pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.09999 · v1 · pith:7SCAVPEBnew · submitted 2026-06-08 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.IM

Individual Star Sampling in Star Formation Simulations: A Semi-Deterministic Model

Yunwei Deng , Hui Li , Zhiqiang Yan , Chuizheng Kong , Zhi-Yu Zhang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 15:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.IM
keywords initial mass functionstar formation simulationsstar clustersIMF samplingsemi-deterministic modelgalactic star formationreservoir particles
0
0 comments X

The pith

Deriving the instantaneous initial mass function from current cluster mass in simulations reproduces the observed maximum star mass to cluster mass relation.

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

The paper introduces a semi-deterministic scheme for sampling individual stars from star-forming gas. It represents unresolved structures with reservoir particles, identifies clusters on the fly, and derives the mass distribution of new stars directly from the mass of the forming cluster. This replaces the common assumption of a fixed universal initial mass function with one that responds to the local cluster environment. A sympathetic reader would care because the method produces more consistent outcomes across simulation runs and matches several observed relations without extra tuning. If the central mapping holds, it would mean that simulations can capture how stellar masses depend on formation conditions, including variations in the high-mass end of the initial mass function with overall star formation rate.

Core claim

The SDT scheme represents unresolved molecular cores and protostellar disks with reservoir particles and employs an on-the-fly friends-of-friends algorithm to identify star clusters; the instantaneous IMF for newly formed stars is then derived from the current cluster mass. This produces the observed m⋆,max-M_ecl relation, numbers of massive stars consistent with optimal sampling theory, and the smallest run-to-run variation across different random seeds, along with a small coherent time delay in massive star emergence and initial mass segregation within clusters.

What carries the argument

The semi-deterministic (SDT) scheme that derives the instantaneous initial mass function directly from the mass of the cluster identified by the friends-of-friends algorithm applied to reservoir particles.

If this is right

  • Reproduces the observed m⋆,max-M_ecl relation without additional tuning.
  • Yields numbers of massive stars consistent with optimal sampling theory.
  • Exhibits the smallest run-to-run variation among simulations with different random seeds.
  • Predicts a steeper high-mass IMF slope at low star formation rates, with the slope negatively correlated with the SFR.
  • Produces a small coherent time delay in the emergence of massive stars and initial mass segregation within clusters.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • H-alpha based star formation rate diagnostics will systematically underestimate the true rate in low-SFR systems because of the reduced abundance of massive stars.
  • The predicted IMF slope versus SFR correlation could be tested directly in observations of nearby galaxies with varying star formation activity.
  • Applying the cluster-mass mapping in larger cosmological simulations would show how IMF sampling effects propagate into galaxy-wide stellar populations and feedback.

Load-bearing premise

Deriving the instantaneous initial mass function directly from the current cluster mass is sufficient to capture the environmental dependence of stellar masses.

What would settle it

A measurement of the high-mass initial mass function slope in galaxies spanning a wide range of star formation rates that checks whether the slope becomes steeper at lower rates and is negatively correlated with the rate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.09999 by Chuizheng Kong, Hui Li, Yunwei Deng, Zhiqiang Yan, Zhi-Yu Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Most massive stellar mass to embedded cluster mass (m⋆,max–Mecl) relation. The black curve is the theoretical relation predicted by the optimal sampling following the deviations in Z. Yan et al. (2023). Blue dots are the results from the simulation of Y. Deng et al. (2025) using the Y. Deng et al. (2024) version RIGEL model, color-coded by the normalized density in log-space estimated by a Gaussian kernel.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Sketch of the on-the-fly cluster-finding scheme, illustrating different situations in which RsvPs become inert or active relative to the FoF time steps. RsvPs older than their tdyn become active to form stars. The five rows represent the evolution of five distinct RsvPs, with each column indicating a particular simulation timestep.Only those RsvPs that are activated before the next FoF timestep, together w… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Schematic illustration of the semi-deterministic stellar mass sampling method. At each FoF time step n, the most massive allowed star m n 1 is determined from the IMF ξ(m) such that exactly one star occupies the mass interval [m n 1,low, m n max], where m n max is set by the instantaneous cluster mass Mn ecl. Left panel (Step n + 1): If an existing star already lies within the updated high-mass interval m … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of the simulations of isolated clouds. The first to seventh panels are the snapshots at 3 Myr of the seven clouds run with SDT method. The background color maps are the surface density projection, while colorful dots with different sizes are the stars with different masses. The black dots represents the RsvPs. The last panel shows the final IMF of each simulation compared with the canoical Kroupa … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Most massive stellar mass to embedded cluster mass (m⋆,max–Mecl) relation in the simulations. Blue, green, and red dots are the results of isolated cloud simulations using random sampling (RND), reservoir confined random sampling (NGB), and semi-de￾terministic sampling (SDT). Gray crosses are the observational data. ters that contain no stars with masses > 8 M⊙ in the RND simulations, thereby preventing bi… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The difference between number of massive stars in the simulation, N, and that predicted by the optimal sampling theory, Nˆ, normalized by the total number of stars formed in a simulation, Nfinal. Each dot is the result of one simulated clouds and the er￾rorbars show the medians and 16-84 percentile ranges. The larger marker points with error bars present the median value and 16 and 84 percentiles for simul… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The difference between the formation time of the first star more massive than a given mass threshold (T1(> m⋆)) and its expec￾tation from fully stochastic (Poisson) IMF sampling (E[T1(> m⋆)]). The solid curves and shaded regions show the median and 16-84 percentile range for the 15 runs with different random seeds. The transparent curves show the results for each individual runs. formation rate of stars ab… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mass segregation offset of the cluster in simulations of the M8R16 cloud. The solid curves and shaded regions show the median and 16-84 percentile range for the 15 runs with different random seeds. The transparent curves show the results for each individual runs. gions of subclusters in which the massive stars are already segregated. We also find that the MSO remains constant in the RND runs, which is beca… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Feedback luminosity as a function of time in the sim￾ulated clouds (M05R6). The upper panel plots the evolution of EUV (13.6–100 eV) radiation luminosity, while the bottom panel plots the evolution of total feedback luminosity as a summation of EUV radiation, stellar wind, and supernovae. The solid curves and shaded regions show the median and 16-84 percentile range for the 15 runs with different random se… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Overview of the merger system at 160 Myr simulation time. The result is obtained with the SDT model. The background grayscale map is the gas surface density projected along the x-axis, while the colorful dots with different sizes are the young stars (age < 5 Myr) with different masses. the stochastic sampling has only a negligible impact on the outcomes. The run-to-run variations in the NGB and RND runs b… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: shows the evolution of the distance between the centers of mass of disk stars in the two galaxies (top panel) and the global SFR (bottom panel). The dynamics of galax￾ies in different sampling models have negligible differences. We thus only present the curve of the RND model for illus￾tration. On the contrary, the SFRs show evident deviations, especially when the two galaxies are approaching. During the … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Most massive stellar mass to embedded cluster mass (m⋆,max–Mecl) relation in the simulations. The clusters are identified by the 4D FoF method. Blue, green, and red curves are the me￾dian results for simulations using RND, NGB, and SDT methods, respectively. The shaded regions are the 16-84 percentile ranges. Gray crosses are the observational data. tlink = 5 Myr motivated by the observed size and age spr… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: High mass end of the gwIMFs of the simulated galaxies. The left, middle, and right panels are for the RND, NGB, and SDT models, respectively. The IMFs are color-coded by their corresponding SFR of the galaxy. 10 3 10 2 10 1 SFR[M yr 1 ] 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 gal 8 100 Kroupa RND NGB SDT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Hα luminosity surface density as a function of total SFR of the system. The blue, green, and red dots are for the RND, NGB, and SDT models, respectively. The diagonal lines are plotted to illustrate the LMC and MW conversion factors. recombination line Hα is commonly employed as a tracer of SFR both in the nearby and high-redshift Universe. The SFR of a galaxy can be derived from the observed Hα luminos￾i… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In modern simulations that include star formation, it is common to use a universal and invariant initial mass function (IMF) to represent star populations or sample individual stars. However, stellar masses are determined by local and environmental processes that operate over a wide dynamical range and remain unresolved in simulations. We introduce a semi-deterministic (SDT) scheme for sampling individual stars from star-forming gas in numerical simulations. We represent unresolved molecular cores and protostellar disks with reservoir particles (RsvPs) and employ an on-the-fly friends-of-friends algorithm to identify star clusters. The instantaneous IMF for newly formed stars is then derived from the current cluster mass. We test the performance of this method in simulations of isolated molecular clouds and a major merger between two dwarf galaxies. Compared to existing IMF sampling methods, our SDT scheme naturally reproduces the observed $m_{\star,\text{max}}$-$M_\text{ecl}$ relation and yields numbers of massive stars consistent with optimal sampling theory. It also exhibits the smallest run-to-run variation among simulations with different random seeds. The regulated star formation results in a small ($\sim0.15$ Myr) but coherent time delay in the emergence of massive stars, reduces the large scatter arising from Poisson noise, and produces initial mass segregation within the clusters. On galactic scales, the SDT method predicts a steeper high-mass IMF slope at low star formation rates (SFRs), with the slope negatively correlated with the SFR. As the specific abundance of massive stars declines, we predict that H$\alpha$-based SFR diagnostics will systematically underestimate the intrinsic SFR due to IMF sampling effects.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a semi-deterministic (SDT) scheme for sampling individual stars in star formation simulations. Unresolved molecular cores and protostellar disks are represented by reservoir particles (RsvPs); an on-the-fly friends-of-friends algorithm identifies star clusters; and the instantaneous IMF for newly formed stars is derived directly from the current cluster mass. The method is tested in isolated molecular cloud simulations and a major merger between two dwarf galaxies. The central claims are that the SDT scheme naturally reproduces the observed m⋆,max-M_ecl relation, yields numbers of massive stars consistent with optimal sampling theory, exhibits the smallest run-to-run variation, produces a small coherent time delay in massive star emergence and initial mass segregation, and on galactic scales predicts a steeper high-mass IMF slope at low SFRs that is negatively correlated with SFR, implying systematic underestimation of intrinsic SFR by Hα diagnostics due to IMF sampling effects.

Significance. If the mapping from cluster mass to IMF is fixed by unresolved physics or first-principles considerations rather than calibrated to the target relation, and if the RsvP component demonstrably introduces environmental dependence, the approach could reduce stochasticity relative to purely random IMF sampling while embedding a physically motivated cluster-mass dependence. This would be relevant for interpreting IMF variations and SFR indicators in simulations. The galactic-scale prediction of an SFR-dependent IMF slope is potentially falsifiable but currently rests on the soundness of the core mapping.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and method description (likely §3)] Abstract and method description (likely §3): The claim that the SDT scheme 'naturally reproduces' the observed m⋆,max-M_ecl relation is load-bearing for the paper's novelty and for the downstream galactic-scale predictions. Because the instantaneous IMF is derived directly from the current cluster mass (via the unspecified mapping plus RsvPs), the reproduction appears to follow by construction from the method rather than constituting an independent test. The manuscript must explicitly show that the cluster-mass-to-IMF mapping is fixed without reference to the observed relation (or to optimal sampling) and that any free parameters are not adjusted to target this relation.
  2. [Galactic scales results (likely §5)] Galactic scales results (likely §5): The prediction of a steeper high-mass IMF slope at low SFRs, with negative correlation between slope and SFR, is presented as a key outcome. However, without quantitative plots, error bars, or direct comparison to observations in the provided description, and given that the slope variation arises solely from the cluster-mass dependence, this claim cannot yet be assessed as robust; the weakest assumption—that cluster mass alone suffices to capture environmental dependence without additional local variables—remains untested in detail.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract refers to 'optimal sampling theory' without a citation; adding a reference would improve clarity.
  2. Notation for m⋆,max and M_ecl is introduced in the abstract but should be defined at first use in the main text for readers unfamiliar with the relation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed report. We address each major comment below, providing clarifications on the method's construction and the robustness of the galactic-scale results. Where appropriate, we indicate revisions to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract and method description (likely §3): The claim that the SDT scheme 'naturally reproduces' the observed m⋆,max-M_ecl relation is load-bearing for the paper's novelty and for the downstream galactic-scale predictions. Because the instantaneous IMF is derived directly from the current cluster mass (via the unspecified mapping plus RsvPs), the reproduction appears to follow by construction from the method rather than constituting an independent test. The manuscript must explicitly show that the cluster-mass-to-IMF mapping is fixed without reference to the observed relation (or to optimal sampling) and that any free parameters are not adjusted to target this relation.

    Authors: The cluster-mass-to-IMF mapping is fixed by the optimal sampling formalism of Kroupa et al. (2013), which determines the maximum stellar mass and the high-mass slope from the total cluster mass via a deterministic integral constraint on the IMF without any direct fitting to the observed m⋆,max-M_ecl data. The RsvP component and on-the-fly FoF cluster identification supply the instantaneous cluster mass from the simulation dynamics; no free parameters in the mapping were tuned to reproduce the relation. We will add an explicit subsection in §3 that reproduces the mapping equations, lists all parameters with their origins, and demonstrates via a parameter-variation test that the relation emerges independently of any observational calibration. This addresses the concern that the result is merely by construction. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Galactic scales results (likely §5): The prediction of a steeper high-mass IMF slope at low SFRs, with negative correlation between slope and SFR, is presented as a key outcome. However, without quantitative plots, error bars, or direct comparison to observations in the provided description, and given that the slope variation arises solely from the cluster-mass dependence, this claim cannot yet be assessed as robust; the weakest assumption—that cluster mass alone suffices to capture environmental dependence without additional local variables—remains untested in detail.

    Authors: Section 5 already contains quantitative plots of the high-mass IMF slope versus SFR (with error bars from an ensemble of runs with different seeds) together with a direct comparison to observational constraints on IMF variations at low SFR. The slope variation is a direct consequence of the cluster-mass dependence, which itself incorporates environmental information through the RsvP accretion history and the on-the-fly cluster identification. We acknowledge that cluster mass is a simplifying proxy and does not yet include additional local variables such as gas density or metallicity; we will expand the discussion in §5 to state this limitation explicitly and to note that the current implementation already produces an SFR-dependent trend that is testable with future observations. revision: partial

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Derivation of instantaneous IMF from cluster mass embeds the m⋆,max-M_ecl relation by construction

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Abstract]
    "The instantaneous IMF for newly formed stars is then derived from the current cluster mass. ... Compared to existing IMF sampling methods, our SDT scheme naturally reproduces the observed m⋆,max-M_ecl relation and yields numbers of massive stars consistent with optimal sampling theory."

    The reproduction is labeled 'natural' precisely because the IMF sampling step takes current cluster mass as direct input. Any m⋆,max-M_ecl relation that follows is enforced by that definitional choice; it cannot constitute an independent test of the scheme.

full rationale

The paper's central performance claim is that the SDT scheme 'naturally reproduces' the observed m⋆,max-M_ecl relation. However, the method explicitly derives the instantaneous IMF from the current cluster mass (identified via on-the-fly FoF). This makes the relation a direct consequence of the input mapping rather than an emergent or independent prediction. The abstract and method description provide no separate first-principles or externally calibrated mapping that avoids targeting this relation; downstream galactic-scale IMF slope predictions therefore inherit the same construction. No self-citation chain or ansatz smuggling is needed to reach this reduction; the tautology is internal to the stated derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the cluster-mass to IMF mapping (likely drawn from observations) and the adequacy of reservoir particles for sub-grid physics; these introduce fitted elements and new entities without independent verification shown.

free parameters (1)
  • cluster-mass to IMF mapping parameters
    The functional form or parameters used to derive the instantaneous IMF from current cluster mass are not specified but must be chosen or fitted to match observed relations.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Hydrodynamical simulation assumptions for unresolved star formation processes remain valid when augmented by reservoir particles
    The method extends standard simulation frameworks without re-deriving the underlying hydrodynamics.
invented entities (1)
  • Reservoir particles (RsvPs) no independent evidence
    purpose: Represent unresolved molecular cores and protostellar disks
    New entity introduced to handle sub-resolution star formation physics.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5836 in / 1367 out tokens · 28874 ms · 2026-06-27T15:59:24.233673+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

89 extracted references · 86 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    V ., Leitner, S

    Agertz, O., Kravtsov, A. V ., Leitner, S. N., & Gnedin, N. Y . 2013, ApJ, 770, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/25

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/1/25 2013

  2. [2]

    P., Agertz, O., & Renaud, F

    Andersson, E. P., Agertz, O., & Renaud, F. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3328, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa889

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa889 2020

  3. [3]

    P., Agertz, O., Renaud, F., & Teyssier, R

    Andersson, E. P., Agertz, O., Renaud, F., & Teyssier, R. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 2196, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad692

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad692 2023

  4. [4]

    P., Mac Low, M.-M., Agertz, O., Renaud, F., & Li, H

    Andersson, E. P., Mac Low, M.-M., Agertz, O., Renaud, F., & Li, H. 2024, A&A, 681, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347792

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347792 2024

  5. [5]

    P., Rey, M

    Andersson, E. P., Rey, M. P., Pontzen, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad99d6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad99d6 2025

  6. [6]

    M., Quinn, T

    Applebaum, E., Brooks, A. M., Quinn, T. R., & Christensen, C. R. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 8, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3331

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3331 2020

  7. [7]

    1987, Galactic dynamics

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 1987, Galactic dynamics

    1987

  8. [8]

    , keywords =

    Cameron, A. J., Katz, H., Witten, C., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 523, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1547 Ch´avez, R., Gonz´alez-L´opezlira, R. A., & Bruzual, G. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 2989, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf413

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1547 2024

  9. [9]

    2024, A&A, 691, A231, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450699

    Deng, Y ., Li, H., Liu, B., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A231, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450699

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450699 2024

  10. [10]

    2025, A&A, 704, A240, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556854

    Deng, Y ., Li, H., Marinacci, F., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A240, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556854

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556854 2025

  11. [11]

    T., Calzetti, D., et al

    Deshmukh, S., Linden, S. T., Calzetti, D., et al. 2024, ApJL, 974, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7ba9

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad7ba9 2024

  12. [12]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 748, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2560

    Dinnbier, F., & Walch, S. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 748, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2560

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2560 2020

  13. [13]

    , keywords =

    Eldridge, J. J., Langer, N., & Tout, C. A. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 3501, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18650.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18650.x 2011

  14. [14]

    Binary Population and Spectral Synthesis Version 2.1: construction, observational verification and new results

    Eldridge, J. J., Stanway, E. R., Xiao, L., et al. 2017, PASA, 34, e058, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2017.51

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1017/pasa.2017.51 2017

  15. [15]

    Elmegreen, B. G. 2000, ApJ, 539, 342, doi: 10.1086/309204

    work page doi:10.1086/309204 2000

  16. [16]

    S., & Portegies Zwart, S

    Fujii, M. S., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 726, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv293

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv293 2015

  17. [17]

    S., Saitoh, T

    Fujii, M. S., Saitoh, T. R., Wang, L., & Hirai, Y . 2021, PASJ, 73, 1057, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab037

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psab037 2021

  18. [18]

    L., & Krumholz, M

    Fumagalli, M., da Silva, R. L., & Krumholz, M. R. 2011, ApJL, 741, L26, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/741/2/L26

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/741/2/l26 2011

  19. [19]

    2026a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.20998, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.20998

    Gjergo, E., Zhang, Z., & Kroupa, P. 2026a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.20998, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.20998

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.20998

  20. [20]

    2026b, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 26, 025003, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ae1f79 Grudi´c, M

    Gjergo, E., Zhang, Z.-Y ., Kroupa, P., et al. 2026b, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 26, 025003, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ae1f79 Grudi´c, M. Y ., Guszejnov, D., Hopkins, P. F., Offner, S. S. R., &

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ae1f79

  21. [21]

    , keywords =

    Faucher-Gigu`ere, C.-A. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2199, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1347 Grudi´c, M. Y ., Hopkins, P. F., Faucher-Gigu`ere, C.-A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 3511, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty035

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1347 2021

  22. [22]

    Y ., Offner, S

    Grudic, M. Y ., Offner, S. S. R., Guszejnov, D., Faucher-Gigu`ere, C.-A., & Hopkins, P. F. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 48, doi: 10.21105/astro.2307.00052

    work page doi:10.21105/astro.2307.00052 2023

  23. [23]

    Y ., & Guszejnov, D

    Grudi, M. Y ., & Guszejnov, D. 2021, MakeCloud, 1.0 https://github.com/mikegrudic/MakeCloud

    2021

  24. [24]

    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

  25. [25]

    P., Hu, C.-Y ., & Sternberg, A

    Gurman, A., Steinwandel, U. P., Hu, C.-Y ., & Sternberg, A. 2025, ApJ, 984, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc814

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc814 2025

  26. [26]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 3646, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab278

    Faucher-Gigu`ere, C.-A. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 3646, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab278

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab278 2021

  27. [27]

    Guszejnov, D., Markey, C., Offner, S. S. R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 167, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1737

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1737 2022

  28. [28]

    A., Pakmor, R., Naab, T., & Springel, V

    Gutcke, T. A., Pakmor, R., Naab, T., & Springel, V . 2021, MNRAS, 501, 5597, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3875

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3875 2021

  29. [29]

    A., Pfrommer, C., Bryan, G

    Gutcke, T. A., Pfrommer, C., Bryan, G. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca1b4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca1b4 2022

  30. [30]

    S., & Saitoh, T

    Hirai, Y ., Fujii, M. S., & Saitoh, T. R. 2021, PASJ, 73, 1036, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab038

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psab038 2021

  31. [31]

    M., Naab, T., Steinwandel, U

    Hislop, J. M., Naab, T., Steinwandel, U. P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 5938, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3347 20

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3347 2022

  32. [32]

    F., Narayanan, D., & Murray, N

    Hopkins, P. F., Narayanan, D., & Murray, N. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 2647, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt723

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt723 2013

  33. [33]

    F., Wetzel, A., Kereˇs, D., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Kereˇs, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 800, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1690

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1690 2018

  34. [34]

    Hu, C.-Y ., Naab, T., Glover, S. C. O., Walch, S., & Clark, P. C. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 2151, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1773

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1773 2017

  35. [35]

    2026, MNRAS, 545, staf2158, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2158

    Jeon, M., & Go, M. 2026, MNRAS, 545, staf2158, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2158

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf2158 2026

  36. [36]

    Exploring effects of IMF sampling and SN feedback injection on star formation and metallicity in ultra-faint dwarf galaxies

    Jeon, M., & Ko, M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.17862, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.17862

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.17862 2024

  37. [37]

    Jo, Y ., Kim, S., Kim, J.-h., & Bryan, G. L. 2024, ApJ, 974, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6b16

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6b16 2024

  38. [38]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 117, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz287

    Kannan, R., V ogelsberger, M., Marinacci, F., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 117, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz287

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz287 2019

  39. [39]

    C., & Evans, N

    Kennicutt, R. C., & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610 2012

  40. [40]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189 1998

  41. [41]

    C., & Filippova, N

    Kim, J.-G., Ostriker, E. C., & Filippova, N. 2021, ApJ, 911, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe934

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe934 2021

  42. [42]

    R., Wise, J

    Kim, J.-h., Krumholz, M. R., Wise, J. H., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 8, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/8

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/1/8 2013

  43. [43]

    Kirk, H., & Myers, P. C. 2011, ApJ, 727, 64, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/727/2/64

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/727/2/64 2011

  44. [44]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x 2001

  45. [45]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1067524 2002

  46. [46]

    2003, ApJ, 598, 1076, doi: 10.1086/379105

    Kroupa, P., & Weidner, C. 2003, ApJ, 598, 1076, doi: 10.1086/379105

    work page doi:10.1086/379105 2003

  47. [47]

    2013, in

    Kroupa, P., Weidner, C., Pflamm-Altenburg, J., et al. 2013, in

    2013

  48. [48]

    V olume 5: Galactic Structure and Stellar Populations, ed

    Planets, Stars and Stellar Systems. V olume 5: Galactic Structure and Stellar Populations, ed. T. D. Oswalt & G. Gilmore, V ol. 5, 115, doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-5612-0 4

    work page doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5612-0

  49. [49]

    R., McKee, C

    Krumholz, M. R., McKee, C. F., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 227, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104430

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104430 2019

  50. [50]

    2020, MNRAS, 495, 3276, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa585 Lah´en, N., Naab, T., Johansson, P

    Lacchin, E., Matteucci, F., Vincenzo, F., & Palla, M. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3276, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa585 Lah´en, N., Naab, T., Johansson, P. H., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7190 Lah´en, N., Naab, T., & Kauffmann, G. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 4560, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1594 Lah´en, N., Rantala, A., Naab, T., et al. 2025a, MNRAS, 538, 2129,...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa585 2020

  51. [51]

    B., Grudi´c, M

    Lane, H. B., Grudi´c, M. Y ., Guszejnov, D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 4767, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3739

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3739 2022

  52. [52]

    Larson, R. B. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 287, Galactic Star Formation Across the Stellar Mass Spectrum, ed. J. M. De Buizer & N. S. van der Bliek, 65–80, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0205466

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0205466 2003

  53. [53]

    C., Gil de Paz, A., Tremonti, C., et al

    Lee, J. C., Gil de Paz, A., Tremonti, C., et al. 2009, ApJ, 706, 599, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/1/599

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/706/1/599 2009

  54. [54]

    Li, H., V ogelsberger, M., Marinacci, F., & Gnedin, O. Y . 2019, MNRAS, 487, 364, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1271

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1271 2019

  55. [55]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 4233, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2391

    Springel, V . 2019, MNRAS, 489, 4233, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2391

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2391 2019

  56. [56]

    Marks, M., Kroupa, P., Dabringhausen, J., & Pawlowski, M. S. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 2246, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20767.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20767.x 2012

  57. [57]

    2013, ApJ, 778, 149, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/149

    McWilliam, A., Wallerstein, G., & Mottini, M. 2013, ApJ, 778, 149, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/149

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/778/2/149 2013

  58. [58]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1247, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01493-y

    Mucciarelli, A., Massari, D., Minelli, A., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1247, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01493-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01493-y 2021

  59. [59]

    Naab, T., & Ostriker, J. P. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 59, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040019

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040019 2017

  60. [60]

    2016, A&A, 590, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628233

    Oh, S., & Kroupa, P. 2016, A&A, 590, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628233

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628233 2016

  61. [61]

    2013, MNRAS, 432, 176, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt428

    Pakmor, R., & Springel, V . 2013, MNRAS, 432, 176, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt428

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt428 2013

  62. [62]

    2016, MNRAS, 455, 1134, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2380

    Pakmor, R., Springel, V ., Bauer, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 1134, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2380

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2380 2016

  63. [63]

    M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17821.x , 411, 1917

    Pflamm-Altenburg, J., & Kroupa, P. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1564, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16376.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16376.x 2010

  64. [64]

    S., et al

    Polak, B., Mac Low, M.-M., Klessen, R. S., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348840

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348840 2024

  65. [65]

    Rautio, R. P. V ., Watkins, A. E., Salo, H., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, A76, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347729

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347729 2024

  66. [66]

    2015, MNRAS, 446, 4220, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2427

    Romano, D., Bellazzini, M., Starkenburg, E., & Leaman, R. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 4220, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2427

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2427 2015

  67. [67]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161, doi: 10.1086/145971

    work page doi:10.1086/145971 1955

  68. [68]

    Schinnerer, E., & Leroy, A. K. 2024, ARA&A, 62, 369, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-052651

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-052651 2024

  69. [69]

    2015, A&A, 582, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425296

    Schulz, C., Pflamm-Altenburg, J., & Kroupa, P. 2015, A&A, 582, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425296

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425296 2015

  70. [70]

    D., Jaffa, S

    Smith, J. D., Jaffa, S. E., & Krause, M. G. H. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 6182, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2689

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2689 2023

  71. [71]

    Smith, M. C. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 5417, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab291

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab291 2021

  72. [72]

    Smith, M. C. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.00100, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.00100

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.00100 2026

  73. [73]

    C., Treß, R

    Sormani, M. C., Treß, R. G., Klessen, R. S., & Glover, S. C. O. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 407, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3205

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3205 2017

  74. [74]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15868.x , eprint =

    Springel, V . 2010, MNRAS, 401, 791, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x 21

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x 2010

  75. [75]

    Springel, V ., White, S. D. M., Tormen, G., & Kauffmann, G. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 726, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04912.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04912.x 2001

  76. [76]

    W., Gouliermis, D., Looney, L

    Stephens, I. W., Gouliermis, D., Looney, L. W., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/94

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/94 2017

  77. [77]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 1713, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2787

    Steyrleithner, P., & Hensler, G. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 1713, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2787

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2787 2023

  78. [78]

    F., Hayward, C

    Su, K.-Y ., Hopkins, P. F., Hayward, C. C., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 1666, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1928

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1928 2018

  79. [79]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, 3398, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa480

    Wang, L., Nitadori, K., & Makino, J. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3398, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa480

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa480 2020

  80. [80]

    B., Meurer, G

    Watts, A. B., Meurer, G. R., Lagos, C. D. P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 5554, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1006

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1006 2018

Showing first 80 references.