Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

The most massive core always holds ~25% of the total core mass, across a 100-fold range in growth.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 18:40 UTC pith:BCHHVXCO

load-bearing objection The constant top-three core mass fractions are a real, clean empirical result, but the paper's central temporal story rests on an unvalidated cross-sectional proxy and a co-author's theory that is fitted rather than tested. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.17215 v1 pith:BCHHVXCO submitted 2026-07-19 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Super-Jeans Fragmentation and Supply-Limited Accretion: Environment-Dependent Co-Evolution of Low- and High-Mass Cores

Dan Miao , Guang-Xing Li , Patricio Sanhueza This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR
keywords star formationprotostellar coresinfrared dark cloudscore mass functionmass segregationsuper-Jeans fragmentationsupply-limited accretionGini coefficient
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to establish that the seeds of high-mass stars gain their mass dominance very early in the life of a star-forming clump, and that later accretion preserves this hierarchy rather than reshaping it. In 39 massive, infrared-dark clumps containing 839 resolved cores, the most massive core consistently holds about 25% of the total core mass, the second and third most massive hold about 16% and 10%, and these fractions stay flat across a two-order-of-magnitude range in core mass growth. The paper interprets this as evidence that high-mass cores form first through super-Jeans fragmentation in dense, converging inflows, while low-mass cores form late and continuously. A sympathetic reader would care because it distinguishes between competing theories of massive-star formation: the data support early seeding plus supply-limited synchronized growth rather than late-stage competitive accretion.

Core claim

Using 839 cores resolved at scales of a few thousand au in 39 massive infrared-dark clumps, the paper reports that the masses of the three most massive cores scale linearly with total core mass, keeping constant fractions of roughly 25%, 16%, and 10% along the mass growth sequence. The Gini coefficient of the core mass distribution rises with the growth sequence, which the paper takes as evidence that the population of low-mass cores builds up at later times. The authors argue that the central massive seed establishes its dominance before the observed epoch—via transport-driven super-Jeans fragmentation in a high-density, non-stationary hub—and then grows in lockstep with the rest of the clu

What carries the argument

The central identity is the constant mass-fraction relation: M_1/M_core,total ≈ 25%, M_2/M_core,total ≈ 16%, M_3/M_core,total ≈ 10%, invariant along the mass growth sequence. The growth law is supply-limited accretion, written dM_i/dt = (dM_total/dt) * (M_i / Σ M_i), meaning each core's accretion rate is its fraction of the total core mass times the global infall rate. The Gini coefficient of the core masses, which rises with the growth sequence, is the third piece: it shows that low-mass cores continuously emerge later. The physical engine invoked is non-stationary, transport-driven super-Jeans fragmentation, in which the mass-accumulation timescale t_acc is comparable to or shorter than th

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the ratio of total core mass to clump mass tracks time across a sample of different clumps; if this ratio instead measures the initial environment or reservoir size, the inference that massive cores dominate from the very beginning is unsupported.

What would settle it

A clump with an independent early-stage indicator (e.g., very cold dust and no protostellar signatures) whose most massive core holds substantially less than 25% of the total core mass, or a time-resolved observation of a single clump showing the fraction increasing, would falsify the early-dominance claim.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The core mass function should be initially top-heavy and steepen over time as low-mass cores form late, so a static CMF is not expected in young clumps.
  • Massive star formation would not require competitive accretion or a late coalescence of low-mass cores; it would require an early massive seed created by enhanced fragmentation in a dense hub.
  • The accretion rate of a core should be proportional to its current mass, a relation that can be tested with infall signatures or outflow statistics across cores in the same clump.
  • The constant fractions should appear only inside the proposed supply-limited regime (R < 1 pc, n(H2) > 10^5 cm^-3); outside it, the mass hierarchy should drift.
  • The ratio statistics imply that the three most massive cores in a clump account for roughly half of the core mass, which sets a benchmark for interpreting any observed 'top-heavy' core population.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: The paper's evolutionary proxy could be cross-checked with independent age indicators such as chemical clocks or outflow activity; if those disagree with the core-to-clump ratio, the ordering of the 'mass growth sequence' would need revision.
  • Editorial inference: The same ratio logic could be applied to the stellar IMF in young clusters — if the hierarchy is set early, the mass fraction of the most massive star should remain roughly constant during the accretion phase, which would be a testable prediction for embedded clusters.
  • Editorial inference: The near-integral spacing of the fractions (25, 16, 10) might be a fingerprint of the fragmentation process; checking whether the super-Jeans mass formula produces these ratios for a simple converging flow could yield a parameter-free connection to the IMF's high-mass end.
  • Editorial inference: The supply-limited equation predicts that the width of the core mass distribution grows as the mean mass grows; measuring the scatter of core masses versus clump evolution would provide a quantitative test beyond the mean fractions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes 839 cores in 39 ASHES clumps and reports that the three most massive cores maintain approximately constant mass fractions of the total core mass (≈25%, 16%, 10%) across the inferred 'mass growth sequence' defined by the core-to-clump mass ratio. The Gini coefficient of the core mass distribution increases along this sequence. The authors interpret this as evidence that massive-core seeds establish their mass dominance very early (through transport-driven super-Jeans fragmentation), then grow synchronously via supply-limited accretion, while low-mass cores form continuously at later stages. The paper contrasts this picture with competitive accretion and global hierarchical collapse and presents a multi-scale mass–radius diagram to argue for a sub-parsec, high-density regime of supply-limited growth.

Significance. If the evolutionary interpretation withstands scrutiny, the result would be an important constraint on massive star formation: it would suggest that the mass hierarchy of cores is set before the ASHES-observed epoch and preserved by proportional, supply-limited accretion, contradicting late-stage competitive accretion. The paper's strengths include the use of a large, public sample (839 cores in 39 clumps), careful handling of systematic uncertainties in mass ratios (Section 2), and a transparent Monte Carlo test of the top-three mass fraction (Section 3.3). The empirical correlations in Figures 1 and 3 are simple and clearly presented. However, the central physical claims depend on an unvalidated cross-sectional evolutionary proxy and on an accretion law that is effectively a restatement of the observed constant fractions. These issues must be addressed before the interpretation can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2, Figure 1; §3.3] This is the core load-bearing issue: the entire temporal narrative depends on the proxy.
  2. [§3.2, Equation (2)] Circularity concern: the mechanism is constructed to reproduce the data.
  3. [§3.3, Monte Carlo simulation] This is a specific, actionable test that directly addresses the static-sampling alternative.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2, text after Figure 1] The claimed ~0.5 dex constant shift between 0.87 mm and 1.3 mm dust opacities/Planck functions should be justified quantitatively or referenced; the exact factor depends on assumed dust properties and temperature.
  2. [Figure 1] The figure shows best-fit lines and confidence intervals but not the individual data points' measurement uncertainties. Adding error bars (at least on a representative subset) would help the reader assess the scatter and the reality of the 'constant' fractions.
  3. [Equation (1)] In the thermal Jeans mass formula, the coefficient 0.912 M_sun uses a specific mean molecular weight; please state the adopted mu (2.33 vs 2.8) and the value for the speed of sound to avoid ambiguity.
  4. [§3.3, footnote on Gini coefficient] The Gini formula is written as G = (Σ_i Σ_j |M_i - M_j|)/(2 n^2 M_bar); the double summation is correct but the parentheses in the footnote are missing, making it slightly ambiguous.
  5. [Abstract/Conclusion] The phrase 'seamlessly linking small-scale core growth with large-scale reservoir regulation' overstates the evidence, since the paper does not directly measure filamentary or large-scale inflows; the ALMA observations are limited to <1 pc scales.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Supply-limited accretion equation is the observed constant-fraction relation rewritten as a rate law; early-dominance inference rests on an unvalidated cross-sectional age proxy.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section 3.2, Equation (2)]
    "Mathematically, maintaining a constant mass fraction (M core/Mtotal core ≈constant) indicates that the mass accretion rate of each core is proportional to the total accretion rate of the system, i.e., ˙Mcore/ ˙Mtotal ≈constant. Physically, this corresponds to a coordinated accretion process, representing a scenario of mass-dependent accretion regulated by a limited reservoir."

    Equation (2) is the differential form of the observed invariant. If f_i = M_i / ΣM is constant, then fdot_i = Mdot_i/ΣM − (M_i/ΣM)(Mdot_total/ΣM) = 0 exactly when Mdot_i = Mdot_total M_i/ΣM. Thus the proposed 'supply-limited synchronized growth' mechanism is not an independent explanation of the flat fractions in Figure 1b; it is the observation rewritten as an accretion-rate law. No independent measurement of individual Mdot_i or of the reservoir-limited supply is used, so the conclusion that the hierarchy is preserved by this mechanism is true by construction.

full rationale

The paper reports a real external pattern: the constant rank fractions of core masses in ASHES clumps, and the Monte Carlo check against a truncated Kroupa IMF is an honest finite-sample test. The circular element is the explanatory mechanism in Section 3.2. The observed constancy of M_i/ΣM is converted directly into the rate law dM_i/dt = Mdot_total M_i/ΣM (Eq. 2). Since d(M_i/ΣM)/dt = 0 is mathematically equivalent to that equation, the 'supply-limited synchronized growth' story is the flat-fraction observation itself recast as an accretion prescription, not an independently tested physical prediction. The further conclusion that massive seeds dominate early also depends on treating M_total/M_clump as an 'evolutionary clock'; this cross-sectional assumption is stated but not validated, though that is a logical/proxy gap rather than a circular reduction. The super-Jeans framework is cited heavily from the corresponding author's own prior work (G.-X. Li 2024a,b; Li et al. 2025), but it is used as an interpretive narrative rather than as the derivation of the core numbers, so I do not count it as additional circularity. Overall, partial circularity: the central supply-limited accretion mechanism reduces by construction to the very constancy it is invoked to explain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The main non-empirical inputs are the evolutionary-time proxy, the proportional-accretion rule of Eq. (2), and the borrowed super-Jeans theory; none are independently measured in this paper.

free parameters (3)
  • mass-fraction constants (top-3 cores) = ~0.25, 0.16, 0.10
    Intercepts from log-log fits to observed ASHES mass ratios; they are the central empirical result, not tuning parameters.
  • representative densities for free-fall estimates = n_H2 = 5e5 cm^-3 and 1e4 cm^-3
    Hand-picked representative values used in Section 3.3 to contrast central vs envelope free-fall times; not constrained by this paper's data.
  • Monte Carlo truncation cut and sample size = M > 0.58 Msun, N = 21
    Adopted to mimic ASHES completeness; taken from Morii et al. (2023), not fitted here.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Core masses from continuum emission trace true core masses under the adopted dust temperature, opacity, and distance assumptions.
    The analysis uses M_core values from Morii et al. (2023); ratios cancel many systematics, but the underlying mass scale is assumed reliable.
  • ad hoc to paper The core-to-clump mass ratio orders clumps by evolutionary time.
    Section 2: 'We can consider the core mass to increase over time through the accretion process'; no independent age indicator is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Equation (2), Mdot_i = Mdot_total * M_i / sum(M_i), describes the accretion mechanism.
    Section 3.2: this rule is stated as the physical mechanism but is the continuous form of the observed constant mass fractions, not derived from an independent dynamical model.
  • ad hoc to paper Transport-driven super-Jeans fragmentation applies in the ASHES central hubs.
    Section 3.1.1: invoked from co-author Li (2024a) without direct measurement of the mass-accumulation timescale t_acc or the non-stationary inflow condition.
  • standard math Standard Jeans mass and free-fall time formulas.
    Used in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.3 for the thermal Jeans mass and t_ff contrast.
  • standard math Gini coefficient formula as defined in Section 3.3.
    Standard statistical definition; needed for the inequality analysis.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14844 in / 14411 out tokens · 127672 ms · 2026-08-01T18:40:23.287083+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Protostellar core formation and growth in high-mass star-forming regions remain key to understanding massive star birth. We analyze the masses of 839 cores (resolved at scales of a few thousand au) from the ASHES project targeting 39 massive infrared dark cloud clumps. The masses of the three most massive cores scale linearly with the total core mass. They maintain a constant mass fraction of ~25%, 16%, and 10% along the mass growth sequence. These fractions reveal that the progenitor seeds destined to become high-mass cores establish their mass dominance very early. Additionally, the Gini coefficient (a statistical measure of inequality) of the core mass distributions increases along the mass growth sequence, confirming that the relative population of low-mass cores builds up toward later stages. This points to an environment-dependent fragmentation picture: central prestellar seeds rapidly evolve into high-mass cores via transport-driven super-Jeans fragmentation under rapid, non-stationary mass accumulation in high-density, turbulent hubs, subsequently maintain their dominance through supply-limited synchronized growth (at R<1 pc, n_H2>10^5 cm^-3), while the formation of the surrounding low-mass cores is relatively delayed due to their lower gas densities and the lack of non-stationary inflow acceleration effect, resulting in their continuous emergence through Jeans-like fragmentation in lower-density envelopes. This picture is consistent with a gravity-driven scenario where the local free-fall time is the controlling factor. Our analysis suggests that non-stationary density-regulated fragmentation and supply-limited accretion jointly drive the synchronized co-evolution of the core cluster, seamlessly linking small-scale core growth with large-scale reservoir regulation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17215 by Dan Miao, Guang-Xing Li, Patricio Sanhueza.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Panel (a) shows the core-to-clump mass ratio (Mcore/Mclump) as a function of the mass growth sequence. Panel (b) presents the ratio of the individual core mass to the total core mass (Mcore/Mtotal core) versus the mass growth sequence. The data are taken from the ASHES project. The orange circles, blue squares, green triangles, and red crosses represent the most massive, second most massive, third most mas… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Mass–radius diagram of gas structures across distinct physical scales. Red circles indicate the small-scale dense cores (∼ 0.1 pc), and green squares denote their intermediate-scale host clumps (∼ 1 pc) that act as mass reservoirs, both identified in the ASHES survey (K. Morii et al. 2023). Gray crosses represent the complete sample of Galactic massive clumps from the ATLASGAL survey (J. S. Urquhart et al.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left panel: The relation between the Gini coefficient of the core-mass distribution and the mass growth sequence. The orange curve shows the density distribution, the orange dashed line represents the fitted trend, and the orange shaded area indicates the 95% confidence interval of the fit. Spearman and Kendall correlation coefficients, along with different data markers, are provided in the top-left corner… view at source ↗

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

50 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    T., Longmore, S

    Barnes, A. T., Longmore, S. N., Avison, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 283, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz796

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz796 2019

  2. [2]

    2025, ARA&A, 63, 1, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-013125-122023

    Beuther, H., Kuiper, R., & Tafalla, M. 2025, ARA&A, 63, 1, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-013125-122023

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-013125-122023 2025

  3. [5]

    A., & Davies, M

    Bonnell, I. A., & Davies, M. B. 1998, MNRAS, 295, 691, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01372.x

    arXiv 1998

  4. [6]

    2025, A&A, 696, A151, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452706 Di Matteo, T., Springel, V., & Hernquist, L

    Coletta, A., Molinari, S., Schisano, E., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A151, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452706 Di Matteo, T., Springel, V., & Hernquist, L. 2005, Nature, 433, 604, doi: 10.1038/nature03335

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452706 2025

  5. [7]

    J., Heiderman, A., & Vutisalchavakul, N

    Evans, II, N. J., Heiderman, A., & Vutisalchavakul, N. 2014, ApJ, 782, 114, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/114

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/782/2/114 2014

  6. [8]

    2020, ApJ, 901, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abada3

    Feng, S., Li, D., Caselli, P., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abada3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abada3 2020

  7. [9]

    Hillenbrand, L. A. 1997, AJ, 113, 1733, doi: 10.1086/118389

    doi:10.1086/118389 1997

  8. [10]

    M., et al

    Izumi, N., Sanhueza, P., Koch, P. M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad18c6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad18c6 2024

  9. [11]

    S., & Glover, S

    Klessen, R. S., & Glover, S. C. O. 2016, Saas-Fee Advanced Course, 43, 85, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-47890-5 2 12

    doi:10.1007/978-3-662-47890-5 2016

  10. [12]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 2013

  11. [13]

    Krause, M. G. H., Offner, S. S. R., Charbonnel, C., et al. 2020, SSRv, 216, 64, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00689-4

    doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00689-4 2020

  12. [14]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    arXiv 2001

  13. [15]

    Inutsuka, S. I. 2020, A&A, 642, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038232

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038232 2020

  14. [16]

    J., & Lada, E

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  15. [17]

    J., Lombardi, M., & Alves, J

    Lada, C. J., Lombardi, M., & Alves, J. F. 2010, ApJ, 724, 687, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/687

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/724/1/687 2010

  16. [18]

    2024a, MNRAS, 528, 7333, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae384

    Li, G.-X. 2024a, MNRAS, 528, 7333, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae384

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae384

  17. [19]

    2024b, MNRAS, 528, L52, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad149

    Li, G.-X. 2024b, MNRAS, 528, L52, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad149

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slad149

  18. [20]

    2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 541, 3869, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1116

    Li, G.-X., Zhao, M., & Lu, X. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 541, 3869, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1116

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1116 2025

  19. [21]

    2020, ApJ, 903, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb81f

    Li, S., Sanhueza, P., Zhang, Q., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb81f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb81f 2020

  20. [22]

    2022, ApJ, 939, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac94d4

    Li, S., Sanhueza, P., Lu, X., et al. 2022, ApJ, 939, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac94d4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac94d4 2022

  21. [23]

    2023, ApJ, 949, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc58f

    Li, S., Sanhueza, P., Zhang, Q., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc58f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc58f 2023

  22. [24]

    2025, ApJ, 990, 229, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf208

    Lin, S., Feng, S., Sanhueza, P., et al. 2025, ApJ, 990, 229, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf208

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf208 2025

  23. [25]

    2024, A&A, 690, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345986 Mac Low, M.-M., & Klessen, R

    Louvet, F., Sanhueza, P., Stutz, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345986 Mac Low, M.-M., & Klessen, R. S. 2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 125, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.76.125

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202345986 2024

  24. [26]

    1998, AJ, 115, 2285, doi: 10.1086/300353

    Magorrian, J., Tremaine, S., Richstone, D., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 2285, doi: 10.1086/300353

    doi:10.1086/300353 1998

  25. [27]

    F., & Ostriker, E

    McKee, C. F., & Ostriker, E. C. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 565, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110602

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  26. [28]

    F., & Tan, J

    McKee, C. F., & Tan, J. C. 2003, ApJ, 585, 850, doi: 10.1086/346149

    doi:10.1086/346149 2003

  27. [29]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2607.12396

    Miao, D., & Li, G.-X. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2607.12396. https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.12396

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  28. [30]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 233, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada27f

    Morii, K., Sanhueza, P., Csengeri, T., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 233, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada27f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada27f 2025

  29. [31]

    Morii, K., Sanhueza, P., Zhang, Q., & Jackson, J. M. 2026b, ApJ, 1004, 207, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae6db8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae6db8

  30. [32]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2365

    Morii, K., Sanhueza, P., Nakamura, F., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2365

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2365 2021

  31. [33]

    2023, ApJ, 950, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acccea

    Morii, K., Sanhueza, P., Nakamura, F., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acccea

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acccea 2023

  32. [34]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad32d0

    Morii, K., Sanhueza, P., Zhang, Q., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad32d0

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad32d0 2024

  33. [35]

    2026a, ApJ, 997, 155, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae25f6

    Morii, K., Sanhueza, P., Zhang, Q., et al. 2026a, ApJ, 997, 155, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae25f6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae25f6

  34. [36]

    2018, ARA&A, 56, 41, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055235

    Motte, F., Bontemps, S., & Louvet, F. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 41, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055235

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055235 2018

  35. [37]

    Myers, P. C. 2009, ApJ, 700, 1609, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1609

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/700/2/1609 2009

  36. [38]

    2023, A&A, 674, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244762

    Nony, T., Galv´ an-Madrid, R., Motte, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244762

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244762 2023

  37. [39]

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

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

    doi:10.1086/341790 2002

  38. [40]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abaa47 2020

  39. [41]

    K., Allison, R

    Pang, X., Grebel, E. K., Allison, R. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 764, 73, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/73

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/764/1/73 2013

  40. [42]

    A., Andr´ e, P., et al

    Peretto, N., Fuller, G. A., Andr´ e, P., et al. 2014, A&A, 561, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322172

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322172 2014

  41. [43]

    L., Fern´ andez-L´ opez, M., Arce, H

    Plunkett, A. L., Fern´ andez-L´ opez, M., Arce, H. G., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732372 Portegies Zwart, S. F., McMillan, S. L. W., & Gieles, M. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 431, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130834

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732372 2018

  42. [44]

    2023, A&A, 674, A76, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244776

    Pouteau, Y., Motte, F., Nony, T., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A76, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244776

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244776 2023

  43. [45]

    2022, ApJ, 936, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac83aa

    Sabatini, G., Bovino, S., Sanhueza, P., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac83aa

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac83aa 2022

  44. [46]

    2022, ApJ, 925, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3d2e

    Sakai, T., Sanhueza, P., Furuya, K., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3d2e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3d2e 2022

  45. [47]

    2019, ApJ, 886, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab45e9

    Sanhueza, P., Contreras, Y., Wu, B., et al. 2019, ApJ, 886, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab45e9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab45e9 2019

  46. [48]

    1973, On Economic Inequality (Oxford University Press), doi: 10.1093/0198281935.001.0001

    Sen, A., & Foster, J. 1973, On Economic Inequality (Oxford University Press), doi: 10.1093/0198281935.001.0001

    work page doi:10.1093/0198281935.001.0001 1973

  47. [49]

    2021, ApJ, 913, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf5da

    Tafoya, D., Sanhueza, P., Zhang, Q., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf5da

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf5da 2021

  48. [50]

    S., K¨ onig, C., Giannetti, A., et al

    Urquhart, J. S., K¨ onig, C., Giannetti, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 1059, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2258 V´ azquez-Semadeni, E., Palau, A., Ballesteros-Paredes, J., G´ omez, G. C., & Zamora-Avil´ es, M. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3061, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2736 V´ azquez-Semadeni, E., Palau, A., G´ omez, G. C., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 547, staf2059, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2059

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2258 2018

  49. [51]

    2024, ApJS, 270, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acfee5

    Xu, F., Wang, K., Liu, T., et al. 2024, ApJS, 270, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acfee5

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acfee5 2024

  50. [52]

    Yuan, J., Li, J.-Z., Wu, Y., et al. 2018, ApJ, 852, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9d40 13 ORCID: Dan Miao: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9798-9852 Guang-Xing Li: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3144-1952 Patricio Sanhueza: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7125-7685

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9d40 2018