pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.21754 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-23 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

Gauging the Impact of Cosmic Ray Feedback on the Stellar Initial Mass Function

Margot Fitz Axen , Stella S. R. Offner , Philip F. Hopkins , Michael Y. Grudi\'c
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 20:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA
keywords cosmic raysinitial mass functionstar formation efficiencymolecular cloudsstellar feedbacknumerical simulationsgalactic center
0
0 comments X

The pith

Cosmic ray transport raises star formation efficiency by 43% and produces a top-heavier initial mass function

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

Simulations following the collapse of a 20000 solar mass molecular cloud demonstrate that cosmic ray transport allows external cosmic rays to move inward after the first massive stars appear. This inward propagation makes the feedback cavity more pronounced, compressing surrounding gas into denser structures that trigger additional star formation. By the end of the run the star formation efficiency is 43% higher when cosmic rays accelerated by stellar winds are included, compared with otherwise identical runs that omit cosmic ray transport. The high-mass end of the initial mass function also shifts, becoming roughly 20% shallower in slope. The same trends appear, though weaker, in runs that include cosmic ray transport but omit the wind-accelerated component.

Core claim

Cosmic ray transport lets external cosmic rays propagate into the cloud interior, amplifying the compressive effect of stellar feedback cavities and thereby increasing the amount of gas that reaches the densities needed for further star formation. When stellar-wind cosmic rays are also accelerated, the final star formation efficiency is 43% higher than in the non-cosmic-ray-transport case and the initial mass function slope above one solar mass is shallower by about 20%. Both effects persist, at reduced strength, when cosmic ray transport is retained but wind acceleration is omitted.

What carries the argument

Cosmic ray transport that permits external cosmic rays to propagate inward and compress gas into higher-density structures after the first massive stars form

If this is right

  • Star formation efficiency ends 43% higher when both cosmic ray transport and wind-accelerated cosmic rays are included.
  • The initial mass function slope above one solar mass becomes approximately 20% shallower, producing a top-heavier distribution.
  • The same trends occur at lower amplitude (16% higher efficiency, 10% shallower slope) when cosmic ray transport is retained but wind cosmic rays are omitted.
  • The mechanism supplies one route to explaining why some observed initial mass functions are top-heavy in galactic center-like environments.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Models of star formation that omit cosmic ray transport may systematically underpredict efficiency and overpredict the high-mass cutoff of the initial mass function in cosmic ray rich regions.
  • The reported differences imply that cosmic ray intensity could serve as an additional environmental parameter when predicting initial mass function variations across galaxies.
  • Targeted observations that measure both cosmic ray flux and initial mass function slope within the same molecular cloud complexes could provide a direct test of the compression mechanism.

Load-bearing premise

The cosmic ray transport implementation and stellar wind acceleration model accurately represent real physics at the simulation resolution without dominant numerical artifacts or resolution-dependent biases in the reported SFE and IMF differences.

What would settle it

A direct comparison of star formation efficiency and initial mass function slopes between molecular clouds in high cosmic ray flux regions such as the galactic center and otherwise similar clouds in low cosmic ray flux disk environments would test whether the predicted 43% efficiency increase and 20% slope change are observed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.21754 by Margot Fitz Axen, Michael Y. Grudi\'c, Philip F. Hopkins, Stella S. R. Offner.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Projected gas density and density-weighted CR energy density for the simulation with CR transport and stellar wind CR feedback, M2e4 E1 D8e25 (first and second row) and the simulation with CR transport but no stellar wind CR feedback, M2e4 E1 D8e25 noSWCR (third and fourth row), and projected gas density for the simulation without CR transport M2e4 noCRT (fifth row) at four different times between 1.5tff −… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Median (solid) and mean (dashed) CR energy density (left axis) and the corresponding CRIR assuming a solar neighborhood CR spectrum (right axis) for gas at n > 104 cm−3 for the M2e4 E1 D8e25 (purple) and M2e4 E1 D8e25 noSWCR (green) simulations. massive star feedback begins. Although both clouds begin to be dispersed by feedback after 1.5tff and the amount of dense gas decreases, the M2e4 E1 D8e25 sim￾ulat… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: plots the evolution of the median (solid) and mean (dashed) gas temperatures at n > 104 cm−3 for all three simulations. At early times, the gas temperature throughout the cloud is ∼ 10 K for all three simulations. After ∼ 1.33 tff, the temperature in the cloud increases. However, the mean temperature remains almost identi￾cal between the three simulations until ∼ 1.7 tff, which suggests that this is due to… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Relative difference in the total gas pressure Ptot as a function of gas density between two simulations at tff (left), 1.5tff (middle), and 2tff (right). The total pressure in one cell is calculated as Ptot = PCR + PB + PK + Pth, where PCR, PB, PK, and Pth are the CR, radiative, magnetic, kinetic, and thermal pressures from Equations 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively. The lines indicate the relative pressure dif… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: Evolution of the star formation efficiency (SFE) for all three simulations. Right: Median mass for M∗ ≥ 0.1M⊙ versus time for all runs. Simulation Name SFE (%) Mmed(M > 0.1M⊙)(M⊙) Mmax(M⊙) N∗ α (M > 1.0M⊙) M2e4 E1 D8e25 9.76 0.46 28.1 1471 -0.71 ± 0.06 M2e4 E1 D8e25 noSWCR 7.87 0.42 31.4 1328 -0.79 ± 0.07 M2e4 noCRT 6.81 0.38 31.2 1261 -0.88 ± 0.07 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Stellar initial mass function (IMF) for all runs at t = 2.66tff . The shaded region at M < 0.1M⊙ indicates the low-mass incompleteness region (Grudi´c et al. 2021). Dashed lines show a log-normal plus power-law slope function IMF (Chabrier 2005), where the slope is determined by the best fit to the stellar mass distribution above 1 M⊙ ( listed in the last column of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Projected γ-ray emissivity assuming a constant CR energy density of 1 eV/cm3 (first row) and using the CR energy density from our simulations (second row) (both scaled by the same constant C for plotting purposes), and the ratio between the two (third row) for our M2e4 E1 D8e25 simulation at 1.0, 1.5 and 1.75 tff . which likely contain and/or are near more massive stars producing more CR feedback (and thus… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: Time evolution of the median CR energy density (left axis) and the corresponding CRIR (right axis) for CRs in the indicated gas density range or lower limit for the M2e3 LowRes Fid (solid) and M2e3 LowRes HighBack (dashed) simulations. Right: Projected gas density and CR energy density for the M2e3 LowRes Fid and M2e3 LowRes HighBack simulations at 0.5tff . Bartko, H., Martins, F., Trippe, S., et al.… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Cosmic rays (CRs) drive ionization and influence gas dynamics in molecular clouds (MCs), potentially impacting the resulting star formation outcomes. Although previous simulations of individual star formation have included methods for cosmic ray transport (CRT), none have been large enough to resolve the stellar initial mass function (IMF). We conduct numerical simulations following the collapse of a $20000 M_{\odot}$ MC and the subsequent star formation including CRT, both with and without CRs accelerated by winds from the young massive stars, and compare against a non-CRT simulation. We show that after the first massive stars form, the cavity produced by feedback is more pronounced in the CRT simulations because the external CRs are able to propagate inwards and compress the gas into higher density structures. This increases the subsequent star formation in the cloud; by the end of the simulation, the SFE in the CRT simulation including stellar wind CRs is 43 \% higher than the non-CRT simulation. The IMF is also top heavy in comparison, with a slope above 1 $M_{\odot}$ that is shallower by $\sim 20$ \%. These effects are also present in the simulation without wind-accelerated CRs, but they are not as pronounced; the SFE is only 16 \% higher than the non-CRT simulation, and the IMF high-mass slope is shallower by $\sim 10$ \%. These results may explain some of the observed top-heavy IMFs, which typically occur in high-CR environments such as the galactic center.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports hydrodynamical simulations of the collapse of a 20,000 M⊙ molecular cloud that include cosmic-ray transport (CRT) both with and without CRs accelerated by stellar winds from young massive stars. These are compared to a control run without CRT. The central result is that external CRs propagate inward, produce more pronounced feedback cavities, and compress gas into denser structures, yielding a 43% higher star-formation efficiency (SFE) and a ~20% shallower high-mass IMF slope (above 1 M⊙) when wind CRs are included; the effects are weaker (16% higher SFE, ~10% shallower slope) without wind CRs. The authors suggest this mechanism may explain observed top-heavy IMFs in high-CR regions such as the Galactic center.

Significance. If the reported SFE and IMF differences prove robust, the work supplies a concrete physical pathway connecting cosmic-ray pressure gradients to variations in the stellar initial mass function, with direct relevance to star formation in high-CR environments. The three-run comparison (non-CRT, CRT without wind CRs, CRT with wind CRs) is a clear strength that isolates the incremental role of wind-accelerated CRs.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Results] Abstract and Results section: the headline quantitative claims (43% higher SFE and ~20% shallower high-mass IMF slope in the CRT+wind-CR run) are stated without any reported grid resolution, convergence tests, error bars on the SFE or IMF slope, or details of the IMF fitting procedure (mass range, binning, or functional form). Because the proposed mechanism relies on CR pressure gradients compressing gas at unresolved scales, these omissions make it impossible to judge whether the differences are physical or numerical artifacts.
  2. [Methods] Methods section: the cosmic-ray diffusion coefficient and the stellar-wind CR acceleration efficiency are free parameters whose specific values and sensitivity are not reported. The central claim that external CRs drive the cavity and subsequent SFE/IMF changes therefore rests on an untested choice of these parameters; a modest change in either could alter the reported 16% and 43% SFE increments.
  3. [Results] Results section: the progressive trend across the three runs is presented as evidence that wind CRs amplify the effect, yet no additional resolution or parameter-variation experiments are shown. Without such tests, it remains possible that the reported differences arise from resolution-dependent numerical diffusion or under-resolved CR-gas coupling rather than the intended physical mechanism.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the SFE comparison is made “by the end of the simulation” but does not specify the exact simulation time or the precise definition of SFE (e.g., total stellar mass over initial cloud mass).
  2. [Figures and Results] Figure captions and text should explicitly state the mass range and fitting method used to obtain the high-mass IMF slope so that the ~10% and ~20% differences can be reproduced.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed report. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to improve clarity and robustness where possible.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Results] Abstract and Results section: the headline quantitative claims (43% higher SFE and ~20% shallower high-mass IMF slope in the CRT+wind-CR run) are stated without any reported grid resolution, convergence tests, error bars on the SFE or IMF slope, or details of the IMF fitting procedure (mass range, binning, or functional form). Because the proposed mechanism relies on CR pressure gradients compressing gas at unresolved scales, these omissions make it impossible to judge whether the differences are physical or numerical artifacts.

    Authors: We agree that these details are necessary to assess the results. In the revised manuscript we will explicitly state the grid resolution used for all runs, report any convergence tests performed (including comparisons at lower resolution), add uncertainty estimates or error bars on the SFE values based on the time evolution of the simulations, and fully describe the IMF fitting procedure, including the mass range (above 1 M⊙), binning method, and functional form (power-law slope) employed. These additions will allow readers to evaluate whether the reported differences are physical. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods section: the cosmic-ray diffusion coefficient and the stellar-wind CR acceleration efficiency are free parameters whose specific values and sensitivity are not reported. The central claim that external CRs drive the cavity and subsequent SFE/IMF changes therefore rests on an untested choice of these parameters; a modest change in either could alter the reported 16% and 43% SFE increments.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the specific values and sensitivity of these parameters must be documented. We will revise the Methods section to state the exact values adopted for the cosmic-ray diffusion coefficient and the stellar-wind CR acceleration efficiency, together with the literature references that motivated these choices. We will also add a discussion of parameter sensitivity, showing how the SFE and IMF trends respond to modest variations within physically plausible ranges. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results] Results section: the progressive trend across the three runs is presented as evidence that wind CRs amplify the effect, yet no additional resolution or parameter-variation experiments are shown. Without such tests, it remains possible that the reported differences arise from resolution-dependent numerical diffusion or under-resolved CR-gas coupling rather than the intended physical mechanism.

    Authors: The three-run sequence (no CRT, CRT without wind CRs, CRT with wind CRs) is intended to isolate the incremental role of wind-accelerated CRs, and the monotonic trend supports a physical origin. We will expand the Results section with additional discussion of the adopted resolution, the scale at which CR-gas coupling is modeled, and estimates of numerical diffusion effects. We will also report any resolution or parameter-variation tests that were performed. A full suite of new high-resolution simulations is computationally prohibitive for this revision, but the existing comparison and physical consistency of the mechanism provide supporting evidence. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results are direct simulation outputs

full rationale

The paper reports comparative results from three separate numerical simulations (non-CRT, CRT without wind CRs, CRT with wind CRs) of a 20000 M⊙ molecular cloud collapse. The claimed 43% SFE increase and ~20% shallower high-mass IMF slope are direct outputs of these runs, not quantities derived from equations that reduce to the inputs by construction. No self-definitional steps, fitted-input predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the derivation chain; the simulation physics (advection, diffusion, streaming, feedback) is independent of the final reported differences.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides insufficient detail to enumerate all free parameters; typical simulation choices such as CR diffusion coefficient, wind CR injection efficiency, and numerical resolution are expected but not specified.

free parameters (2)
  • cosmic ray diffusion coefficient
    Standard parameter in CRT implementations that controls propagation speed and is typically calibrated to observations or theory.
  • stellar wind CR acceleration efficiency
    Controls the fraction of wind energy converted to cosmic rays; directly affects the strength of the reported feedback.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Cosmic ray transport can be approximated by diffusion or streaming in magnetohydrodynamic simulations of molecular clouds
    Common modeling choice in astrophysical CRT studies invoked to enable the inward propagation and compression effect described.
  • domain assumption The initial 20,000 solar mass cloud setup and star formation subgrid model produce representative collapse and feedback behavior
    Required for the SFE and IMF comparisons to be physically meaningful.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5594 in / 1433 out tokens · 81432 ms · 2026-05-09T20:41:55.233919+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

120 extracted references · 115 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Science , keywords =

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Allafort, A., et al. 2011, Science, 334, 1103, doi: 10.1126/science.1210311

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1210311 2011

  2. [2]

    Aharonian, F., Yang, R., & de O˜ na Wilhelmi, E. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 561, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0724-0 14 Figure 9.Left: Time evolution of the median CR energy density (left axis) and the corresponding CRIR (right axis) for CRs in the indicated gas density range or lower limit for the M2e3 LowRes Fid (solid) and M2e3 LowRes HighBack (dashed) simu...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0724-0 2019

  3. [3]

    2010, ApJ, 708, 834, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/834

    Bartko, H., Martins, F., Trippe, S., et al. 2010, ApJ, 708, 834, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/834

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/708/1/834 2010

  4. [4]

    R., & Meyer, M

    Bastian, N., Covey, K. R., & Meyer, M. R. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 339, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101642

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101642 2010

  5. [5]

    R., & Keto, E

    Bate, M. R., & Keto, E. R. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2643, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv451

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv451 2015

  6. [6]

    Bertoldi, F., & McKee, C. F. 1992, ApJ, 395, 140, doi: 10.1086/171638

    work page doi:10.1086/171638 1992

  7. [7]

    2022, A&A, 658, L13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142619

    Bialy, S., Belli, S., & Padovani, M. 2022, A&A, 658, L13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142619

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142619 2022

  8. [8]

    2013, A&A Rv, 21, 70, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0070-7

    Blasi, P. 2013, A&A Rv, 21, 70, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0070-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-013-0070-7 2013

  9. [9]

    A., Bate, M

    Bonnell, I. A., Bate, M. R., Clarke, C. J., & Pringle, J. E. 1997, MNRAS, 285, 201, doi: 10.1093/mnras/285.1.201 —. 2001, MNRAS, 323, 785, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04270.x

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/285.1.201 1997

  10. [10]

    , keywords =

    Booth, C. M., Agertz, O., Kravtsov, A. V., & Gnedin, N. Y. 2013, ApJL, 777, L16, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/777/1/L16

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/777/1/l16 2013

  11. [11]

    Bustard, C., & Zweibel, E. G. 2021, ApJ, 913, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf64c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf64c 2021

  12. [12]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaeac2 , eid =

    Butsky, I. S., & Quinn, T. R. 2018, ApJ, 868, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaeac2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaeac2 2018

  13. [13]

    M., Marcowith, A., Amato, E., et al

    Bykov, A. M., Marcowith, A., Amato, E., et al. 2020, SSRv, 216, 42, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00663-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00663-0 2020

  14. [14]

    M., et al

    Cabedo, V., Maury, A., Girart, J. M., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243813

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243813 2023

  15. [15]

    , keywords =

    Cameron, A. J., Katz, H., Witten, C., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 523, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1547

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1547 2024

  16. [16]

    , keywords =

    Caselli, P., Walmsley, C. M., Terzieva, R., & Herbst, E. 1998, ApJ, 499, 234, doi: 10.1086/305624

    work page doi:10.1086/305624 1998

  17. [17]

    2014, ApJL, 790, L1, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/790/1/L1

    Ceccarelli, C., Dominik, C., L´ opez-Sepulcre, A., et al. 2014, ApJL, 790, L1, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/790/1/L1

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/790/1/l1 2014

  18. [18]

    2011, , 740, L4, 10.1088/2041-8205/740/1/L4

    Ceccarelli, C., Hily-Blant, P., Montmerle, T., et al. 2011, ApJL, 740, L4, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/740/1/L4

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/740/1/l4 2011

  19. [19]

    J., & Volk, H

    Cesarsky, C. J., & Volk, H. J. 1978, A&A, 70, 367

    1978

  20. [20]

    2005, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    Chabrier, G. 2005, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    2005

  21. [21]

    327, The Initial Mass Function 50 Years Later, ed

    Library, Vol. 327, The Initial Mass Function 50 Years Later, ed. E. Corbelli, F. Palla, & H. Zinnecker, 41, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-3407-7 5

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-3407-7

  22. [22]

    , keywords =

    Chan, T. K., Kereˇ s, D., Hopkins, P. F., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3716, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1895

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1895 2019

  23. [23]

    R., McLeod, A

    Chevance, M., Krumholz, M. R., McLeod, A. F., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    2023

  24. [24]

    534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed

    Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 1, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09570 Commer¸ con, B., Marcowith, A., & Dubois, Y. 2019, A&A, 622, A143, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833809

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.09570 2019

  25. [25]

    C., Stone, E

    Cummings, A. C., Stone, E. C., Heikkila, B. C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 18, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/18

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/831/1/18 2016

  26. [26]

    2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 103, 12269, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0602117103

    Dalgarno, A. 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 103, 12269, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0602117103

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.0602117103 2006

  27. [27]

    , keywords =

    Dashyan, G., & Dubois, Y. 2020, A&A, 638, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936339

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936339 2020

  28. [28]

    A., Biermann, P

    Ensslin, T. A., Biermann, P. L., Kronberg, P. P., & Wu, X.-P. 1997, ApJ, 477, 560, doi: 10.1086/303722 15

    work page doi:10.1086/303722 1997

  29. [29]

    E., & Zweibel, E

    Everett, J. E., & Zweibel, E. G. 2011, ApJ, 739, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/739/2/60

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/739/2/60 2011

  30. [30]

    2019, PhRvD, 99, 103023, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.103023

    Evoli, C., Aloisio, R., & Blasi, P. 2019, PhRvD, 99, 103023, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.103023

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.103023 2019

  31. [31]

    Farber, R., Ruszkowski, M., Yang, H. Y. K., & Zweibel, E. G. 2018, ApJ, 856, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab26d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab26d 2018

  32. [32]

    , keywords =

    Martin-Alvarez, S. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5000, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1196

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1196 2022

  33. [33]

    Federrath, C., & Klessen, R. S. 2012, ApJ, 761, 156, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/156 Fitz Axen, M., Offner, S., Hopkins, P. F., Krumholz, M. R., & Grudi´ c, M. Y. 2024, ApJ, 973, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad675a Fitz Axen, M., Offner, S. S. S., Gaches, B. A. L., et al. 2021, ApJ, 915, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfc55

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/761/2/156 2012

  34. [34]

    Gaches, B. A. L., & Offner, S. S. R. 2018, ApJ, 861, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac94d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac94d 2018

  35. [35]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 1903, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3209

    Gatto, A., Walch, S., Naab, T., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 1903, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3209

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3209 2017

  36. [36]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 3917, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3462

    Girichidis, P., Pfrommer, C., Pakmor, R., & Springel, V. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 3917, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3462

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3462 2022

  37. [37]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.03417, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.03417

    Springel, V. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.03417, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.03417

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.03417 2023

  38. [38]

    Launching Cosmic-Ray-driven Outflows from the Magnetized Interstellar Medium.ApJL2016,816, L19, [arXiv:astro- ph.GA/1509.07247]

    Girichidis, P., Naab, T., Walch, S., et al. 2016, ApJL, 816, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/816/2/L19

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/816/2/l19 2016

  39. [39]

    Glover, S. C. O., & Clark, P. C. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 377, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21737.x Grudi´ c, M. Y. in prep. Grudi´ c, M. Y., Guszejnov, D., Hopkins, P. F., Offner, S. S. R., & Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2199, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1347 Grudi´ c, M. Y., Guszejnov, D., Offner, S. S. R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 216, doi: 10.1093/...

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21737.x 2012

  40. [40]

    Guo, F., & Oh, S. P. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 251, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12692.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12692.x 2008

  41. [41]

    2024, ApJ, 970, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4da2

    Guo, Z., Zhang, Z.-Y., Yan, Z., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4da2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4da2 2024

  42. [42]

    Y., Hopkins, P

    Guszejnov, D., Grudi´ c, M. Y., Hopkins, P. F., Offner, S. S. R., & Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 3646, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab278

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab278 2021

  43. [43]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2060 , eprint =

    Guszejnov, D., Grudi´ c, M. Y., Offner, S. S. R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 4929, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2060

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2060 2022

  44. [44]

    Habegger, R., Ruszkowski, M., & Zweibel, E. G. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.24622, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.24622

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.24622 2025

  45. [45]

    , keywords =

    Hanasz, M., Lesch, H., Naab, T., et al. 2013, ApJL, 777, L38, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/777/2/L38

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/777/2/l38 2013

  46. [46]

    2011, A&A, 533, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117315

    Hill, T., Motte, F., Didelon, P., et al. 2011, A&A, 533, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117315

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117315 2011

  47. [47]

    Yang, H. Y. K. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 1271, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2568

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2568 2019

  48. [48]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 53, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv195 —. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 576, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1578

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv195 2015

  49. [49]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2180 , eprint =

    Hopkins, P. F., & Raives, M. J. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 51, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2180

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2180 2016

  50. [50]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2635 , eprint =

    Hopkins, P. F., Squire, J., & Butsky, I. S. 2022a, MNRAS, 509, 3779, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2635

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2635

  51. [51]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2909 , eprint =

    Hopkins, P. F., Squire, J., Butsky, I. S., & Ji, S. 2022b, MNRAS, 517, 5413, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2909

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2909

  52. [52]

    F., Wetzel, A., Kereˇ s, D., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Kereˇ s, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1578, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty674

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty674 2018

  53. [53]

    F., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3321 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.3465H 492, 3465

    Hopkins, P. F., Chan, T. K., Garrison-Kimmel, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 3465, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3321

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3321 2020

  54. [54]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3489 , eprint =

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Wheeler, C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 3154, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3489

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3489 2023

  55. [55]

    W., Lu, J

    Hosek, Matthew W., J., Lu, J. R., Anderson, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 870, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaef90

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaef90 2019

  56. [56]

    V., Pellegrin, T., et al

    Indriolo, N., Ivlev, A. V., Pellegrin, T., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae21ba

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae21ba 2026

  57. [57]

    , keywords =

    Pfrommer, C. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 570, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3221

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3221 2018

  58. [58]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1849 , eprint =

    Ji, S., Chan, T. K., Hummels, C. B., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 4221, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1849

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1849 2020

  59. [59]

    Cosmic ray feedback in hydrodynamical simulations of galaxy formation

    Jubelgas, M., Springel, V., Enßlin, T., & Pfrommer, C. 2008, A&A, 481, 33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065295

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065295 2008

  60. [60]

    Science , author =

    Kroupa, P. 2002, Science, 295, 82, doi: 10.1126/science.1067524

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1067524 2002

  61. [61]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2112.10788, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2112.10788

    Kroupa, P., & Jerabkova, T. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2112.10788, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2112.10788

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2112.10788 2021

  62. [62]

    The cosmic ray ionization and γ-ray budgets of star-forming galaxies.MNRAS 2023,520, 5126–5143, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/2211.03488]

    Krumholz, M. R., Crocker, R. M., & Offner, S. S. R. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 5126, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad459

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad459 2023

  63. [63]

    R., Crocker, R

    Krumholz, M. R., Crocker, R. M., & Sampson, M. L. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 1355, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2712

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2712 2022

  64. [64]

    R., Crocker, R

    Krumholz, M. R., Crocker, R. M., Xu, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 2817, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa493

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa493 2020

  65. [65]

    R., & McKee, C

    Krumholz, M. R., & McKee, C. F. 2008, Nature, 451, 1082, doi: 10.1038/nature06620

    work page doi:10.1038/nature06620 2008

  66. [66]

    Kulsrud, R., & Pearce, W. P. 1969, ApJ, 156, 445, doi: 10.1086/149981 16

    work page doi:10.1086/149981 1969

  67. [67]

    Levermore, C. D. 1984, JQSRT, 31, 149, doi: 10.1016/0022-4073(84)90112-2

    work page doi:10.1016/0022-4073(84)90112-2 1984

  68. [68]

    2023, Nature, 613, 460, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05488-1

    Li, J., Liu, C., Zhang, Z.-Y., et al. 2023, Nature, 613, 460, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05488-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05488-1 2023

  69. [69]

    2013, AJ, 145, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/2/46

    Lim, B., Chun, M.-Y., Sung, H., et al. 2013, AJ, 145, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/2/46

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/145/2/46 2013

  70. [70]

    , keywords =

    Liu, B., Yang, R.-z., & Chen, Z. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 4747, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1252

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1252 2022

  71. [71]

    R., Do, T., Ghez, A

    Lu, J. R., Do, T., Ghez, A. M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 764, 155, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/155

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/764/2/155 2013

  72. [72]

    Luhman, K. L. 2018, AJ, 156, 271, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aae831

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aae831 2018

  73. [73]

    Mannheim and R

    Mannheim, K., & Schlickeiser, R. 1994, A&A, 286, 983, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9402042

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9402042 1994

  74. [74]

    F., & Offner, S

    McKee, C. F., & Offner, S. S. R. 2010, ApJ, 716, 167, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/167

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/716/1/167 2010

  75. [75]

    F., & Tan, J

    McKee, C. F., & Tan, J. C. 2002, Nature, 416, 59, doi: 10.1038/416059a —. 2003, ApJ, 585, 850, doi: 10.1086/346149

    work page doi:10.1038/416059a 2002

  76. [76]

    2019, A&A, 624, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935105

    Luri, X. 2019, A&A, 624, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935105

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935105 2019

  77. [77]

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

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

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

  78. [78]

    C., & Spitzer , Jr., L

    Mouschovias, T. C., & Spitzer, L., J. 1976, ApJ, 210, 326, doi: 10.1086/154835 Nguyen Luong, Q., Motte, F., Hennemann, M., et al. 2011, A&A, 535, A76, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117831

    work page doi:10.1086/154835 1976

  79. [79]

    V., Silsbee, K., et al

    Obolentseva, M., Ivlev, A. V., Silsbee, K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad71ce

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad71ce 2024

  80. [80]

    Offner, S. S. R., Clark, P. C., Hennebelle, P., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 53–75, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816531240-ch003

    work page doi:10.2458/azu 2014

Showing first 80 references.