, ˚A. 2016, ApJ, 822, 11, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/11

    2016 doi

  82. [91]

    M., Lee, M.-Y., Burkhart, B., & Stanimirovi´ c, S

    Pingel, N. M., Lee, M.-Y., Burkhart, B., & Stanimirovi´ c, S. 2018, ApJ, 856, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab34b

    2018 doi

  83. [92]

    B., & Leahy, D

    Postma, J., Hutchings, J. B., & Leahy, D. 2011, PASP, 123, 833, doi: 10.1086/661187

    2011 doi

  84. [93]

    E., Gibson, B

    Putman, M. E., Gibson, B. K., Staveley-Smith, L., et al. 1998a, Nature, 394, 752, doi: 10.1038/29466 —. 1998b, Nature, 394, 752, doi: 10.1038/29466

    doi

  85. [94]

    2025, A&A, 695, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452471

    Vallenari, A. 2025, A&A, 695, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452471

    2025 doi

  86. [95]

    L., Moretti, M

    Ripepi, V., Cioni, M.-R. L., Moretti, M. I., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 808, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2096 15

    2017 doi

  87. [96]

    M., Heyer, M., Rathborne, J., & Simon, R

    Roman-Duval, J., Jackson, J. M., Heyer, M., Rathborne, J., & Simon, R. 2010, ApJ, 723, 492, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/492

    2010 doi

  88. [97]

    2008, A&A, 488, 731, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065661

    Romaniello, M., Primas, F., Mottini, M., et al. 2008, A&A, 488, 731, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065661

    2008 doi

  89. [98]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 5017, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1279

    Rubele, S., Pastorelli, G., Girardi, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 5017, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1279

    2018 doi

  90. [99]

    C., & Dopita, M

    Russell, S. C., & Dopita, M. A. 1992, ApJ, 384, 508, doi: 10.1086/170893 S´ anchez, N., & Alfaro, E. J. 2008, ApJS, 178, 1, doi: 10.1086/589653 Sewi lo, M., Carlson, L. R., Seale, J. P., et al. 2013, ApJ, 778, 15, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/15

    1992 doi

  91. [100]

    M., Skowron, J., Udalski, A., et al

    Skowron, D. M., Skowron, J., Udalski, A., et al. 2021, ApJS, 252, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abcb81 Stanimirovi´ c, S., & Lazarian, A. 2001, ApJL, 551, L53, doi: 10.1086/319837

    2021 doi

  92. [101]

    M., Sault, R

    Stanimirovic, S., Staveley-Smith, L., Dickey, J. M., Sault, R. J., & Snowden, S. L. 1999, MNRAS, 302, 417, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02013.x

    1999

  93. [102]

    M., et al

    Stanimirovic, S., Staveley-Smith, L., van der Hulst, J. M., et al. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 791, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03480.x

    2000

  94. [103]

    N., Hutchings, J., et al

    Subramaniam, A., Tandon, S. N., Hutchings, J., et al. 2016, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, T. Takahashi, & M. Bautz, Vol. 9905, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 99051F, doi: 10.1117/12.2235271

    2016 doi

  95. [104]

    2017a, ApJ, 849, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa911e —

    Sun, N.-C., de Grijs, R., Subramanian, S., et al. 2017a, ApJ, 849, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa911e —. 2017b, ApJ, 835, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/171

    doi

  96. [105]

    L., et al

    Sun, N.-C., de Grijs, R., Cioni, M.-R. L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 858, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabc50

    2018 doi

  97. [106]

    N., Hutchings, J

    Tandon, S. N., Hutchings, J. B., Ghosh, S. K., et al. 2017a, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 38, 28, doi: 10.1007/s12036-017-9445-x

    doi

  98. [107]

    N., Subramaniam, A., Girish, V., et al

    Tandon, S. N., Subramaniam, A., Girish, V., et al. 2017b, AJ, 154, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa8451

    doi

  99. [108]

    N., Postma, J., Joseph, P., et al

    Tandon, S. N., Postma, J., Joseph, P., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab72a3

    2020 doi

  100. [109]

    L., van Loon, J

    Tatton, B. L., van Loon, J. T., Cioni, M.-R. L., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 2983, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3857

    2021 doi

  101. [110]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2008.00037, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2008.00037 van der Marel, R

    Tobias, C., & Santiago, H. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2008.00037, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2008.00037 van der Marel, R. P., & Cioni, M.-R. L. 2001, AJ, 122, 1807, doi: 10.1086/323099

    2020 doi arXiv

  102. [111]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 437, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2612 V´ azquez-Semadeni, E., Gonz´ alez-Samaniego, A., & Col ´ ın, P

    Vasiliev, E. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 437, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2612 V´ azquez-Semadeni, E., Gonz´ alez-Samaniego, A., & Col ´ ın, P. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 1313, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3229

    2023 doi

  103. [112]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  104. [113]

    Vogelaar, M. G. R., & Wakker, B. P. 1994, A&A, 291, 557

    1994

  105. [114]

    K., & Thompson, I

    Zaritsky, D., Harris, J., Grebel, E. K., & Thompson, I. B. 2000, ApJL, 534, L53, doi: 10.1086/312649

    2000 doi

  106. [115]

    2002, AJ, 123, 855, doi: 10.1086/338437

    Massey, P. 2002, AJ, 123, 855, doi: 10.1086/338437

    2002 doi

  107. [116]

    P., et al

    Zivick, P., Kallivayalil, N., van der Marel, R. P., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad4b0

    2018 doi

  108. [117]

    2019, ApJ, 874, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0554

    Zivick, P., Kallivayalil, N., Besla, G., et al. 2019, ApJ, 874, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0554

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.