Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 15 references

The post-gas expulsion coalescence of embedded clusters as an origin of open clusters

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Milky Way's open clusters can form from the merging of several small embedded clusters after gas expulsion, rather than from a single massive progenitor.

desk verdict Plausible scenario test showing low-mass embedded clusters can coalesce into massive open clusters, but the gas-expulsion timescales explored are too short to support the claimed robustness. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08831 v1 pith:IFYRRK7Q submitted 2025-01-15 astro-ph.GA

J. W. Zhou , Sami Dib , Pavel Kroupa This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords openclustersembeddedcoalescencegasexpulsionN-bodysimulationsstarformationmassivestar-formingregionscluster
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 asks whether the Milky Way's open clusters—old, relatively massive star groups—can form from the merging of several low-mass embedded clusters rather than from a single massive precursor. Observational comparisons show that the mass distribution of today's giant molecular clumps cannot directly produce embedded clusters heavy enough to explain the most massive open clusters. The authors simulate the expansion of embedded clusters after the gas that binds them is expelled, and show that under a wide range of conditions the expanded clusters collide and coalesce into a single bound cluster. They find that the outcome is largely insensitive to initial conditions, with the mass of the embedded clusters and their number being the key factors. They conclude that the coalescence of multiple low-mass embedded clusters covers the observed parameter space of open clusters, so open clusters do not require massive embedded clusters as precursors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the treatment of gas expulsion as a spherically symmetric, exponentially decaying external gravitational potential of the form $M_g(t) = M_g(0)$ for $t \le \tau_d$ and $M_g(t) = M_g(0) \exp(-(t-\tau_d)/\tau_g)$ for $t > \tau_d$, with a fixed star formation efficiency of $\mathrm{SFE} = 0.33$ and a delay of $\tau_d = 0.6$ Myr. This potential drives each initially bound embedded cluster to expand after its gas is removed. The expansion brings neighbouring clusters into gravitational contact, and the subsequent mutual attraction—especially from the most massive clusters, which act as stable cores—determines whether the system coalesces into a single bound cluster or dissolves. The machinery also includes the initial conditions: subclusters are evolved individually for about 1 Myr with the gas-expulsion prescription, then placed together at the observed separations and given a cloud-scale velocity dispersion, and the whole complex is integrated with a direct N-body code that includes stellar evolution and binaries.

What would settle it

If a young open cluster with mass above 3000 $M_\odot$ is found whose member stars all have indistinguishable ages and metallicities and whose parent molecular cloud never contained an embedded cluster with mass above 1000 $M_\odot$, the coalescence scenario would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that open clusters in the Milky Way can originate from the post-gas expulsion coalescence of several embedded clusters within the same parental molecular cloud. Using N-body simulations whose initial conditions are drawn from the observed spatial and mass distributions of embedded clusters in three massive star-forming regions, the authors show that after gas is dispersed the individual clusters expand, come into contact, and merge into a single gravitationally bound cluster that can survive for hundreds of millions of years. The mass of the embedded clusters plays the critical role: massive clusters provide stable gravitational cores that pull neighbouring clusters in and anchor the merger, whereas low-mass, sparse complexes disperse into loose associations. The number of embedded clusters also aids coalescence. The paper concludes that this coalescence pathway can cover the full observed range of open-cluster masses and radii as a function of age, and that therefore open clusters do not necessarily require massive embedded clusters as direct precursors.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the assumption that gas removal from each embedded cluster is faithfully described by a spherical potential that decays exponentially with a fixed star-formation efficiency of 0.33 and a 0.6 Myr delay; if real gas expulsion is more violent, asymmetric, or proceeds at different efficiencies, the balance between cluster expansion and coalescence could shift and the claimed coverage of the open-cluster parameter space could fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Massive open clusters can be produced without massive embedded-cluster progenitors, resolving the observed order-of-magnitude gap between clump/embedded-cluster masses and open-cluster masses.
  • The coalescence route is largely insensitive to initial conditions over the explored parameter range, with embedded-cluster mass and number being the decisive factors.
  • Strong gravitational cores from massive embedded clusters are required to anchor a merger and to let the coalesced cluster survive tidal forces, so not every complex of low-mass clusters will form an open cluster.
  • Spatial separation and relative velocity between clusters both widen and speed up mass loss of the merger product, but slower gas expulsion can counteract these effects, creating a degeneracy between initial geometry and gas-removal speed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same expansion-driven coalescence mechanism may operate in star-forming regions in other galaxies, implying that the stellar cluster mass function could be shaped more by assembly than by the initial clump mass function alone.
  • If coalescence is common, old open clusters assembled by mergers should retain broader internal age and metallicity spreads than monolithic clusters; this can be checked against existing photometric and spectroscopic data.
  • Replacing the analytic gas-expulsion potential with live, possibly asymmetric gas distributions in future simulations would test whether the coalescence efficiency and the resulting cluster properties are sensitive to the geometry of gas removal.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 N-body simulations with the PeTar code to test whether open clusters can form through the post-gas-expulsion coalescence of several low-mass embedded clusters rather than from a single massive embedded cluster. Initial conditions are based on observed subcluster masses, positions, and kinematics in NGC 1893, NGC 6334, and Carina from the MYStIX project. Gas removal is modeled with the analytic exponential-decay external potential of Eq. (1), adopting a star formation efficiency of 0.33 and two depletion timescales, "fast" (tau_g) and "moderate" (5 tau_g). The authors find that massive and/or numerous embedded clusters can expand, interact, and merge into a bound remnant, while low-mass and sparse systems dissolve. They overlay the simulated remnants on the Hunt & Reffert (2024) open cluster sample and argue that coalescence can cover the observed open cluster parameter space without requiring massive embedded cluster progenitors.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper offers a plausible resolution to the observed mismatch between the mass functions of embedded clusters and open clusters, and it would substantiate the idea that massive, older open clusters need not have had massive single-cluster precursors. The paper's strengths are its use of a well-tested N-body code, observationally motivated initial conditions from three MYStIX regions, and explicit comparison of different gas-expulsion modes, spatial separations, and relative velocities. The main limitations are the narrow gas-expulsion parameter coverage and the qualitative nature of the comparison to the observed open cluster sample; both directly affect the strength of the robustness and coverage claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.2.1, Eq. (1); Table 1; Sec. 3.3] The gas-expulsion study covers only tau_g = r_h(0)/v_g with v_g = 10 km/s and its five-fold multiple. For the adopted half-mass radii from Marks & Kroupa (2012), roughly 0.1-0.4 pc, this gives tau_g about 0.01-0.04 Myr in the "fast" case and about 0.05-0.2 Myr in the "moderate" case. Thus even the moderate runs are in the impulsive regime, far shorter than the several-Myr gas dispersal timescales often inferred for embedded clusters. The paper's claim in Sec. 3.3 that coalescence is robust "within a reasonable range of parameters" is therefore not supported for slow gas dispersal, where clusters expand less after gas removal and may never reach overlapping radii. Since the entire coalescence mechanism depends on the balance between expansion and dissolution, I request additional simulations with tau_g of order 1-5 Myr (or a continuous parameter scan) and a quantitative comparison of the resulting remnant masses and radii, or an analytic argument bounding the effect of slow gas removal.
  2. [Sec. 3.3, Fig. 6] The central quantitative claim, that the coalescence simulations "cover the parameter space" of the observed open clusters in the Milky Way, is supported only by visual inspection of overlaid tracks in the mass-age and radius-age planes. No statistical measure is provided, such as the fraction of Hunt & Reffert (2024) clusters that fall within the simulated tracks, the effect of observational completeness, or a goodness-of-fit metric. It is also not specified which simulation cases are selected for the overlay and whether systems that are described as dissolving (for example, the "Carina-fast-vd" case) are included. Please define an explicit criterion for a successful coalescence remnant and provide a quantitative comparison to the observed open cluster sample.
  3. [Sec. 3.2.1 and Sec. 3.2.3] The star formation efficiency is fixed at SFE = 0.33 in all runs. The text argues that a lower SFE is "equivalent" to a shorter gas-expulsion timescale, but this equivalence is not demonstrated quantitatively. Because SFE controls the depth of the removed gas potential and hence the amount of cluster expansion and mass loss, the robustness claim should be tested with at least one additional SFE value (e.g., SFE = 0.2 or 0.5) or supported by a scaling argument derived from the model.
  4. [Sec. 3.2.2 and Sec. 3.2.3] The construction of the initial configuration is underspecified. The text says each subcluster is first simulated in isolation for 1 Myr and then the evolved subclusters are collected and placed at observed separations, but it does not state whether the external gas potential is still active at the assembly time, whether the collected clusters are re-virialized in the combined system, or how the gas expulsion continues after assembly. Because the expansion history is the driver of the coalescence process, these details need to be explicit for the simulations to be reproducible and for the evolution after 1 Myr to be interpretable.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 1] In the Introduction, "the the mergers of OCs progenitors" should be "the mergers of OC progenitors."
  2. [Sec. 3.2.5] The phrase "they start to interact upon contact, leading to subsequent mutual influence in their evolution" uses "coalescence" as a verb elsewhere; for example, in Sec. 3.1.3, "subsequently interact and coalescence" should be "coalesce."
  3. [Sec. 3.2.4] The Larson-relation velocity assignment v proportional to L^0.5 is not normalized; please specify the proportionality constant or state explicitly that the normalization is fixed by the outermost cluster velocity of 2 km/s.
  4. [Fig. 5] Not all panels (a)-(f) of Fig. 5 are described in the text; please label each panel with its case name or refer to each panel explicitly in Sec. 3.2.5.
  5. [Table 1] The column header "Terminated time" should be "Termination time."
  6. [Appendix A figures] The snapshots are small and the point sizes encode stellar mass, but no color bar or scale bar is provided; adding one would improve readability and quantitative interpretation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the coalescence claim is a forward N-body prediction with observational initial conditions and external benchmarks; only the motivational mass-mismatch premise rests on a same-author citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: the central claim that multiple low-mass embedded clusters can coalesce after gas expulsion and cover the observed open-cluster parameter space is produced by PeTar N-body integrations of subcluster configurations drawn from MYStIX observations of NGC 1893, NGC 6334, and Carina, with initial masses and spatial separations taken from the observed values and gas expulsion modeled by the exponential decay in Eq. 1 with SFE = 0.33 and tau_d = 0.6 Myr. No parameter is fitted to the Hunt & Reffert (2023, 2024) open-cluster catalog used as the comparison sample in Fig. 6; the simulated mass-radius-age tracks are forward outputs, not inversions of the target data. The motivational premise that single embedded clusters cannot directly produce the most massive old open clusters cites the authors' own Zhou et al. (2024b), but that work is an empirical comparison of clump, embedded-cluster, and open-cluster mass distributions and is externally falsifiable, so it does not reduce the present argument to a self-citation. The adopted gas-expulsion timescale (tau_g = r_h/v_g with v_g ~ 10 km/s, giving tau_g ~ 0.03-0.1 Myr, and 5 tau_g for the moderate case) is a physical modeling assumption; whether real gas dispersal is slower is a robustness and correctness concern, not a circularity. External checks, including Sills et al. (2018), Dalessandro et al. (2021), Della Croce et al. (2023), and Farias et al. (2024), independently support the qualitative coalescence behavior. The score of 1 reflects only the presence of the same-author citation in the motivational context; no load-bearing step reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard but unverified modeling choices (Plummer profiles, canonical IMF, gas expulsion prescription) and on the representativeness of three selected star-forming regions. No new physical entities are introduced. The most sensitive free inputs are the star formation efficiency and the gas expulsion timescale, which control whether clusters expand into each other or dissolve.

free parameters (4)
  • Star formation efficiency (SFE) = 0.33
    Fixed benchmark value sets initial gas mass Mg(0) = 2 Mecl(0) and therefore the strength of expansion; not varied in the simulations.
  • Gas expulsion delay time tau_d = 0.6 Myr
    Representative lifetime of an ultra-compact HII region; affects the timing of expansion and hence when clusters start interacting.
  • Gas expulsion mode factor = 1 (fast) and 5 (moderate)
    Two extreme gas depletion timescales are chosen to bracket observable outcomes; other choices are assumed to fall between them.
  • Parent cloud velocity dispersion = 2 km/s
    Adopted as a conservative estimate for all three massive star-forming regions; clusters inherit this dispersion, setting their relative velocities and influencing whether they merge or pass by.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Each embedded cluster can be initialized as a Plummer sphere, fully mass segregated, in virial equilibrium, with a canonical IMF and a primordial binary fraction of 1.
    Standard initial conditions from prior work (Sec. 3.2.1); the central result may depend on these structural choices, though the paper argues they are standard.
  • domain assumption The gas expulsion of embedded clusters can be modeled as an exponential decay of a spherically symmetric external potential with SFE = 0.33.
    Eq. 1 and Sec. 3.2.1; validated only indirectly via Geyer & Burkert (2001) and Farias et al. (2024), but real gas distributions are clumpy and nonspherical.
  • domain assumption The observed spatial, kinematic, and mass distributions of embedded clusters in NGC 1893, NGC 6334, and Carina are representative of the conditions that produce the Milky Way's open cluster population.
    Sec. 3.2.2; the three regions are selected partly to bracket the open cluster parameter space, so generalizing the result to the whole Milky Way rests on this representativeness.
  • domain assumption Clusters evolve in the Galactic tidal field on circular orbits at 8.5 kpc with speed 220 km/s.
    Sec. 3.2.1; the survival of coalesced clusters depends on this tidal field choice.
  • domain assumption The Milky Way clump mass function and the embedded cluster sample in Zhou et al. (2024b) are accurate enough to establish that single clumps cannot form the most massive open clusters.
    Premise from the authors' prior work; sets up the need for a coalescence channel.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The post-gas expulsion coalescence of embedded clusters as an origin of open clusters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IFYRRK7Q

@misc{pith2026250108831,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The post-gas expulsion coalescence of embedded clusters as an origin of open clusters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IFYRRK7Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08831}
}
read the original abstract

The mismatch between the mass function of the Milky Way's embedded clusters (ECs) and that of open clusters (OCs) raises the question of whether each OC originates from a single EC. In this work, we explore a scenario in which OCs form as a result of post-gas expulsion coalescence of ECs within the same parental molecular cloud. We model this process using N-body simulations of ECs undergoing expansion due to gas expulsion. Our initial conditions are based on the observed spatial, kinematic, and mass distributions of ECs in three representative massive star-forming regions (MSFRs). Initially, ECs are isolated. After further expansion, interactions between ECs begin, mutually influencing their evolution. We examine this process as a function of gas expulsion timescales, spatial separations between ECs, and their relative velocities. Our results demonstrate that, within a reasonable range of these parameters, the coalescence of ECs is robust and largely insensitive to initial conditions. The mass of ECs plays a critical role in the coalescence process. More massive ECs form stable gravitational cores, which greatly facilitate coalescence and help the resulting cluster resist expansion and Galactic tidal forces. Additionally, the number of ECs also enhances coalescence. The current mass distribution of clumps in the Milky Way suggests that directly forming massive ECs is challenging. However, the coalescence of multiple low-mass ECs can account for the observed parameter space of OCs in the Milky Way.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08831 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The initial conditions of the simulations drawn from the observations of NGC 6334. (a) Background is the surface density of stars. Black contours show the masks of embedded clusters identified by the dendrogram algorithm in Zhou et al. (2024d). Magenta ellipses are the approximate ellipses that encompass the embedded clusters; (b) The collection of all simulated embedded clusters which are used to create an initial … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mass distribution of embedded clusters in three MSFRs. clusters in MSFRs that we observe today. In this work, our simu￾lations start directly from the current state of MSFRs. Star clusters have separated from the gas (see Appendix.A of Zhou et al. (2024b)) and their su…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mass and radius evolution of the embedded cluster complexes over time in different cases listed in Table.1. r50 is the radius containing 50% of the members within the tidal radius of the cluster. 3.2.5 Simulation results analysis The main objective of this study is to …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fitting the physical parameters of open clusters in Hunt & Reffert (2024) using the coalescence simulations. r50 is the radius containing 50% of the members within the tidal radius of the open cluster. 𝑀 is the mass of the open cluster. for the observed physical parame…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J., Henon, M., & Wielen, R

    Aarseth, S. J., Henon, M., & Wielen, R. 1974, A&A, 37, 183 Arzoumanian, D., Shimajiri, Y ., Inutsuka, S.-i., Inoue, T., & Tachihara, K. 2018, PASJ, 70, 96, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy095 Arzoumanian, D., Russeil, D., Zavagno, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141699 Banerjee, S., Belczynski, K., Fryer, C. L., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, A41, ...

    arXiv 1974

  2. [3]

    S., Saitoh, T

    1051/0004-6361/202244872 Fujii, M. S., Saitoh, T. R., & Portegies Zwart, S. F. 2012, ApJ, 753, 85, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/85 Fujii, M. S., Wang, L., Hirai, Y ., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 2513, doi:

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/753/1/85 2012

  3. [4]

    D., & Weis, M

    1093/mnras/stac1496 Ganguly, S., Walch, S., Seifried, D., Clarke, S. D., & Weis, M. 2023, MN- RAS, 525, 721, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2054 Gennaro, M., Brandner, W., Stolte, A., & Henning, T. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 2469, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18068.x Geyer, M. P., & Burkert, A. 2001, MNRAS, 323, 988, doi: 10.1046/j. 1365-8711.2001.04257.x Giacobbo, N., M...

    arXiv 2023

  4. [5]

    R., Tout, C

    1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03426.x Hurley, J. R., Tout, C. A., & Pols, O. R. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 897, doi:

    arXiv 2000

  5. [6]

    2015, A&A, 580, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425584 Jadhav, V

    1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05038.x MNRAS 000, 000–000 (2024) The post-gas expulsion coalescence of embedded clusters as an origin of open clusters 9 Inutsuka, S.-i., Inoue, T., Iwasaki, K., & Hosokawa, T. 2015, A&A, 580, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425584 Jadhav, V . V ., Kroupa, P., Wu, W., Pflamm-Altenburg, J., & Thies, I. 2024, A&A, 687, A89, doi: 10.105...

    arXiv 2024

  6. [8]

    A., Getman, K

    1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04050.x Kuhn, M. A., Getman, K. V ., & Feigelson, E. D. 2015, ApJ, 802, 60, doi:10. 1088/0004-637X/802/1/60 Kuhn, M. A., Hillenbrand, L. A., Carpenter, J. M., & Avelar Menendez, A. R. 2020, ApJ, 899, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba19a Kuhn, M. A., Hillenbrand, L. A., Sills, A., Feigelson, E. D., & Getman, K. V . 2019, ApJ, 870, 32, d...

    arXiv 2001

  7. [9]

    2022, A&A, 668, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243659 Oh, S., & Kroupa, P

    1146/annurev-astro-091916-055235 Muži´c, K., Almendros-Abad, V ., Bouy, H., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243659 Oh, S., & Kroupa, P. 2016, A&A, 590, A107, doi: 10.1051/ 0004-6361/201628233 —. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 153, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2245 Oh, S., Kroupa, P., & Pflamm-Altenburg, J. 2015, ApJ, 805, 92, doi:

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243659 2022

  8. [10]

    L., Bending, T

    1051/0004-6361/202142082 Dobbs, C. L., Bending, T. J. R., Pettitt, A. R., Buckner, A. S. M., & Bate, M. R. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 675, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2474 Fahrion, K., & De Marchi, G. 2024, A&A, 681, A20, doi: 10.1051/ 0004-6361/202348097 Farias, J. P., Offner, S. S. R., Grudi´c, M. Y ., Guszejnov, D., & Rosen, A. L. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 6732, doi: 10.109...

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2474 2022

Show all 15 references
  1. [11]

    2022, ApJ, 931, 156, doi: 10.3847/ 1538-4357/ac674e Pavlik, V ., Kroupa, P., & Šubr, L

    1088/0004-637X/805/2/92 Pang, X., Tang, S.-Y ., Li, Y ., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 156, doi: 10.3847/ 1538-4357/ac674e Pavlik, V ., Kroupa, P., & Šubr, L. 2019, A&A, 626, A79, doi: 10.1051/ 0004-6361/201834265 Peretto, N., Rigby, A. J., Louvet, F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2935, ...

    2022 doi arXiv

  2. [12]

    M., Contreras, Y ., et al

    1088/2041-8205/754/2/L37 Schuller, F., Menten, K. M., Contreras, Y ., et al. 2009, A&A, 504, 415, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811568 Shetty, R., & Ostriker, E. C. 2006, ApJ, 647, 997, doi: 10.1086/505594 Sills, A., Rieder, S., Scora, J., McCloskey, J., & Jaffa, S. 2018, MNRAS, 4...

    2009 doi

  3. [13]

    2020, MNRAS, 495, 4170, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1417 Urquhart, J

    3847/1538-4357/ac0633 Tanikawa, A., Yoshida, T., Kinugawa, T., Takahashi, K., & Umeda, H. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 4170, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1417 Urquhart, J. S., Wells, M. R. A., Pillai, T., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 3389, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3511 Vázquez-Semadeni, E., Gómez, G...

    2020 doi

  4. [14]

    2013, MNRAS, 434, 84, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1002 Wright, N

    1093/mnras/sty2232 Weidner, C., Kroupa, P., & Pflamm-Altenburg, J. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 84, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1002 Wright, N. J., Jeffries, R. D., Jackson, R. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2477, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz870 —. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 705, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1806 Zh...

    2013 doi

  5. [15]

    W., Dib, S., & Kroupa, P

    1051/0004-6361/202449514 Zhou, J. W., Dib, S., & Kroupa, P. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.01002, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.01002 —. 2024c, PASP, 136, 094302, doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ad77f4 Zhou, J.-w., Kroupa, P., & Dib, S. 2024d, A&A, 688, L19, doi: 10.1051/ 0004-6361/202450...

    doi arXiv

  6. [16]

    2024f, A&A, 691, A204, doi:10.1051/ 0004-6361/202452064 Zhou, J

    1088/1538-3873/ad6f44 Zhou, J.-W., Kroupa, P., & Wu, W. 2024f, A&A, 691, A204, doi:10.1051/ 0004-6361/202452064 Zhou, J. W., Wyrowski, F., Neupane, S., et al. 2024g, A&A, 682, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347377 Zhou, J.-W., Liu, T., Evans, N. J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 6...

    doi

  7. [17]

    NGC1893-fast

    1093/mnras/stac3559 Zhou, J. W., Dib, S., Wyrowski, F., et al. 2024h, A&A, 682, A173, doi:10. 1051/0004-6361/202348108 MNRAS 000, 000–000 (2024) 10 J. W. Zhou X (pc) Y (pc) 1 Myr 2 Myr 4 Myr 10 Myr 20 Myr 50 Myr Figure A1. The snapshots on the XY plane in the case of "NGC1893-...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.