Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 48 references

Are binary-star populations regionally different? --in memory of Sverre Aarseth--

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 difference between binary populations in star-forming regions and the Galactic field can be understood if stars form mostly as binary systems in embedded star clusters, with dynamical processing dissolving the soft binaries.

desk verdict A clear, candid memorial review of Kroupa's own 30-year binary-processing program; no new results, and the load-bearing 'every star is born in a binary' premise is still secured more by assumption than by data. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08710 v2 pith:JBRGPM7G submitted 2025-02-12 astro-ph.GA

Pavel Kroupa (Bonn , Praha) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords binarystarsstellarpopulationsembeddedclustersdynamicalprocessinginitialmassfunctionpre-main-sequenceeigenevolutionGalacticfieldmergers
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

Binary-star populations look different in young star-forming regions and in the old Galactic field, and this review argues the difference has a single cause: almost all stars are born as binary systems inside dense embedded clusters, and gravitational encounters in those clusters dissolve the wide, weakly bound 'soft' binaries. What survives, once the cluster expands and ejects its stars, is the binary population seen today in the field. If correct, the binary statistics of any mature stellar population are set by cluster dynamics rather than by the star-formation process itself, and the initial conditions of star formation can be inferred indirectly from present-day surveys. The paper consolidates a framework of four birth distribution functions — stellar masses, orbital periods, mass ratios, and eccentricities — and shows how two processing steps reproduce the observed field binary fraction, the mass-ratio peak near unity, and the dependence of binarity on primary mass.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a set of four birth distribution functions — the stellar initial mass function $\xi(m)$ plus the orbital period, mass-ratio, and eccentricity distributions $f_{P,\mathrm{birth}}(P)$, $f_{q,\mathrm{birth}}(q)$, $f_{e,\mathrm{birth}}(e)$ — acted on by two operators: the pre-main-sequence eigenevolution operator $\Omega_{\mathrm{EE}}$, modelling tidal dissipation, orbital circularisation, and mass-ratio changes during the first $\sim 10^5$ yr of a binary's life, and the stellar-dynamical operator $\Omega_{\mathrm{dyn}}(M_{\mathrm{ecl}}, r_h)$, which softens or hardens binaries through encounters according to the embedded cluster's mass and half-mass radius. The compact statement $f_{x,\mathrm{ms}} = \Omega_{\mathrm{dyn}}(M_{\mathrm{ecl}}, r_h)\, \Omega_{\mathrm{EE}} f_{x,\mathrm{birth}}$ embodies the claim that observed binary populations are the dynamical processing of a universal birth population.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be a precise census of binary systems in a very young, very low-density star-forming region before significant dynamical processing: if the fraction of late-type stars in binaries is found to be well below unity, the assumed $f_{\mathrm{mult,birth}} = 1$ fails. The currently contradictory close-binary fractions reported for metal-poor populations are a promising place to look for a breakdown of the assumed universality at fixed metallicity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the difference between the binary populations of star-forming regions and the Galactic field is understood if stars form mostly as binary systems and in embedded star clusters in molecular cloud clumps; dynamical processing in these embedded clusters dissolves a large fraction of the soft binaries. The framework then reproduces the observed period, mass-ratio, and eccentricity distributions of the Galactic field at Solar metallicity, including the peak at $q\approx 1$, and accounts for the steep decline of binary fraction with decreasing primary mass, the ejection of O and B stars from their birth clusters, and the very low binary fractions of systems like $\omega$ Cen, whose retrograde field population is attributed to a dense star-burst origin. The birth functions are not directly observable because populations are already dynamically processed within $\sim 0.3$ Myr; they are 'hilfskonstrukts' — mathematical constructs needed to model stellar populations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that essentially all late-type stars are born as binary systems — $f_{\mathrm{mult,birth}} = 1$ — inferred from the near-unity binary fraction in young low-density star-forming regions and angular momentum conservation; if a substantial fraction form single, the framework's input and the inferred birth functions would need revision.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A population's binary fraction is not a direct star-formation diagnostic; it is set by the mass function and radii of the embedded clusters in which the stars formed, so the observed decline of binary fraction with decreasing primary mass should not be read as a property of star formation.
  • Galaxy-wide binary fractions become predictable: star-forming late-type dwarf galaxies should have $f_{\mathrm{bin,ms}}\approx 0.8$, Milky-Way-type galaxies $\approx 0.5$, and massive ellipticals $\approx 0.35$.
  • A substantial fraction of massive stars are merger products: about 26–30 per cent of O-type, 13–24 per cent of B-type, and 5–8 per cent of A-type stars would be mergers induced by stellar-dynamical encounters in their birth clusters.
  • The Sun may have had a distant binary companion with birth period $\gtrsim 10^6$ d, consistent with the current orbit of Neptune, so planetary systems are not in tension with a unity birth binary fraction.
  • There is no universal correction for unresolved binaries in star-count surveys; the correction depends on the dynamical history of each population.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the birth binary functions are universal at fixed metallicity, then the ratio of hard to soft binaries may be nearly invariant across clusters, because the hard/soft boundary and the typical binary semimajor axis both scale with cluster radius; this could unify the seemingly contradictory close-binary fractions reported for metal-poor samples.
  • The framework predicts that the binary fraction of a galaxy's field population encodes its assembly history — the distribution of embedded-cluster masses and radii — so high-resolution binary surveys of resolved stellar populations in nearby galaxies could be used to reconstruct past star-cluster formation conditions.
  • Applying the same dynamical-processing logic to brown dwarfs, which the paper notes follow fundamentally different distribution functions, could explain their low binary fractions as a combination of a different birth population and the same cluster processing, a testable extension.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This proceedings article (in memory of Sverre Aarseth) reviews a framework for synthesizing stellar populations by specifying four initial distribution functions: the stellar IMF and the birth period, mass-ratio, and eccentricity distributions of binary stars. The paper argues that stars form mostly as binaries (f_mult,birth ≈ 1), that pre-main-sequence eigenevolution modifies the birth distributions, and that subsequent stellar-dynamical processing in embedded clusters (quantified with Aarseth N-body codes and the operator formalism of Eq. 3) explains why the binary fraction and orbital-parameter distributions of the Galactic field differ from those of young star-forming regions. It summarizes applications to ω Cen, stellar merger rates, Cepheids, and extragalactic predictions, and discusses possible metallicity dependence of the birth functions. The central claim is stated in the Conclusions: the observed difference between star-forming regions and the field can be understood if stars form mostly as binaries in embedded clusters and dynamical processing dissolves many soft binaries.

Significance. If the framework is correct, it provides a unified, falsifiable explanation for the binary statistics of Galactic field stars and predicts systematic variations of binary fraction with galactic type (dwarf: ≈0.8; Milky Way: ≈0.5; elliptical: ≈0.35). The paper is honest about its method: it explicitly states that consistency was assessed 'according to inspection by eye' and that no formal fit was attempted (Sec. 3). It also makes a concrete tool (BIPOS1) publicly available. However, the central load-bearing assumption, f_mult,birth = 1, is argued from the same 1 Myr star-forming region data used as fitting constraints, creating a circularity concern that is not resolved in the manuscript. Because the paper is a review of the author's own program rather than a new derivation, its significance depends on whether the underlying assumptions are independently secure; the present text does not provide that independent support.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2, Sec. 3] The assumption f_mult,birth = 1 is load-bearing for the entire framework, but it is not independently established. The paper invokes the observed near-unity binary fraction of ≈1 Myr old low-density star-forming regions, yet the same data are used in Sec. 3 as the primary constraints for iteratively fitting f_P,birth, f_q,birth, and f_e,birth. This circularity is compounded by the paper's own statement that dynamical processing operates on the crossing timescale (<0.3 Myr), so a 1 Myr old population is already processed. To support the central claim, the manuscript should either present an independent test of f_mult,birth = 1 or quantify how the predicted field binary fraction and mass-ratio distribution change when f_mult,birth is varied (e.g., 0.7 instead of 1), including re-derivation of the birth functions in Eq. 4.
  2. [Sec. 3, p. 223] The statement that the iterative by-eye matching 'uniquely demonstrated that the field population can be arrived at' is too strong given the methodology. The manuscript itself acknowledges that a formal fit was not attempted because of unknown embedded-cluster mass distributions and pre-processing of the 1 Myr sample. With three free functions constrained by two population snapshots, degeneracies are inevitable. The paper should temper this claim and, at minimum, provide a sensitivity analysis (e.g., how much variation in the birth functions is still consistent with the same observational constraints) or a quantitative goodness-of-fit measure for the adopted functions.
  3. [Eq. 4 and Sec. 4] The birth distribution functions are only referenced to earlier papers (Kroupa 1995b; Belloni et al. 2017) rather than given explicitly in this article. Since the paper's central claim depends on these specific functional forms, a reader cannot assess the argument without retrieving the original literature. The manuscript should either reproduce the formulas or at least summarize their principal features (e.g., the power-law indices and ranges of P, q, e) so that the present text is self-contained enough for critical evaluation.
  4. [Sec. 4, Galactic field prediction] The prediction f_bin,ms ≈ 0.5 for Milky-Way-type galaxies is said to match the observed field binary fraction, but no quantitative comparison is given. The observed value depends on spectral type, separation range, and survey completeness (as evidenced by the spread in Fig. 2). The paper should specify which observational estimate is being used and report the uncertainty; otherwise the statement 'as is observed' is not falsifiable in a precise sense.
minor comments (4)
  1. [References] The reference list contains typographical errors: 'Reid, I.N. and Giziz, J.E.' should be 'Gizis'; 'Müller-Horn' is rendered with a non-standard umlaut; and several entries lack final DOIs or have formatting inconsistencies (e.g., the Lada & Lada entry). These should be corrected.
  2. [Figure 1 caption] The left panel caption mentions 'ΩGF dyn' and 'ΩEE' but the text could briefly define them in the caption as the Galactic-field stellar-dynamical operator and the pre-main-sequence eigenevolution operator, respectively, to improve readability.
  3. [Sec. 6] The statement that 'The Sun too may have had a binary companion... in order to be consistent with the current orbit of Neptune' is presented without a reference to a specific model or quantitative argument. A citation or a sentence of explanation would help the reader evaluate this claim.
  4. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'hilfskonstrukts' (Sec. 3) is used without a translation or explanation until a later mention; provide an English gloss on first use for non-German-speaking readers.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Field-binary-fraction 'predictions' are by-eye fitting targets: the birth distributions are iterated until they reproduce the PMS and field data, then evolved to 'predict' the field.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3 (The distribution functions) and Sec. 4 (Using the initial distribution functions)]
    "The procedure to derive the birth (and initial) distribution functions is as follows: the Galactic field population needs to be reproduced given the pre-main sequence constraints ... with this being repeated until these distribution functions were consistent with the observational constraints evident in the left panel of Fig. 1 for the pre-main sequence stars and the field stars. "Consistent" here means according to inspection by eye. ... We can also synthesise galactic field populations ... leading to the prediction that ... Milky-Way-type galaxies have fbin,ms ≈ 0.5 (as is observed)."

    The birth functions fP,birth, fq,birth, fe,birth are not derived from independent first principles; they are iterated in N-body simulations until they reproduce both the ~1 Myr PMS constraints and the ~5 Gyr field constraints. Equation (3) then defines fx,ms = Omega_dyn(Mecl,rh) Omega_EE fx,birth, so the claimed 'prediction' that Milky-Way-type galaxies have fbin,ms ≈ 0.5 is the fit target evolved through the operators, not an independent forecast. The q≈1 peak is likewise described as accounted for 'after the above theory was formulated', i.e. after the birth q-distribution had been adjusted to the same data. This is a fitted input renamed as a prediction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 2 (fmult,birth=1 premise) and Sec. 3 (pre-main-sequence fitting constraints)]
    "Because ≈ 1 Myr old populations in low-density star-forming regions have a binary fraction near 1 this must imply that the vast majority of all stars form as binaries ... Thus, it may be assumed to sufficient approximation that the total fraction of multiple systems is fmult,birth = 1 at birth. ... The constraint that fbin,birth ≈ 1 for the pre-main sequence population stemming from the nearby ... molecular cloud clumps suggests the birth period distribution function to be rising with P."

    The same observed fbin≈1 in ~1 Myr star-forming regions is used twice: once to justify the universal birth multiplicity fraction fmult,birth=1, and once as the primary pre-main-sequence constraint in the iterative by-eye fit of fP,birth, fq,birth, fe,birth. The model then evolves these fitted functions through Omega_EE and Omega_dyn to recover the ~1 Myr and 5 Gyr populations. Because the paper itself states that the initial distribution functions 'never exist physically' and that a 1 Myr population has already been dynamically processed on the <~0.3 Myr crossing timescale, the observation cannot independently anchor the birth fraction; the premise and the validation are the same datum, so the later agreement does not confirm fmult,birth=1.

full rationale

This is a review-style paper that honestly describes an iterative, by-eye fitting procedure: in Sec. 3, Kroupa (1995a) 'applied an iterative procedure' with 'a first guess for fP,birth, fq,birth, fe,birth', repeating N-body simulations 'until these distribution functions were consistent with the observational constraints ... for the pre-main sequence stars and the field stars.' The central claimed prediction, fbin,ms ≈ 0.5 for the Milky Way, is a direct product of this fitted input, making it a partial circularity rather than an independent test. The same fbin≈1 young-population observation is used both to set fmult,birth=1 and as a fitting constraint, so the premise of universal binary birth is not independently established. The paper does contain independent physical content: real N-body dynamics, external observational datasets (Duquennoy & Mayor 1991; Raghavan et al. 2010; Reid & Gizis 1997; Moe et al. 2019), and extra checks against the Orion Nebula Cluster and Pleiades. However, those cluster tests are in earlier self-cited papers and use the same framework components, and the claimed 'prediction' of the field binary fraction remains forced by the fitting targets. The score is therefore 6: partial circularity from fitted inputs being presented as predictions, not a full eq.-to-eq. equivalence.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The 'birth distribution functions' are mathematical constructs ('hilfskonstrukts'), explicitly described as never existing physically, but they are not new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. The free parameters are the three fitted birth distribution functions; the axioms are the physical and methodological assumptions needed to infer them from observations via N-body simulations.

free parameters (3)
  • Birth period distribution fP,birth(P) = Not given in this paper; see Kroupa (1995b) and Belloni et al. (2017)
    The functional form and parameters of the birth period distribution were chosen iteratively so that N-body models reproduce the observed period distributions of pre-main-sequence and field binaries (Sec. 3).
  • Birth mass-ratio distribution fq,birth(q) = Not given in this paper; see Kroupa (1995b) and Belloni et al. (2017)
    The functional form and parameters were tuned in the same iterative N-body procedure to match the observed mass-ratio distributions of young and field populations (Sec. 3).
  • Birth eccentricity distribution fe,birth(e) = Not given in this paper; see Kroupa (1995b) and Belloni et al. (2017)
    The functional form and parameters were adjusted iteratively so that the simulated eccentricity distributions remain consistent with the observed pre-main-sequence and field binaries (Sec. 3).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption All late-type stars are born as binaries: fmult,birth = 1.
    Sec. 2 states this may be assumed to sufficient approximation, based on the observed binary fraction near 1 in about 1 Myr old low-density star-forming regions and angular momentum conservation. This sets the initial conditions for all later N-body processing.
  • domain assumption The birth distribution functions are not directly observable.
    Sec. 3 explains that dynamical processing acts within the cluster crossing time (less than about 0.3 Myr), so the initial functions 'never exist physically' and must be inferred through simulations. This makes the inverse problem dependent on the N-body model.
  • domain assumption The Galactic field population is the superposition of dissolved embedded clusters with an unknown distribution of mass and radius.
    Sec. 3 uses this to justify iterative, by-eye matching rather than a formal inversion; the unknown cluster distribution makes the constraint weaker than a direct fit.
  • domain assumption Heggie-Hills law: hard binaries harden and soft binaries soften during encounters.
    Sec. 3 and Sec. 5 rely on this to argue that close binaries survive while wide binaries are disrupted in embedded clusters.
  • domain assumption Pre-main-sequence eigenevolution (Omega_EE) converts birth distributions into initial distributions via tidal dissipation, circularization, and accretion in the first 10^5 yr.
    Sec. 3 assumes this theoretical model, including its 'slight improvement' by Belloni et al. (2017), before dynamical processing.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Are binary-star populations regionally different? --in memory of Sverre Aarseth--." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JBRGPM7G

@misc{pith2026250208710,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Are binary-star populations regionally different? --in memory of Sverre Aarseth--},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JBRGPM7G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08710}
}
read the original abstract

For synthesising star clusters and whole galaxies, stellar populations need to be modelled by a set of four functions that define their initial distribution of stellar masses and of the orbital properties of their binary-star populations. The initial binaries are dynamically processed in different embedded clusters explaining differences in the observed populations. The approach summarised here, for which the Aarseth Nbody codes have been instrumental, allows inference of the initial conditions of the globular cluster omega Cen and the quantification of the stellar merger rate as a function of stellar spectral type, of the role of multiples and mergers for the Cepheid population, and predictions of extragalactic observables. The observability of the four initial distribution functions and their physical and philosophical meaning are also briefly raised. Evidence for the variation of these functions on the physical conditions of star formation and future steps towards extensions to include higher-order multiple systems are touched upon.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08710 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left panel: The distribution functions of periods, fb = fbin, of about 1 Myr old late-type binary systems in star-forming regions as shown by solid symbols. The histogram shows the period distribution of main sequence G-dwarfs in the Galactic field (Duquennoy & Mayor 1991; Raghavan et al. 2010) which also matches that of K- and M-dwarfs that have a slightly lower binary fraction (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The binary fraction as a function of the primary mass. Stars are born in embedded clusters with half mass radii rh as binaries. This birth stellar binary pop￾ulation has f = fbin,birth(m1) ≈ 1 for all primary masses, m1. The stellar-dynamical encounters within the embedded clusters decrease fbin,birth(m1) more for smaller m1 because less-massive binary systems are, on average, less bound. The calculations (via Ωdyn)… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aarseth, S.J.: 1999, Publications of the ASP 111, 1333, DOI:10.1086/316455

    doi:10.1086/316455 1999

  2. [2]

    Aarseth, S.J.: 2003, Gravitational N-Body Simulations , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    Aarseth, S.J.: 2008, Lecture Notes in Physics 760, 1, DOI:10.1007/978-1-4020-8431-7 1

    doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8431-7 2008

  4. [4]

    Abt, H.A.: 1983, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 21, 343, DOI:10.1146/annurev.aa.21.090183.002015

    arXiv 1983

  5. [5]

    and Kroupa, P.: 2018, Astrophysics and Space Science 424, 143, DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-22801-3 6

    Banerjee, S. and Kroupa, P.: 2018, Astrophysics and Space Science 424, 143, DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-22801-3 6

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-22801-3 2018

  6. [6]

    and Rocha-Pinto, H.J.: 2017, Monthly Notices of the RAS 471, 2812, DOI:10.1093/mnras/stx1763

    Belloni, D., Askar, A., Giersz, M., Kroupa, P. and Rocha-Pinto, H.J.: 2017, Monthly Notices of the RAS 471, 2812, DOI:10.1093/mnras/stx1763

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1763 2017

  7. [7]

    W., Aguilar L

    Cifuentes, C., Caballero, J.A., Gonzalez-Payo, J., Amado, P.J., Bejar, V.J.S., et al.: 2024, arXiv:2412.12264v1 , Are binary-star populations regionally different? 231 Carney B. W., Aguilar L. A., Latham D. W. and Laird J. B.: 2005, Astronomical Jour- nal 129, 1886, DOI:10.1086/427542

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    and Benaglia, P: 2024, Bulletin de la Soci´ et´ e Royale des Sciences de Li` ege93, 103, DOI:10.25518/0037-9565.12289

    Carretero-Castrillo, M., Ribo, M., Paredes, J.M. and Benaglia, P: 2024, Bulletin de la Soci´ et´ e Royale des Sciences de Li` ege93, 103, DOI:10.25518/0037-9565.12289

    arXiv 2024

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    and Kroupa, P.: 2022, Monthly Notices of the RAS 510, 413, DOI:10.1093/mnras/stab3288 Dinnbier F., Anderson R.I

    Dabringhausen, J., Marks, M. and Kroupa, P.: 2022, Monthly Notices of the RAS 510, 413, DOI:10.1093/mnras/stab3288 Dinnbier F., Anderson R.I. and Kroupa P.: 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics 690, A385, DOI:10.1051/0004-6361/202347641 Duchˆ ene, G. and Kraus, A.: 2013, Ann. Rev....

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    and Mayor, M.: 1991, Astronomy and Astrophysics 248, 485 Dvoˇ r´ akov´ a N., Korˇ c´ akov´ a D., Dinnbier F

    Duquennoy, A. and Mayor, M.: 1991, Astronomy and Astrophysics 248, 485 Dvoˇ r´ akov´ a N., Korˇ c´ akov´ a D., Dinnbier F. and Kroupa P.: 2024,Astronomy and As- trophysics 689, A234, DOI:10.1051/0004-6361/202449586

    1991 doi

  3. [12]

    Goodwin, S. P. and Kroupa, P.: 2005, Astronomy and Astrophysics 439, 565, DOI:10.1051/0004-6361:20052654

    2005 doi

  4. [13]

    and Burkert, A.: 2007, in Protostars and Planets V , ed.: B

    Goodwin, S.P., Kroupa, P., Goodman, A. and Burkert, A.: 2007, in Protostars and Planets V , ed.: B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt and K. Keil, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 133

    2007

  5. [14]

    Heggie, D.C.: 1975, Monthly Notices of the RAS 173, 729, DOI:10.1093/mnras/173.3.729

    1975 doi

  6. [15]

    Hills, J.G.: 1975, Astronomical Journal 80, 809, DOI:10.1086/111815

    1975 doi

  7. [16]

    Hopkins, A.: 2018, Publications of the Astron. Soc. of Australia 35, 39, DOI:10.1017/pasa.2018.29

    2018 doi

  8. [18]

    Kroupa, P.: 1995a, Monthly Notices of the RAS 277, 1491, DOI:10.1093/mnras/277.4.1491

    doi

  9. [19]

    Kroupa, P.: 1995b, Monthly Notices of the RAS 277, 1507, DOI:10.1093/mnras/277.4.1507

    doi

  10. [20]

    Kroupa, P.: 1995c, Astrophysical Journal 453, 358, DOI:10.1086/176395

    doi

  11. [21]

    Kroupa, P.: 2002, Binary Systems, Star Clusters and the Galactic-Field Population , Habilitation Thesis, University of Kiel, Kiel

    2002

  12. [22]

    Kroupa, P.: 2005, ESASP 576, 629, DOI:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0412069

    2005 doi arXiv

  13. [23]

    Aarseth, C

    Kroupa, P.: 2008, in The Cambridge N-Body Lectures, Lecture Notes in Physics 760 , ed.: S. Aarseth, C. Tout and R. Mardling, Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg, 181 Kroupa P.: 2011, IAU Symp. 270, 141, DOI:10.1017/S1743921311000305 232 P. Kroupa

    2008 doi

  14. [24]

    and Hurley, J.: 2001, Monthly Notices of the RAS 321, 699, DOI:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04050.x

    Kroupa, P., Aarseth, S. and Hurley, J.: 2001, Monthly Notices of the RAS 321, 699, DOI:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04050.x

    2001

  15. [25]

    and Bouvier, J.: 2003, Monthly Notices of the RAS 346, 343, DOI:10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.06645.x

    Kroupa, P. and Bouvier, J.: 2003, Monthly Notices of the RAS 346, 343, DOI:10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.06645.x

    2003

  16. [26]

    and Jerabkova T.: 2018, in The Impact of Binaries on Stellar Evolution , eds.: G

    Kroupa, P. and Jerabkova T.: 2018, in The Impact of Binaries on Stellar Evolution , eds.: G. Beccari and H.M.J. Boffin, Cambridge University Press, arXiv:1806.10605,

    2018 arXiv

  17. [27]

    and Yan, Z.: 2024, in Encyclopedia of As- trophysics, eds.: I

    Kroupa, P., Gjergo, E., Jerabkova, T. and Yan, Z.: 2024, in Encyclopedia of As- trophysics, eds.: I. Mandel and F.R.N. Schneider, Elsevier Reference Module, arXiv:2410.07311,

    2024 arXiv

  18. [28]

    and Lada, E.A.: 2003, Ann

    Lada, C.J. and Lada, E.A.: 2003, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 41, 57, DOI:10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094844

    2003 arXiv

  19. [29]

    and Nespral, D.: 2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, ac- cepted , DOI:10.48550/arXiv.2501.14462

    Toledo, F., Clavero, R. and Nespral, D.: 2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, ac- cepted , DOI:10.48550/arXiv.2501.14462

    2025 doi

  20. [32]

    and Kroupa, P.: 2012, Astronomy and Astrophysics 543, A8, 10.1051/0004- 6361/201118231

    Marks, M. and Kroupa, P.: 2012, Astronomy and Astrophysics 543, A8, 10.1051/0004- 6361/201118231

    2012 doi

  21. [33]

    and Dabringhausen, J.: 2022,Astronomy and Astrophysics 659, A96, DOI:10.1051/0004-6361/202141846

    Marks, M., Kroupa, P. and Dabringhausen, J.: 2022,Astronomy and Astrophysics 659, A96, DOI:10.1051/0004-6361/202141846

    2022 doi

  22. [34]

    Mazzola, C.N., Badenes, C., Moe, M., Koposov, S.E., Kounkel, M., Kratter, K., etal.: 2020, Monthly Notices of the RAS 499, 1607, DOI:10.1093/mnras/staa2859

    2020 doi

  23. [35]

    Fazio, G. G.: 2016, Astrophysical Journal 151, 5, DOI:10.3847/0004-6256/151/1/5 Merle T.: 2024, Bulletin de la Soci´ et´ e Royale des Sciences de Li` ege93, 170, DOI: 10.25518/0037-9565.11641

    2016

  24. [36]

    and Aarseth, S.J.: 1993, Celestial Mechanics & Dynamical Astronomy 57, 439, DOI:10.1007/BF00695714

    Mikkola, S. and Aarseth, S.J.: 1993, Celestial Mechanics & Dynamical Astronomy 57, 439, DOI:10.1007/BF00695714

    1993 doi

  25. [37]

    and Badenes, C.: 2019, Astrophysical Journal 875, 61, DOI:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0d88 M¨ uller-Horn, J., G¨ ottgens, F., Dreizler, S., Kamann, S., Martens, S., Saracino, S

    Moe, M., Kratter, K.M. and Badenes, C.: 2019, Astrophysical Journal 875, 61, DOI:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0d88 M¨ uller-Horn, J., G¨ ottgens, F., Dreizler, S., Kamann, S., Martens, S., Saracino, S. and

    2019 doi

  26. [38]

    Ye, C.S.: 2024, arXiv:2412.13189v1 , Offner S. S. R., Moe M., Kratter K. M., Sadavoy S. I., Jensen E. L. N. and Tobin J. J.: 2023, in Protostars and Planets VII , ed.: S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida and M.Tamura, Astronomical Society of the Pacific, San Francisco, 275

    2024 arXiv

  27. [39]

    and Kroupa, P.: 2016, Astronomy and Astrophysics 590, 107, DOI:10.1051/0004-6361/201628233 Are binary-star populations regionally different? 233

    Oh, S. and Kroupa, P.: 2016, Astronomy and Astrophysics 590, 107, DOI:10.1051/0004-6361/201628233 Are binary-star populations regionally different? 233

    2016 doi

  28. [40]

    and Kroupa, P.: 2006, Monthly Notices of the RAS 373, 295, DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11028.x

    Pflamm-Altenburg, J. and Kroupa, P.: 2006, Monthly Notices of the RAS 373, 295, DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11028.x

    2006

  29. [41]

    and Brummelaar, T.A.: 2010, Astrophysical Journal, Supplement 190, 1, DOI:10.1088/0067-0049/190/1/1

    Raghavan, D., McAlister, H.A., Henry, T.J., Latham, D.W., Marcy, G.W., Mason, B.D., Gies, D.R., White, R.J. and Brummelaar, T.A.: 2010, Astrophysical Journal, Supplement 190, 1, DOI:10.1088/0067-0049/190/1/1

    2010 doi

  30. [42]

    and Gizis, J.E.: 1997, Astronomical Journal 113, 2246, DOI:10.1086/118436

    Reid, I.N. and Gizis, J.E.: 1997, Astronomical Journal 113, 2246, DOI:10.1086/118436

    1997 doi

  31. [43]

    Stoop, M., de Koter, A., Kaper, L., Brands, S., Portegies Zwart, S., Sana, H., et al.: 2024, Nature 634, 809, DOI:10.1038/s41586-024-08013-8

    2024 doi

  32. [44]

    Terlevich, E.: 1987, Monthly Notices of the RAS 224, 193, DOI:10.1093/mnras/224.1.193

    1987 doi

  33. [45]

    and Whitworth, A.P.: 2011, Monthly Notices of the RAS 417, 1817, DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19390.x

    Thies, I., Kroupa, P., Goodwin, S.P., Stamatellos, D. and Whitworth, A.P.: 2011, Monthly Notices of the RAS 417, 1817, DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19390.x

    2011

  34. [46]

    and Marks, M.: 2015, Astronomical Jour- nal 800, 72, DOI:10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/72

    Thies, I., Pflamm-Altenburg, J., Kroupa, P. and Marks, M.: 2015, Astronomical Jour- nal 800, 72, DOI:10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/72

    2015 doi

  35. [47]

    Wielen, R.: 1971, Astronomy and Astrophysics 13, 309

    1971

  36. [48]

    Wirth, H., Kroupa, P., Haas, J., Jerabkova, T., Yan, Z., Subr, L.: 2022,Monthly Notices of the RAS 516, 3342, DOI:10.1093/mnras/stac2424

    2022 doi

  37. [49]

    and van de Ven, G.: 2024, Monthly Notices of the RAS 535, 781, DOI:10.1093/mnras/stae2333

    Wragg, F., Kamann, S., Saracino, S., Latour, M., Dreizler, S., Martens, S., Seth, A., Vaz, D. and van de Ven, G.: 2024, Monthly Notices of the RAS 535, 781, DOI:10.1093/mnras/stae2333

    2024 doi

  38. [50]

    and Dib, S.: 2024, Publications of the ASP 136, id.094301, DOI:10.1088/1538-3873/ad6f44

    Zhou, J.W., Kroupa, P. and Dib, S.: 2024, Publications of the ASP 136, id.094301, DOI:10.1088/1538-3873/ad6f44

    2024 doi

  39. [51]

    and Kroupa, P.: 2024, Publications of the ASP 136, id.094302, DOI:10.1088/1538-3873/ad77f4

    Zhou, J.W., Dib, S. and Kroupa, P.: 2024, Publications of the ASP 136, id.094302, DOI:10.1088/1538-3873/ad77f4

    2024 doi

  40. [52]

    and Dong, S.: 2021, Ann

    Zhu, W. and Dong, S.: 2021, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 59, 291, DOI:10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-020055

    2021 doi

Pith tools

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