Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 51 references

SIRIUS Project: Dynamical Evolution of Primordial Binaries during Star Cluster Formation

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Close binaries must form at the star formation stage, not by later dynamics

desk verdict A clean controlled experiment showing close primordial binaries survive cluster formation while wide ones do not, though the fixed q=1 prescription makes the quantitative twin-excess claim partly an input. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10750 v1 pith:BKPBJEW5 submitted 2026-08-11 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Naoto Harada , Michiko S. Fujii , Takayuki R. Saitoh , Yutaka Hirai This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords binaries:closestars:formationgalaxies:starclusters:generalprimordialbinariesN-body/SPHsimulationsmultiplicityfractionmass-ratiodistributiontwin
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 paper asks whether the binary stars we observe in young clusters are fossils of the star formation process or products of later dynamical encounters. The authors simulate the collapse of a molecular cloud into a star cluster with three extreme prescriptions for how stars are born: close binaries only, wide binaries only, or single stars only. They find that wide binaries are almost entirely destroyed during cluster formation, driving the multiplicity fraction down to about one percent, the same level as the single-star model, while close binaries survive and keep the multiplicity at 20–30 percent. Their central conclusion is that reproducing the observed multiplicity of low-mass stars and the excess of equal-mass 'twin' binaries requires that close binaries be formed at the star formation stage itself, not assembled afterwards by dynamics.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a suite of self-consistent N-body/smoothed-particle-hydrodynamics (SPH) simulations, run with the ASURA+BRIDGE code, that evolve a 5000 solar-mass, turbulent molecular cloud through collapse into a star cluster over about 2.5 Myr. A stochastic star formation module converts gas particles into stars, and a newly added binary formation module turns each eligible gas particle into a pair of stars with a prescribed semi-major axis, eccentricity, and mass ratio; the models differ only in whether the semi-major axis is drawn from 1–100 au (close) or 100–$10^{4}$ au (wide), with all binaries formed as equal-mass twins. Stellar dynamics is handled by the PETAR N-body code with slow-down algorithmic regularization (SDAR), which integrates hard binaries accurately. The physical axis that carries the argument is the hard–soft boundary near 100 au: hard binaries resist disruption and harden, soft binaries are shredded, and this separation is why the close-binary model leaves an observable imprint while the wide-binary model does not.

What would settle it

A survey of very young, still-embedded clusters (age ≲ 1 Myr) that finds no excess of equal-mass companions among close binaries would falsify the claim that the twin excess is set at birth. Equivalently, re-running the cluster-formation simulations with a realistic mass-ratio distribution and checking whether the close-binary model still keeps a 20–30 percent multiplicity fraction would test the quantitative conclusion directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, its central discovery is that the primordial binary population controls the final binary properties even though it barely affects the host cluster's structure. In the close-binary model the multiplicity fraction levels off at 20–30 percent, whereas in the wide-binary model it collapses to about one percent, comparable to what remains when stars form single. Because the simulation prescribes equal-mass birth companions, the surviving close binaries show a sharp peak at $q=1$, while the dynamically assembled binaries of the single-star model show a flat mass-ratio distribution; the authors take this contrast as evidence that the observed twin excess is imprinted at birth. The paper also shows that high-mass stars end up with high multiplicity in all models, so dynamical processing erases the formation imprint for massive primaries, but low-mass stars preserve it only if born close.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that all primordial binaries form as equal-mass twins, which gives each binary the maximum binding energy for its total mass; the authors themselves note that a realistic spread of mass ratios would make binaries more fragile and would likely lower the overall multiplicity fraction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The observed low-mass multiplicity fraction in young clusters cannot be reproduced if stars form as singles or as wide binaries; a significant population of close primordial binaries is required.
  • The mass-ratio excess at $q=1$ in close binaries is a fossil of star formation: dynamically formed binaries show a flat mass-ratio distribution, so the twin excess must be set at birth.
  • Wide binaries are preferentially destroyed during cluster formation, so the deficiency of wide binaries in open clusters and the Orion Nebula Cluster is expected even when stars initially form in binaries.
  • The global structure of the forming cluster is insensitive to the primordial binary population because the gas potential dominates, so binary heating plays a minor role during the embedded phase.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the equal-mass assumption maximizes binding energy, the quantitative multiplicity levels (20–30 percent for close binaries) are upper limits; a realistic mass-ratio distribution would lower them, as the authors concede, but the qualitative ordering of the models should persist.
  • One testable extension is that the close-binary fraction of low-mass stars should depend only weakly on the density of the natal environment, while the wide-binary fraction should drop sharply in dense clusters; comparing clusters formed from clouds of different densities would discriminate.
  • The inside/outside difference in multiplicity suggests that ejected runaway and walkaway stars in young clusters should preferentially be single or have different companion properties than cluster members, a prediction checkable with Gaia astrometry and radial-velocity surveys.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper uses self-consistent N-body/SPH simulations (ASURA+BRIDGE with PETAR and SDAR) to follow the collapse of an isolated 5e3 Msun, 2 pc molecular cloud under three star-formation prescriptions: close binary formation (CB, a = 1-100 au), wide binary formation (WB, a = 100-1e4 au), and single-star formation (SS). All binary-forming models inject 100% binaries with q=1 and uniform eccentricity and semi-major-axis distributions, with three random seeds per model. The study shows that the multiplicity fraction declines in all models, that the WB model drops to roughly the SS level (~1%) while the CB model retains tens of percent, that high-mass stars maintain a relatively high multiplicity fraction in all models, that a q=1 excess survives in CB but is diluted in WB and absent in SS, and that the global cluster density structure is largely insensitive to the binary prescription. The authors conclude that close binaries must form at the star formation stage to reproduce the observed low-mass multiplicity fraction and the equal-mass-binary excess.

Significance. The controlled comparison of an otherwise identical cloud across CB, WB, and SS is a strength: the differential survival of hard versus soft primordial binaries is clearly shown with minimum-to-maximum ranges over three seeds, and the result that wide primordial binaries are dynamically erased to the single-star level while close binaries retain tens of percent is likely robust to the adopted simplifications. The simulations are technically demanding, coupling gas dynamics, stellar feedback, and regularized few-body dynamics, and the paper is honest about several caveats. However, because all injected binaries have q=1, the CB model assigns close binaries their maximal binding energy, and the q=1 excess in the final mass-ratio distribution is partly an input rather than an emergent prediction. The quantitative connection to observed low-mass multiplicity and twin fractions is therefore not yet established. With a realistic-mass-ratio test or suitably weakened conclusions, the paper would be a valuable step toward linking binary formation prescriptions to observed multiplicity in young clusters.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.2.2, Fig. 10, §5] The inference that the observed q≈1 twin excess must be primordial is at least partly circular. The CB and WB models inject 100% of binaries with q=1 ('we fix q=1', §2.2.2), so the excess at q=1 in Fig. 10 is a survival count of injected twins, not evidence that a realistic primordial population would produce the observed twin excess. In addition, q=1 maximizes the binding energy for a given total mass, making the CB model the most favorable case for survival; the authors' own §4.3 caveat that a realistic mass-ratio distribution would lower the multiplicity fraction confirms that the quantitative level (20-30%) is not robust. I request either a model set with q drawn from a flat or observed distribution (e.g., Moe & Di Stefano 2017) with the same semi-major-axis ranges, or a substantive weakening of the §5 conclusion that reproducing the twin excess requires a non-negligible population of primordial twins.
  2. [§3.2, Fig. 8, §5] The claim that close binaries must form at the star formation stage 'to reproduce the observed multiplicity fraction of low-mass stars' is not quantitatively grounded. Fig. 8 compares the three models only; no observed low-mass multiplicity value or range is given, and the CB model combines a 100% primordial binary fraction with q=1, so its final multiplicity is not a prediction for a realistic star-forming population. Either overplot an observational benchmark (e.g., the field or ONC low-mass multiplicity from Raghavan et al. 2010 or Duchêne et al. 2018) and state the resulting margins, or explicitly reformulate the conclusion as a qualitative requirement for some close primordial binaries rather than a reproduction of observed levels.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.2.2, Eqs. (4)-(5)] The same symbol r is used for the scalar separation and the relative position vector; please use boldface for the vector to avoid confusion.
  2. [Table 1] Table 1 should include the fixed values q=1 and the 100% binary formation fraction, since these are the key assumptions of the binary models.
  3. [§2.2.2] Please state explicitly whether the gas-mass enclosure check from §2.2.1 is applied to the total binary mass (m_p + m_s) or only to the primary mass.
  4. [Fig. 11 and §4.1] The multiplicity fraction of high-mass stars is based on only a handful of objects per run; please add sample sizes or a caution in the text.
  5. [§5] The final CB multiplicity is quoted as '20-30%' while Fig. 5 shows a time-dependent decline; please specify that this refers to t = 2.5 Myr.
  6. [§4.1] The three Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests are not corrected for multiple comparisons; the WB p-value of 0.057 would be even less significant under such a correction, so please temper the wording in that paragraph.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The twin-excess conclusion is the q=1 input echoed back: the final q≈1 peak in Fig. 10 is the surviving fraction of injected equal-mass binaries, so inferring that the observed twin excess is primordial is largely circular; the close-binary multiplicity result is genuine dynamics, though quantitatively inflated by the same q=1 assumption.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.2.2 (q=1 input); Section 3.2 / Fig. 10 (mass-ratio excess); Section 5 Conclusions (primordial-twins inference).]
    "Due to the assumption of equal-mass binary formation, the CB and WB models exhibit an excess at q= 1 in the mass-ratio distribution ... Our results show that reproducing an excess of equal-mass binaries requires the presence of a non-negligible population of primordial twins."

    The q=1 excess in Fig. 10 is injected, not derived: Section 2.2.2 fixes q=1 for every newly formed binary, and the paper concedes the feature 'reflects the binary formation prescription... in which all binaries are assumed to form as equal-mass twin binaries.' The final q≈1 peak is merely the fraction of injected twins that survives dynamical processing. Concluding that 'reproducing an excess of equal-mass binaries requires the presence of a non-negligible population of primordial twins,' and that the observed twin excess 'is already established at the star formation phase,' restates the input; the SS counterfactual shows only that dynamics alone does not manufacture twins.

full rationale

This is a counterfactual simulation study, not a fitting exercise: three star-formation prescriptions (CB, WB, SS) are evolved from identical initial clouds, and no parameter is calibrated to any observational data point. The central dynamical content is genuine: the hard/soft boundary near 100 au is anchored to the cluster velocity dispersion, the WB multiplicity collapses to the SS level (~1%) while the CB model retains tens of percent, and cluster density profiles are broadly similar across models. These results do not reduce to the inputs. The self-citations (ASURA, BRIDGE, PETAR, SIRIUS series) are code and method references and are not load-bearing for the scientific claims, so they do not raise the score. The circular step is confined to the equal-mass-binary (twin) inference. The binary-formation module injects q=1 for every newborn system (Section 2.2.2), so the q≈1 excess in Fig. 10 is the surviving fraction of the injected twins; the paper itself says the feature 'reflects the binary formation prescription.' The Section 5 conclusion that reproducing the observed twin excess 'requires the presence of a non-negligible population of primordial twins' and that the excess 'is already established at the star formation phase' therefore restates the input assumption as a finding. The non-circular remainder is the SS counterfactual, which shows that few-body dynamics alone does not turn a flat-q population into a twin excess; that is real evidence for the negative claim, but the positive claim about where observed twins come from is the assumption echoed back. Additionally, q=1 maximizes binding energy for a fixed total mass, so the quantitative CB multiplicity levels that are compared with observed low-mass multiplicity are also favorable-input-driven; Section 4.3 concedes that realistic mass ratios would reduce the overall multiplicity. Verdict: partial circularity (score 6). One 'prediction' — the twin excess and its primordial interpretation — reduces by construction, while the hard/soft survival result and the cluster-structure comparisons stand as independent dynamical findings. The authors' transparency (abstract and Section 4.3) prevents a higher score, but the headline claim's mass-ratio leg is nonetheless input-echoed rather than derived.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the simulation code, the star formation recipe, and especially the idealized binary formation prescription. No new physical entities are introduced. The main hand-chosen inputs are the binary separation ranges and fixed q=1, which directly shape the mass-ratio and multiplicity results.

free parameters (4)
  • Semi-major axis range for close binary model (a_min, a_max) = 1 to 100 au
    Hand-chosen to represent close binaries around the hard-soft boundary; the CB model's survival drives the claim that close binaries are primordial.
  • Semi-major axis range for wide binary model (a_min, a_max) = 100 to 10^4 au
    Hand-chosen to represent wide binaries; the WB model's drop to SS-level multiplicity is a central result.
  • Secondary-to-primary mass ratio q = 1 (fixed for all binaries)
    Assumed equal-mass; maximizes binding energy and creates the q=1 excess by construction, acknowledged in Caveats.
  • Star formation efficiency c* = 0.02 (CB, WB); 0.04 (SS)
    Tuned so that SS model forms comparable stellar mass despite forming one star per event; affects star formation history and dynamics.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The ASURA+BRIDGE N-body/SPH code accurately simulates star cluster formation including stellar feedback.
    Relied on throughout; code is described in Hirai et al. (2021), Fujii et al. (2021a,b).
  • domain assumption The stochastic star formation recipe with thresholds n_th=10^5 cm^-3, T_th=30 K is a valid model for conversion of gas to stars.
    Section 2.2.1; from prior SIRIUS project papers.
  • domain assumption The Kroupa IMF (0.1-150 Msun) describes the initial stellar mass function.
    Section 2.2.1; from Kroupa (2001).
  • domain assumption Mutual-nearest-neighbor plus negative two-body energy correctly identifies gravitationally bound binaries and hierarchies.
    Section 3.2, Eq. (12).
  • ad hoc to paper All newly formed systems in CB and WB models are binaries with q=1 (100% binary fraction at formation).
    Section 2.2.2; a controlled simplification, explicitly acknowledged.
  • domain assumption The hard-soft boundary near 100 au, derived from the velocity dispersion of the formed clusters, separates dynamically hard from soft binaries.
    Section 2.2.2; based on Heggie (1975) and used to define CB vs WB.
  • domain assumption SPH gas dynamics without magnetic fields or radiation transfer adequately captures the large-scale cluster formation process.
    Implicit in the method; magnetic fields listed as future work in Section 4.3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SIRIUS Project: Dynamical Evolution of Primordial Binaries during Star Cluster Formation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BKPBJEW5

@misc{pith2026260810750,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SIRIUS Project: Dynamical Evolution of Primordial Binaries during Star Cluster Formation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BKPBJEW5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10750}
}
read the original abstract

Binary populations are closely linked to the star formation process; however, their primordial properties can be changed by subsequent dynamical interactions within their natal clusters. The aim of this study is to clarify how different primordial binary populations affect the evolution of multiplicity and the global structure of forming star clusters. We investigate the dynamical evolution of primordial binaries during star cluster formation using self-consistent Nbody/smoothed particle hydrodynamics simulations that follow the collapse of a molecular cloud to a star cluster. We systematically compare three star formation models: close binary (CB), wide binary (WB), and single star (SS) formation model. In CB and WB models, the multiplicity fraction decreases with time due to dynamical interactions. In particular, the fraction in the WB model drops to a level comparable to that in the SS model. The multiplicity fraction of high-mass stars is similarly high in all models, whereas only the CB model shows a relatively high fraction for low-mass stars. Due to the assumption of equal-mass binary formation, the CB and WB models exhibit an excess at q= 1 in the mass-ratio distribution, while the SS model has no clear trend. Frequent few-body interactions generate distinct stellar populations inside and outside the cluster: the multiplicity fraction within the cluster is systematically higher, while mass functions in the outside have a shallower slope. Finally, stellar density profiles in the clusters are broadly similar among all models. The primordial binary population significantly affects the final binary properties, while having only a limited impact on their host cluster structures. Our results suggest that close binaries need to form at the star formation stage to reproduce the observed multiplicity fraction of low-mass stars and the excess of equal-mass binaries.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10750 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Snapshots of the star cluster formation simulations at four representative epochs. From left to right, the panels show the CB, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Time evolution of the total stellar mass. The red-solid, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Time evolution of the multiplicity fraction. The CB, WB, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Semi-major axis distributions of binaries at the final [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distributions of binary parameters at the end of the simulations. From left to right, the panels show the distributions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Multiplicity fractions as a function of the mass of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Multiplicity fractions as a function of primary mass for stars located inside (left) and outside (right) the cluster at the end of the sim￾ulation. These are plotted with the same repre￾sentation as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Time evolution of the number of high-mass stars. Solid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Distribution of the semi-major axis and mass ratio of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Stellar mass functions for stars located inside (left) and outside (right) the cluster at the end of the simulation. These are constructed by combining the simulations with different ran￾dom seeds. Red circles, blue diamonds, and green triangles correspond to the CB, …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Stellar number density profiles (left) and cumulative stellar mass distributions (right) at the end of the simulation. The horizontal axis shows the distance from the cluster cen￾ter, defined as the position of the peak stellar density. Red circles, blue diamonds, and…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Primordial Binary Stars, Mass segregation and Fractality Effects on the Early Evolution of Young Open Clusters

    Amiri, V ., Flammini Dotti, F., Pang, X., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.04509

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    A., Bate, M

    Bonnell, I. A., Bate, M. R., & Vine, S. G. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 413

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    E., et al

    Cournoyer-Cloutier, C., Sills, A., Harris, W. E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 1338

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 4464

    Cournoyer-Cloutier, C., Tran, A., Lewis, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 4464

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Deacon, N. R. & Kraus, A. L. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 5176 Duchêne, G. & Kraus, A. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 269 Duchêne, G., Lacour, S., Moraux, E., Goodwin, S., & Bouvier, J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1825

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    P., Tan, J

    Farias, J. P., Tan, J. C., & Chatterjee, S. 2017, ApJ, 838, 116

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    P., Tan, J

    Farias, J. P., Tan, J. C., & Chatterjee, S. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4999

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    2007, PASJ, 59, 1095

    Fujii, M., Iwasawa, M., Funato, Y ., & Makino, J. 2007, PASJ, 59, 1095

    2007

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Fujii, M. S. & Portegies Zwart, S. 2011, Science, 334, 1380

    2011

  2. [10]

    S., Saitoh, T

    Fujii, M. S., Saitoh, T. R., & Portegies Zwart, S. F. 2012, ApJ, 753, 85

    2012

  3. [11]

    P., Kroupa, P., Goodman, A., & Burkert, A

    Goodwin, S. P., Kroupa, P., Goodman, A., & Burkert, A. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V , ed. B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, & K. Keil, 133

    2007

  4. [12]

    Heggie, D. C. 1975, MNRAS, 173, 729

    1975

  5. [13]

    Hillenbrand, L. A. & Hartmann, L. W. 1998, ApJ, 492, 540

    1998

  6. [14]

    S., & Saitoh, T

    Hirai, Y ., Fujii, M. S., & Saitoh, T. R. 2021, PASJ, 73, 1036

    2021

  7. [15]

    R., Pols, O

    Hurley, J. R., Pols, O. R., & Tout, C. A. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 543

    2000

  8. [16]

    R., Tout, C

    Hurley, J. R., Tout, C. A., & Pols, O. R. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 897

    2002

  9. [17]

    2015, Computational Astro- physics and Cosmology, 2, 6

    Iwasawa, M., Portegies Zwart, S., & Makino, J. 2015, Computational Astro- physics and Cosmology, 2, 6

    2015

  10. [18]

    2016, PASJ, 68, 54

    Iwasawa, M., Tanikawa, A., Hosono, N., et al. 2016, PASJ, 68, 54

    2016

  11. [19]

    Jeans, J. H. 1919, MNRAS, 79, 408

    1919

  12. [20]

    Jerabkova, T., Beccari, G., Boffin, H. M. J., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A57

    2019

  13. [21]

    S., & Sills, A

    Karam, J., Fujii, M. S., & Sills, A. 2025, ApJ, 984, 75 Köhler, R., Petr-Gotzens, M. G., McCaughrean, M. J., et al. 2006, A&A, 458, 461

    2025

  14. [22]

    2019, AJ, 157, 196

    Kounkel, M., Covey, K., Moe, M., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 196

    2019

  15. [23]

    1995, MNRAS, 277, 1491

    Kroupa, P. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 1491

    1995

  16. [24]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    2001

  17. [25]

    Lada, C. J. & Lada, E. A. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 57

    2003

  18. [26]

    & Hubeny, I

    Lanz, T. & Hubeny, I. 2003, ApJS, 146, 417

    2003

  19. [27]

    & Kroupa, P

    Marks, M. & Kroupa, P. 2012, A&A, 543, A8

    2012

  20. [28]

    & Kounkel, M

    McBride, A. & Kounkel, M. 2019, ApJ, 884, 6

    2019

  21. [29]

    1990, ApJ, 362, 522

    McMillan, S., Hut, P., & Makino, J. 1990, ApJ, 362, 522

    1990

  22. [30]

    McMillan, S. L. W., Vesperini, E., & Portegies Zwart, S. F. 2007, ApJ, 655, L45

    2007

  23. [31]

    & Di Stefano, R

    Moe, M. & Di Stefano, R. 2017, ApJS, 230, 15

    2017

  24. [32]

    & Bonnell, I

    Moeckel, N. & Bonnell, I. A. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 657

    2009

  25. [33]

    Offner, S. S. R., Moe, M., Kratter, K. M., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y . Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 275

    2023

  26. [34]

    & Kroupa, P

    Oh, S. & Kroupa, P. 2016, A&A, 590, A107

    2016

  27. [35]

    2011, PASJ, 63, 881

    Oshino, S., Funato, Y ., & Makino, J. 2011, PASJ, 63, 881

    2011

  28. [36]

    J., Goodwin, S

    Parker, R. J., Goodwin, S. P., Kroupa, P., & Kouwenhoven, M. B. N. 2009, MN- RAS, 397, 1577

    2009

  29. [37]

    Parker, R. J. & Meyer, M. R. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 3722

    2014

  30. [38]

    I., van Elteren, A., de Vries, N., et al

    Pelupessy, F. I., van Elteren, A., de Vries, N., et al. 2013, A&A, 557, A84

    2013

  31. [39]

    S., et al

    Pontzen, A., Roškar, R., Stinson, G. S., et al. 2013, pynbody: Astrophysics Sim- ulation Analysis for Python, astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1305.002 Portegies Zwart, S. & McMillan, S. 2018, Astrophysical Recipes; The art of AMUSE Portegies Zwart, S., McMillan, S., Har...

    2013

  32. [40]

    2013, Computer Physics Communications, 184, 456 Portegies Zwart, S., van Elteren, A., Pelupessy, I., et al

    Vries, N. 2013, Computer Physics Communications, 184, 456 Portegies Zwart, S., van Elteren, A., Pelupessy, I., et al. 2023, AMUSE: the As- trophysical Multipurpose Software Environment

    2013

  33. [41]

    A., Henry, T

    Raghavan, D., McAlister, H. A., Henry, T. J., et al. 2010, ApJS, 190, 1

    2010

  34. [42]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 3770

    Rantala, A., Naab, T., & Lahén, N. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 3770

    2024

  35. [43]

    J., Boss, A

    Reipurth, B., Clarke, C. J., Boss, A. P., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 267–290

    2014

  36. [44]

    M., Connelley, M

    Reipurth, B., Guimarães, M. M., Connelley, M. S., & Bally, J. 2007, AJ, 134, 2272

    2007

  37. [45]

    R., Daisaka, H., Kokubo, E., et al

    Saitoh, T. R., Daisaka, H., Kokubo, E., et al. 2008, PASJ, 60, 667

    2008

  38. [46]

    R., Daisaka, H., Kokubo, E., et al

    Saitoh, T. R., Daisaka, H., Kokubo, E., et al. 2009, PASJ, 61, 481

    2009

  39. [47]

    Schoettler, C., de Bruijne, J., Vaher, E., & Parker, R. J. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3104

    2020

  40. [48]

    & Fukushige, T

    Tanikawa, A. & Fukushige, T. 2009, PASJ, 61, 721

    2009

  41. [49]

    2020, MNRAS, 495, 4170

    Tanikawa, A., Yoshida, T., Kinugawa, T., Takahashi, K., & Umeda, H. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 4170

    2020

  42. [50]

    Tokovinin, A. A. 2000, A&A, 360, 997

    2000

  43. [51]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 2253

    Torniamenti, S., Ballone, A., Mapelli, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 2253

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.