Star formation from low to high mass: A comparative view

H. Beuther; M. Tafalla; R. Kuiper

REVIEW 1 major objections 3 minor 5 cited by

Star formation from low to high mass: A comparative view

T0 review · 1 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that low- and high-mass star formation are one continuous, non-bimodal process, differing mainly in rates, densities, and the late appearance of ionizing feedback.

desk verdict A solid, useful ARA&A-style review arguing for continuity across stellar mass; the turbulence-similarity claim is the soft spot, but the review as a whole deserves serious refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16866 v1 pith:KC23N57E submitted 2025-01-28 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

H. Beuther , R. Kuiper , M. Tafalla This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

keywords starformationlow-massstarshigh-massinitialmassfunctionaccretionoutflowsmagneticfieldsmultiplicity

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 review asks whether stars form by one continuous process across mass or by two fundamentally different mechanisms, with the traditional dividing line near 8 solar masses. The authors argue that the accumulated observational and theoretical evidence now supports a unified picture: stars of all masses form through the same sequence of collapsing cores, disks, and outflows, in clustered environments, with differences that are mostly quantitative. The genuinely qualitative break appears only in the radiative and ionizing feedback from massive stars, and even then accretion can continue through ionized disk flows. If this picture is right, models of star formation, cluster formation, and galaxy evolution can treat stellar birth as mass-continuous rather than bimodal.

What carries the argument

The review's load-bearing machinery is a three-regime classification--similar, quantitative difference, qualitative difference--applied to a matched set of observables: infall asymmetry distributions ($\delta V$), density power-law indices, non-thermal linewidths in infrared dark clouds, Jeans-length core separations, disk and outflow mass scaling, and the presence of hypercompact H II regions. These paired observables let the authors separate effects that merely scale with mass from effects that represent genuinely new physics.

What would settle it

A large, unbiased interferometric survey of 70-micron-dark, starless high-mass cores that resolves their substructure and finds typical non-thermal velocity dispersions well above the sound speed (Mach number greater than about 2) would overturn the similarity claim, because the review's case for similar turbulent support depends on narrow, subsonic-to-transonic linewidths in the measured IRDCs.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that we have converged on a picture of star formation from low to high mass where the physical and chemical processes are largely shared, with differences falling into three categories: close similarities, quantitative differences, and qualitative differences. Similarities include turbulent gas properties on clump and core scales, density power-law slopes $ ho \propto r^{-p}$ with $p$ between roughly 1.5 and 2, and a nearly environment-independent initial mass function and multiplicity. Quantitative differences appear in infall, accretion, and outflow rates, mean column and volume densities (higher by about an order of magnitude in high-mass regions), and multiplicity, which rises strongly with stellar mass. Qualitative differences are concentrated in ionizing radiation and H II regions, which occur almost exclusively around massive stars, yet accretion can still proceed through disk structures in ionized accretion flows.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that high-mass cores are not more turbulent than low-mass ones rests on a small set of infrared dark clouds whose narrow linewidths are assumed to represent the true initial conditions of massive-star formation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the unified picture holds, high-mass star formation can be modeled as a denser, higher-accretion-rate version of low-mass star formation, allowing disk and outflow simulations to be scaled across the mass range.
Because accretion can continue through ionized flows inside hypercompact H II regions, ionizing feedback does not set a strict upper mass limit, and stars above the classical 40-solar-mass radiation-pressure limit can grow by disk accretion.
The near-universality of the initial mass function follows naturally: if the same process operates at all masses, the final mass distribution should vary little with environment, matching observations from Taurus to Orion-like clusters.
The higher multiplicity of massive stars emerges as a corollary of higher ambient densities: smaller Jeans lengths produce closer fragment separations, and massive disks fragment more readily into close companions.
Turbulent support is not the distinguishing agent; high-mass cores begin with similar subsonic-to-transonic linewidths, so the higher accretion rates required to build massive stars must come from higher densities and deeper potential wells.

Reading between the lines

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

If this picture is right, the top-heavy initial mass functions reported in extreme environments such as the Galactic center might be explained by higher density thresholds rather than by different formation physics, a relation that could be tested by mapping IMF slope against local column density.
A direct extension is that the magnetic field's role should be scale-dependent within every high-mass region: ordered fields may support large filaments, while collapse inside cores becomes supercritical; testing this requires Zeeman or dust-polarization measurements from cloud to core scales in the same region.
The universality of accretion variability implies massive protostars should show burst statistics comparable to low-mass FU Orionis and EXor variables when normalized by accretion timescale, a prediction testable with systematic maser and infrared monitoring.
The disk-fragmentation explanation for close massive binaries predicts a specific excess of equal-mass, small-separation systems, which high-angular-resolution imaging of embedded protocluster cores can distinguish from dynamical capture.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: read this if you want a current, balanced map of low- vs high-mass star formation. The main framing—three categories, similar/quantitative/qualitative—is sensible and useful. It is a review, not a new result, so don't send it to a referee looking for novel data. But it deserves serious refereeing for accuracy and completeness.

What's genuinely good: the comparative structure works. Table 1 is compact and will be widely used. The authors do a real service by pushing back on the old 8 M_sun dichotomy without pretending everything scales trivially: ionizing feedback and multiplicity are treated as genuine qualitative or strong quantitative differences. They also handle the clustered nature of star formation honestly, noting that most low-mass stars form in clusters too. The future-issues list is concrete. The hedging in Sections 2.5 and 2.7 about magnetic fields and variability is appropriate.

The softest spot is the turbulence claim (Section 2.4 and Summary Point 1). The evidence that high-mass initial conditions are not especially turbulent rests on a small number of 70 micron-dark IRDCs with narrow, sometimes multiple, velocity components. The stress-test note is right that this is a selected sample and the decomposition is model-dependent. The review cites Smith et al. simulations for the blending interpretation, which helps, but it hasn't been tested against synthetic observations of genuinely turbulent cores. I would have asked the authors to mark this as plausible but not yet settled rather than placing it firmly in the similarities column. That said, the overall conclusion of a continuous, scaled process does not depend on that one pillar alone; density slopes, infall asymmetry distributions, and disk/outflow phenomenology all point the same way. So I see this as a soft spot rather than a decisive weakness.

Citation pattern looks fine. The authors cite their own work heavily, but a lot of it is directly on point, and they engage the broader literature, including McKee & Tan, fairly. No sign of circularity: the review's claims are interpretations of an external literature, not outputs of their own models.

Verdict: send it to a serious referee. This is the kind of review that belongs in ARA&A, provided the referee asks for the turbulence section to be softened and for a couple of quantitative claims, like the accretion-rate scaling, to be checked against primary sources. I'd bring it to reading group and would probably cite it in the next year when writing about comparative star formation.

Referee Report

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. This review systematically compares low- and high-mass star formation from observational and theoretical perspectives, organizing the comparison into three categories: similarities (turbulent gas properties, density structure, environment-insensitive outcomes), quantitative differences (accretion/outflow rates, density thresholds, multiplicity), and qualitative differences (ionizing radiation and feedback). It argues that star formation is a continuous process across mass, with a largely unified physical description, and identifies unresolved issues such as the role of magnetic fields and accretion variability.

Significance. The manuscript is a timely and comprehensive synthesis by leading researchers in the field. Its strengths are the explicit three-part taxonomy, the careful hedging of controversial topics (e.g., magnetic fields, variability), and the up-to-date coverage of ALMA- and JWST-era results. The comparative framing provides a useful roadmap for future work and makes falsifiable statements (e.g., the turbulent-support similarity) that can be tested with next-generation observations. As a review, it does not contain original derivations, so its value rests on the completeness and balance of the literature interpretation, which is generally high.

major comments (1)

[Section 2.4, Summary Point 1] The conclusion that turbulent support is similar between low- and high-mass star formation rests on the interpretation that narrow linewidths measured in a small sample of infrared dark clouds (e.g., Beuther et al. 2015; Li et al. 2022, 2023) represent true initial conditions. This sample is biased toward 70 micron dark, quiescent regions, and the multi-component Gaussian decomposition is model-dependent. The review should explicitly acknowledge these limitations and add a future-issue item calling for a matched-resolution, unbiased survey with synthetic-observation comparison; without this caveat, the claim in Summary Point 1 is more assertive than the current evidence warrants.

minor comments (3)

[Table 1] The row 'Variability lm ≈ hm' lists variability as a similarity, but Section 3.1 states that the statistics are still poor and that no obvious differences have been identified; this is an overstatement, and the table entry should be revised to reflect the unresolved status.
[Section 2.2.3] The citation 'Coletta et al. (subm.)' has no corresponding entry in the reference list; please add the missing reference or replace it with a published one.
[Figure 3 caption] The labels ('M02', 'B02', etc.) are said to correspond to references listed in Gieser et al. (2021), but the figure caption should either spell out the key references or point to a readily available table, since readers of this review may not have access to that paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review synthesizes external observational and simulation results; the central claim is an interpretation of an independent literature, not an output of the authors' own fitted models.

full rationale

This is an ARA&A-style review paper, not a derivation or prediction paper. It compares low- and high-mass star formation by summarizing published observational and theoretical results. The central claim—that low- and high-mass star formation share many physical processes with quantitative differences and qualitative differences mainly in ionizing feedback—is an interpretive synthesis of a broad external literature, including many works not by the authors. The authors do cite their own observational and simulation papers frequently (e.g., Beuther et al. 2015; Kuiper et al. 2010; Oliva & Kuiper 2023a,b), but these citations are used as evidence within a larger synthesis, not as the sole load-bearing justification. No step in the paper fits the defined circularity patterns: no quantity is defined in terms of the claimed conclusion, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked to forbid alternatives, and no known result is merely renamed. The most potentially vulnerable step—the claim in Section 2.4 that turbulent support is similar across mass regimes—depends on interpreting narrow IRDC linewidths as initial conditions, and the authors explicitly acknowledge the alternative interpretation (apparent broad lines from blending in lower-resolution data) and cite independent simulations by Smith et al. (2013) supporting their decomposition. This is a scientific assumption and a correctness risk, not a circularity: the conclusion does not reduce to the input by construction. The paper also explicitly lists open questions and limitations, including magnetic-field uncertainties and the need for better accretion-flow quantification. Because the review is self-contained against external benchmarks and its synthesis does not depend on an unverified self-citation chain, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

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

The review's synthesis rests on the reliability of the cited observational literature and standard theoretical tools (Jeans analysis, MHD), not on any new fitted parameters or invented entities.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The IRDC interferometric samples represent the initial conditions of high-mass star formation.
The conclusion that turbulent support is similar between mass regimes relies on these observations (Section 2.4).
standard math Jeans fragmentation analysis applies to high-mass cluster-forming clumps.
Used to interpret core separations as thermal Jeans lengths across all masses (Section 2.6).
domain assumption The universality of the IMF implies continuity of the star formation process.
Used to argue against bimodality and in favor of a continuous process (Section 2.1.2).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Star formation from low to high mass: A comparative view." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KC23N57E

@misc{pith2026250116866,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Star formation from low to high mass: A comparative view},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KC23N57E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16866}
}

read the original abstract

Star formation has often been studied by separating the low- and high-mass regimes with an approximate boundary at 8M_sun. While some of the outcomes of the star-formation process are different between the two regimes, it is less clear whether the physical processes leading to these outcomes are that different at all. Here, we systematically compare low- and high-mass star formation by reviewing the most important processes and quantities from an observational and theoretical point of view. We identify three regimes where processes are either similar, quantitatively or qualitatively different between low- and high-mass star formation. Similar characteristics can be identified for the turbulent gas properties and density structures of the star-forming regions. Many of the observational characteristics also do not depend that strongly on the environment. Quantitative differences can be found for outflow, infall and accretion rates as well as mean column and volume densities. Also the multiplicity significantly rises from low- to high-mass stars. The importance of the magnetic field for the formation processes appears still less well constrained. Qualitative differences between low- and high-mass star formation relate mainly to the radiative and ionizing feedback that occurs almost exclusively in regions forming high-mass stars. Nevertheless, accretion apparently can continue via disk structures in ionized accretion flows. Finally, we discuss to what extent a unified picture of star formation over all masses is possible and which issues need to be addressed in the future.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Challenges in probing turbulent and magnetic support in cores: the W43-MM1 protocluster case study
astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Simplified virial analyses of W43-MM1 cores overestimate non-thermal support because linewidths include organized motions of 1–3 km/s and surface terms are omitted, producing unexpectedly high stability fractions.
Episodic accretion in high-mass star formation: An analysis of thermal instability for axially symmetric disks
astro-ph.SR 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Two-dimensional simulations of thermal instability in high-mass protostar disks produce bursts with peak accretion rates of 2-3e-4 solar masses per year, weaker and longer than observed events.
How Should We Understand the Core Mass Function? A memo of the CMF2IMF conference at ESO Garching
astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

The high-mass slope of the core mass function depends strongly on the minimum fitting mass: completeness-based fits look top-heavy, while KS-selected tail fits move toward Salpeter, and the early-stage ASHES sample ap...
Identifying and Determining Atmospheric Parameters of BHB Stars Based on LAMOST DR11
astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A catalog of 13,988 BHB spectra (10,236 unique stars) from LAMOST DR11 with SLAM-based atmospheric parameters, using color indices to break the Teff–logg degeneracy.
Chemistry of Dark Molecular Clouds
astro-ph.GA 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

A comprehensive review arguing that the chemically rich cores TMC-1 CP and L1544 are representative molecular-cloud laboratories, and that complex organic molecule production is largely insensitive to metallicity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

[1]

2023.A&A 680:A23 Ahmadi A, Beuther H, Bosco F, Gieser C, Suri S, et al

Ahmad A, Gonz´ alez M, Hennebelle P, Commer¸ con B. 2023.A&A 680:A23 Ahmadi A, Beuther H, Bosco F, Gieser C, Suri S, et al

work page 2023
[10]

2017.A&A 602:A59 36 Beuther, Kuiper & Tafalla Chabrier G

PPVII 534:379 Cesaroni R, S´ anchez-Monge´A, Beltr´ an MT, Johnston KG, Maud LT, et al. 2017.A&A 602:A59 36 Beuther, Kuiper & Tafalla Chabrier G

work page 2017
[12]

2013.ARA&A 51(1):269–310 Dunham MM, Evans II NJ, Bourke TL, Dullemond CP, Young CH, et al

ApJ 562(2):770–789 Duchˆ ene G, Kraus A. 2013.ARA&A 51(1):269–310 Dunham MM, Evans II NJ, Bourke TL, Dullemond CP, Young CH, et al

work page 2013
[13]

2021.A&A 651:L3 Elmegreen BG

MNRAS 518:791–809 Elbakyan VG, Nayakshin S, Vorobyov EI, Caratti o Garatti A, Eisl¨ offel J. 2021.A&A 651:L3 Elmegreen BG

work page 2021
[14]

I, Dunham MM, Jørgensen JK, Enoch ML, Mer ´ ın B, et al

SFChem 2002: Chemistry as a Diagnostic of Star Formation :157 Evans Neal J. I, Dunham MM, Jørgensen JK, Enoch ML, Mer ´ ın B, et al. 2009.ApJS 181(2):321–350 Evans Neal J. I, Heiderman A, Vutisalchavakul N

work page 2002
[25]

2024.ARA&A 62(1):63–111 Hennebelle P, Lebreuilly U, Colman T, Elia D, Fuller G, et al

A&A 477(1):9–24 Hennebelle P, Grudi´ c MY. 2024.ARA&A 62(1):63–111 Hennebelle P, Lebreuilly U, Colman T, Elia D, Fuller G, et al

work page 2024
[28]

2016.A&A 595:A117 Kahn FD

ARA&A 58:727–778 Jørgensen JK, van der Wiel MHD, Coutens A, Lykke JM, M¨ uller HSP, et al. 2016.A&A 595:A117 Kahn FD

work page 2016
[29]

2018.A&A 620:A182 Kong S, Arce HG, Maureira MJ, Caselli P, Tan JC, Fontani F

ApJ 797(2):99 K¨ olligan A, Kuiper R. 2018.A&A 620:A182 Kong S, Arce HG, Maureira MJ, Caselli P, Tan JC, Fontani F

work page 2018

Show all 53 references

[30]

2000.Protostars and Planets IV :759– Kratter K, Lodato G

ApJ 874(1):104 K¨ onigl A, Pudritz RE. 2000.Protostars and Planets IV :759– Kratter K, Lodato G

2000
[31]

2016.A&A 587:A32 Mathis JS, Rumpl W, Nordsieck KH

ApJ 489(2):719–733 Masson J, Chabrier G, Hennebelle P, Vaytet N, Commer¸ con B. 2016.A&A 587:A32 Mathis JS, Rumpl W, Nordsieck KH

2016
[33]

2001.A&A 365:440–464 Motte F, Bontemps S, Louvet F

ApJ 877(2):L25 Motte F, Andr´ e P. 2001.A&A 365:440–464 Motte F, Bontemps S, Louvet F

2001
[35]

2014.A&A 561:A83 Peters T, Banerjee R, Klessen RS, Mac Low M, Galv´ an-Madrid R, Keto ER

A&A 505:405–415 Peretto N, Fuller GA, Andr´ e P, Arzoumanian D, Rivilla VM, et al. 2014.A&A 561:A83 Peters T, Banerjee R, Klessen RS, Mac Low M, Galv´ an-Madrid R, Keto ER

2014
[36]

2023.ApJ 958(2):L30 Reipurth B, Aspin C

ApJS 190(1):1–42 Ram ´ ırez-Tannus MC, Bik A, Cuijpers L, Waters R, G¨ oppl C, et al. 2023.ApJ 958(2):L30 Reipurth B, Aspin C

2023
[37]

2011.A&A 527:A68 Rosen AL

A&A 683:A124 Rolffs R, Schilke P, Wyrowski F, Menten KM, G¨ usten R, Bisschop SE. 2011.A&A 527:A68 Rosen AL

2011
[38]

2013.MNRAS 432(4):3288–3319 Sanhueza P, Contreras Y, Wu B, Jackson JM, Guzm´ an AE, et al

ApJS 215(1):15 S´ anchez-Monge´A, Palau A, Fontani F, Busquet G, Ju´ arez C, et al. 2013.MNRAS 432(4):3288–3319 Sanhueza P, Contreras Y, Wu B, Jackson JM, Guzm´ an AE, et al. 2019.ApJ 886(2):102 Sanhueza P, Girart JM, Padovani M, Galli D, Hull CLH, et al

2013
[39]

arXiv e-prints :arXiv:2403.19843 Seifried D, Banerjee R, Pudritz RE, Klessen RS

arXiv
[43]

arXiv:2403.15550 Tomida K, Machida MN, Hosokawa T, Sakurai Y, Lin CH

arXiv
[44]

2015.MNRAS 451(4):4384–4396 Tsukamoto Y, Takahashi SZ, Machida MN

A&A 629:A81 Tritsis A, Panopoulou GV, Mouschovias TC, Tassis K, Pavlidou V. 2015.MNRAS 451(4):4384–4396 Tsukamoto Y, Takahashi SZ, Machida MN

2015
[45]

2012.A&A 543:A60 Vaytet N, Chabrier G, Audit E, Commercon B, Masson J, et al

A&A 673:L2 Vaytet N, Audit E, Chabrier G, Commer¸ con B, Masson J. 2012.A&A 543:A60 Vaytet N, Chabrier G, Audit E, Commercon B, Masson J, et al

2012
[47]

ApJ 719(2):1896–1911 Vorobyov EI, Elbakyan VG, Liu HB, Takami M

1911
[49]

arXiv:2408.08299 Whitworth A, Summers D

arXiv
[50]

arXiv:2407.18293 Williams SJ, Fuller GA, Sridharan TK

arXiv
[51]

arXiv.2405.10427 Wolfire MG, Cassinelli JP

arXiv
[52]

2012.A&A 542:L15 Yang YL, Evans Neal J

A&A 585:A149 44 Beuther, Kuiper & Tafalla Wyrowski F, G¨ usten R, Menten KM, Wiesemeyer H, Klein B. 2012.A&A 542:L15 Yang YL, Evans Neal J. I, Smith A, Lee JE, Tobin JJ, et al

2012
[53]

2015.ApJ 804(2):141 Zhang Q, Wang Y, Pillai T, Rathborne J

ApJ 792:116 Zhang Q, Wang K, Lu X, Jim´ enez-Serra I. 2015.ApJ 804(2):141 Zhang Q, Wang Y, Pillai T, Rathborne J

2015
[1982]

2022.MNRAS 515(4):4929–4952 Guszejnov D, Raju AN, Offner SSR, Grudi´ c MY, Faucher-Gigu` ere CA, et al

Vistas in Astronomy 26(3):159–224 Guszejnov D, Grudi´ c MY, Offner SSR, Faucher-Gigu` ere CA, Hopkins PF, Rosen AL. 2022.MNRAS 515(4):4929–4952 Guszejnov D, Raju AN, Offner SSR, Grudi´ c MY, Faucher-Gigu` ere CA, et al

2022
[1986]

2023.A&A 672:A133 Shu FH

Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 38:631–660 Shimajiri Y, Andr´ e P, Peretto N, Arzoumanian D, Ntormousi E, K¨ onyves V. 2023.A&A 672:A133 Shu FH

2023
[1989]

2015.ApJ 814(1):48 Nayakshin S, Lodato G

ApJ 345:464–471 Naranjo-Romero R, V´ azquez-Semadeni E, Loughnane RM. 2015.ApJ 814(1):48 Nayakshin S, Lodato G

2015
[1991]

2020.ApJ 889(2):178 Banerjee R, Pudritz RE

ApJ 376:214–233 Bally J, Ginsburg A, Forbrich J, Vargas-Gonz´ alez J. 2020.ApJ 889(2):178 Banerjee R, Pudritz RE

2020
[1992]

2017.Nature 13(3):276 Carpenter JM

A&A 261:274–284 Caratti o Garatti A, Stecklum B, Garcia Lopez R, Eisl¨ offel J, Ray TP, et al. 2017.Nature 13(3):276 Carpenter JM

2017
[1994]

2016.A&A Rev

ApJ 427:987–1004 Beltr´ an MT, de Wit WJ. 2016.A&A Rev. 24:6 Beltr´ an MT, Padovani M, Galli D,´A˜ nez-L´ opez N, Girart JM, et al. 2024.arXiv:2404.10347 Bergin EA, Tafalla M

2016
[1997]

2022a.MNRAS 512(1):216–232 Grudi´ c MY, Guszejnov D, Offner SSR, Rosen AL, Raju AN, et al

ApJ 484(1):256–276 Grudi´ c MY, Guszejnov D, Offner SSR, Rosen AL, Raju AN, et al. 2022a.MNRAS 512(1):216–232 Grudi´ c MY, Guszejnov D, Offner SSR, Rosen AL, Raju AN, et al. 2022b.MNRAS 512(1):216–232 Grudic MY, Offner SSR, Guszejnov D, Faucher-Gigu` ere CA, Hopkins PF. 2023.T...

2023
[1998]

2010.A&A 522:A91 Takakuwa S, Kamazaki T, Saito M, Yamaguchi N, Kohno K

ApJ 504(2):900–914 Tafalla M, Santiago-Garc ´ ıa J, Hacar A, Bachiller R. 2010.A&A 522:A91 Takakuwa S, Kamazaki T, Saito M, Yamaguchi N, Kohno K

2010
[2000]

2014.MNRAS 440(3):2860–2881 Herbig GH

A&A 353:211–226 Henshaw JD, Caselli P, Fontani F, Jim´ enez-Serra I, Tan JC. 2014.MNRAS 440(3):2860–2881 Herbig GH

2014
[2001]

2014.PPVI :387–410 Avison A, Fuller GA, Frimpong NA, Etoka S, Hoare M, et al

MNRAS 324:705–711 Audard M, ´Abrah´ am P, Dunham MM, Green JD, Grosso N, et al. 2014.PPVI :387–410 Avison A, Fuller GA, Frimpong NA, Etoka S, Hoare M, et al

2014
[2003]

2014.PPVI :859–882 Ceccarelli C, Codella C, Balucani N, Bockelee-Morvan D, Herbst E, et al

ApJ 593(1):L51–L55 Ceccarelli C, Caselli P, Bockel´ ee-Morvan D, Mousis O, Pizzarello S, et al. 2014.PPVI :859–882 Ceccarelli C, Codella C, Balucani N, Bockelee-Morvan D, Herbst E, et al

2014
[2005]

2008.ApJ 674(1):L33 Galv´ an-Madrid R, Zhang Q, Izquierdo A, Law CJ, Peters T, et al

A&A 442(3):949–959 Galv´ an-Madrid R, Rodr ´ ıguez LF, Ho PTP, Keto E. 2008.ApJ 674(1):L33 Galv´ an-Madrid R, Zhang Q, Izquierdo A, Law CJ, Peters T, et al

2008
[2007]

2014.PPVI :149–172 Tan JC, McKee CF

PASJ 59:1–13 Tan JC, Beltr´ an MT, Caselli P, Fontani F, Fuente A, et al. 2014.PPVI :149–172 Tan JC, McKee CF. 2003a. IAU Symposium 221 :274P Tan JC, McKee CF. 2003b. astro-ph/0309139 Tanaka KEI, Tan JC, Staff JE, Zhang Y

2014 arXiv
[2008]

2021.MNRAS 502(4):4963–4971 G´ omez GC, V´ azquez-Semadeni E, Zamora-Avil´ es M

ApJ 680:428–445 G´ omez GC, V´ azquez-Semadeni E, Palau A. 2021.MNRAS 502(4):4963–4971 G´ omez GC, V´ azquez-Semadeni E, Zamora-Avil´ es M. 2018.MNRAS 480(3):2939–2944 Gregersen EM, Evans Neal J. I, Zhou S, Choi M

2021
[2009]

2011.ApJ 738(1):11 Hillenbrand LA, Hartmann L W

ARA&A 47:427–480 Hernandez AK, Tan JC, Caselli P, Butler MJ, Jim´ enez-Serra I, et al. 2011.ApJ 738(1):11 Hillenbrand LA, Hartmann L W

2011
[2010]

2020.ApJ 904(2):194 Hennebelle P, Commer¸ con B, Joos M, Klessen RS, Krumholz M, et al

ApJ 723(2):1019–1037 Hennebelle P, Commer¸ con B, Lee YN, Chabrier G. 2020.ApJ 904(2):194 Hennebelle P, Commer¸ con B, Joos M, Klessen RS, Krumholz M, et al

2020
[2011]

2013.A&A 554:A55 Hartmann L, Kenyon SJ

A&A 533:A34 Hacar A, Tafalla M, Kauffmann J, Kov´ acs A. 2013.A&A 554:A55 Hartmann L, Kenyon SJ

2013
[2012]

2004.ApJ 604(2):L105–L108 Frank A, Ray TP, Cabrit S, Hartigan P, Arce HG, et al

MNRAS 423(3):2342–2358 Franco-Hern´ andez R, Rodr ´ ıguez LF. 2004.ApJ 604(2):L105–L108 Frank A, Ray TP, Cabrit S, Hartigan P, Arce HG, et al

2004
[2013]

2019.MNRAS 490(3):3061–3097 Vorobyov EI, Basu S

A&A 557:A90 V´ azquez-Semadeni E, Palau A, Ballesteros-Paredes J, G´ omez GC, Zamora-Avil´ es M. 2019.MNRAS 490(3):3061–3097 Vorobyov EI, Basu S

2019
[2014]

2010.A&A 518:L102 Andre P, Ward-Thompson D, Barsony M

PPVI :27–51 Andr´ e P, Men’shchikov A, Bontemps S, K¨ onyves V, Motte F, et al. 2010.A&A 518:L102 Andre P, Ward-Thompson D, Barsony M

2010
[2015]

2023.Nature Astronomy 7:431–443 McKee CF

MNRAS 453:645 McClure MK, Rocha WRM, Pontoppidan KM, Crouzet N, Chu LEU, et al. 2023.Nature Astronomy 7:431–443 McKee CF

2023
[2016]

MNRAS 458(2):1990–1998 Bastian N, Covey KR, Meyer MR

1990
[2019]

2019.ApJ 878(2):110 Fontani F, Caselli P, Bourke TL, Cesaroni R, Brand J

ApJ 872(2):183 Fissel LM, Ade PAR, Angil` e FE, Ashton P, Benton SJ, et al. 2019.ApJ 878(2):110 Fontani F, Caselli P, Bourke TL, Cesaroni R, Brand J

2019
[2020]

2011.ApJ 742:L9 Commer¸ con B, Gonz´ alez M, Mignon-Risse R, Hennebelle P, Vaytet N

A&A 641:A54 Commer¸ con B, Hennebelle P, Henning T. 2011.ApJ 742:L9 Commer¸ con B, Gonz´ alez M, Mignon-Risse R, Hennebelle P, Vaytet N. 2022.A&A 658:A52 Commer¸ con B, Gonz´ alez M, Mignon-Risse R, Hennebelle P, Vaytet N. 2022.A&A 658:A52 Commercon B, Hennebelle P, Henning T

2011
[2021]

A&A :arXiv:2101.01596 Walmsley M

arXiv
[2022]

2008.ApJ 679(1):537–551 Farias JP, Offner SSR, Grudi´ c MY, Guszejnov D, Rosen AL

ApJ 929(1):L18 Falceta-Gon¸ calves D, Lazarian A, Kowal G. 2008.ApJ 679(1):537–551 Farias JP, Offner SSR, Grudi´ c MY, Guszejnov D, Rosen AL. 2024.MNRAS 527(3):6732–6751 Faulkner J, Lin DNC, Papaloizou J

2008
[2023]

1997.ApJ 487(1):L93–L96 Bachiller R, Tafalla M

MNRAS 526(2):2278–2300 Bachiller R, P´ erez Guti´ errez M. 1997.ApJ 487(1):L93–L96 Bachiller R, Tafalla M

1997
[2024]

arXiv e-prints :arXiv:2404.07259 Fuller GA, Williams SJ, Sridharan TK

arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

2023.A&A 680:A23 Ahmadi A, Beuther H, Bosco F, Gieser C, Suri S, et al

Ahmad A, Gonz´ alez M, Hennebelle P, Commer¸ con B. 2023.A&A 680:A23 Ahmadi A, Beuther H, Bosco F, Gieser C, Suri S, et al

work page 2023

[2] [10]

2017.A&A 602:A59 36 Beuther, Kuiper & Tafalla Chabrier G

PPVII 534:379 Cesaroni R, S´ anchez-Monge´A, Beltr´ an MT, Johnston KG, Maud LT, et al. 2017.A&A 602:A59 36 Beuther, Kuiper & Tafalla Chabrier G

work page 2017

[3] [12]

2013.ARA&A 51(1):269–310 Dunham MM, Evans II NJ, Bourke TL, Dullemond CP, Young CH, et al

ApJ 562(2):770–789 Duchˆ ene G, Kraus A. 2013.ARA&A 51(1):269–310 Dunham MM, Evans II NJ, Bourke TL, Dullemond CP, Young CH, et al

work page 2013

[4] [13]

2021.A&A 651:L3 Elmegreen BG

MNRAS 518:791–809 Elbakyan VG, Nayakshin S, Vorobyov EI, Caratti o Garatti A, Eisl¨ offel J. 2021.A&A 651:L3 Elmegreen BG

work page 2021

[5] [14]

I, Dunham MM, Jørgensen JK, Enoch ML, Mer ´ ın B, et al

SFChem 2002: Chemistry as a Diagnostic of Star Formation :157 Evans Neal J. I, Dunham MM, Jørgensen JK, Enoch ML, Mer ´ ın B, et al. 2009.ApJS 181(2):321–350 Evans Neal J. I, Heiderman A, Vutisalchavakul N

work page 2002

[6] [25]

2024.ARA&A 62(1):63–111 Hennebelle P, Lebreuilly U, Colman T, Elia D, Fuller G, et al

A&A 477(1):9–24 Hennebelle P, Grudi´ c MY. 2024.ARA&A 62(1):63–111 Hennebelle P, Lebreuilly U, Colman T, Elia D, Fuller G, et al

work page 2024

[7] [28]

2016.A&A 595:A117 Kahn FD

ARA&A 58:727–778 Jørgensen JK, van der Wiel MHD, Coutens A, Lykke JM, M¨ uller HSP, et al. 2016.A&A 595:A117 Kahn FD

work page 2016

[8] [29]

2018.A&A 620:A182 Kong S, Arce HG, Maureira MJ, Caselli P, Tan JC, Fontani F

ApJ 797(2):99 K¨ olligan A, Kuiper R. 2018.A&A 620:A182 Kong S, Arce HG, Maureira MJ, Caselli P, Tan JC, Fontani F

work page 2018