pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.20489 · v1 · pith:4XF723GEnew · submitted 2026-05-19 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.SR

Dynamical Cluster Assembly Framework (D-CAF): The Link Between Star Cluster Formation and Expansion Rates

Juan P. Farias , Alison Sills This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 06:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR
keywords star cluster formationgas expulsiondynamical evolutionstellar associationsN-body simulationsMHD simulationsembedded phaseexpansion rates
0
0 comments X

The pith

The expansion of young stellar associations today still carries information about the dynamical state they reached while forming inside collapsing gas.

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

The paper develops a framework that builds young stellar systems by letting stars form gradually inside a gas potential taken directly from MHD simulations, then follows their evolution after the gas is removed with direct N-body runs. It shows that continued gas collapse while stars are forming raises both the central density and the internal speeds of the stellar group before expulsion occurs. This pre-expulsion state sets an upper limit on how fast the association can expand afterward, and the fraction of that speed that actually appears as expansion depends on how rapidly the gas is cleared. A reader would care because it implies that current observations of expanding star groups can be used to recover details of the hidden, embedded formation phase that are otherwise inaccessible.

Core claim

Across all explored MHD setups, the gas continues to collapse while stars are forming, increasing both the central concentration and velocity scale of the embedded stellar population before gas expulsion. Using a controlled grid of direct N-body simulations, this embedded evolution strongly regulates both the survival and later expansion of young stellar systems. In particular, gas contraction shortens the stellar crossing time prior to gas expulsion, making the same gas-removal timescale effectively more adiabatic for the stars. The present-day expansion of stellar associations still preserves information about the embedded dynamical state reached during formation: the expansion rate is set

What carries the argument

The Dynamical Cluster Assembly Framework (D-CAF), which imposes the global gas density evolution from MHD simulations as a time-varying background potential on stars that form gradually inside it, then evolves the resulting stellar population with direct N-body integration after gas removal.

If this is right

  • The survival and expansion behavior of young stellar systems is controlled by the velocity field established before gas expulsion.
  • Shorter crossing times caused by ongoing gas collapse make gas removal more adiabatic, reducing the fraction of internal kinetic energy that becomes expansion.
  • When full kinematic data are available, certain commonly used expansion diagnostics directly measure the true physical expansion rate.
  • Stellar kinematics can be inverted to place constraints on the dynamical conditions that prevailed during embedded star formation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Models of how star clusters dissolve over time would need to start from the higher velocity scales produced by pre-expulsion gas contraction rather than from virial equilibrium at the moment of gas removal.
  • Future surveys that combine proper motions and radial velocities for large samples of associations could map out the range of gas-expulsion timescales that actually occurred in nature.
  • The framework suggests that the initial conditions for long-term cluster evolution carry a stronger memory of the embedded phase than is usually assumed in simple analytic treatments.

Load-bearing premise

The overall gas evolution taken from MHD simulations can be treated as an external, unchanging background potential for the stars without the stars' own gravity or feedback altering the gas flow on the same timescales.

What would settle it

A set of young stellar associations with measured present-day expansion velocities, independent estimates of their gas-expulsion timescales, and reconstructed embedded velocity scales that show no correlation between the predicted and observed expansion rates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.20489 by Alison Sills, Juan P. Farias.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Evolution of the retained gas fraction, Fret(t; f), measured within fixed initial gas Lagrangian radii for the torch M1 (top row) and starforge fiducial (bottom row) simulations. The left panels show the values measured directly from the MHD simulations. The middle panels show the corresponding Fret(t) reconstructed from the fitted Plummer profiles at each snapshot. The right panels show the analytic model… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left: Radial gas and stellar density profiles at different times after the formation of the first star. Circles show the gas density profiles measured in the MHD simulations. Shaded regions indicate the range of values found at each radial shell, with light shading representing the minimum and maximum values and darker shading the 25th and 75th percentiles. Dashed lines show the Plummer models used to char… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Radial stellar phase-space distributions at the moment stars first appear in the benchmark MHD simula￾tions. Top panel show the stellar density profiles, while the bottom panel show the one-dimensional velocity dispersion profiles. The solid lines show Plummer profile fits to the stellar density and power-law fits to the velocity dispersion profiles used to define the stellar birth prescription adopted in … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Parameter-space coverage of the simulation suite. Each panel shows the grid (blue circles) explored in this work, with the free-fall time tff on the horizontal axis. Left: Maximum retained gas fraction Fret,max versus tff. Middle: Star formation efficiency (SFE) versus tff. Right: Gas expulsion timescale normalized by the free-fall time, texp/tff, versus tff. Starred symbols indicate the reference MHD simu… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Summary of the target simulations designed to reproduce the background environments of the STARFORGE fiducial model (left) and the TORCH M1 model (right). The bottom panels show the stellar half-mass radius, Rhm,⋆, for the original simulation, a realization using the tabulated Plummer background gas fits directly (tabulated), and a realization using a Plummer sphere with an analytical prescription for its … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of the stellar half-mass radius, Rh, across the simulation grid. Columns show different free-fall times, while rows correspond to different SFE values. Colours indicate the maximum retained gas fraction, Fret,max, and linestyles indicate the gas-expulsion timescale. The overall evolution follows a common sequence across the grid: an embedded contraction phase while the gas collapses and stars for… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Expansion rates measured at 25 Myr across the full parameter grid. The top row shows the expansion rate of the half-mass radius, dRh/dt, while the bottom row shows the expansion efficiency relative to the maximum embedded velocity dispersion, dRh/dt/σ∗,max. The left column shows the dependence on the nominal SFE, the middle column the imposed gas-expulsion timescale texp/tff, and the right column the effec… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolution and interpretation of three observational expansion diagnostics: the average outward velocity, vR (top panels), the position–velocity expansion gradient, κ multiplied by the current Rh (middle panels), and the ratio between outward velocity and radial velocity dispersion, vR/σ(vr) (bottom panels). The first two quantities directly measure the physical expansion rate of the stellar population, whi… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Normalized maximum stellar velocity dispersion and maximum half-mass number density for stars within Rh. The left panels show these quantities as a function of Fret,max, while the right panels show the same measurements as a function of SFE. In all panels, colors indicate SFE and line styles/markers indicate Fret,max. The normalization factors σ∗ and n∗ are the characteristic formation scales defined from … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Bound fraction measured at tge + 2 tff across the simulation grid. Columns show the three imposed gas-expulsion timescales, texp/tff = 0.1, 0.5, and 1, from left to right. The top row shows the bound fraction as a function of the nominal global SFE, the middle row as a function of the local stellar fraction (LSF) reached at the onset of gas expulsion, and the bottom row as a function of the effective gas-… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We introduce the Dynamical Cluster Assembly Framework (D-CAF), an AMUSE-based framework designed to connect embedded star formation histories to the dynamical evolution of young stellar systems. We model star formation through the gradual formation of stars inside an evolving background potential, where the global gas evolution is extracted from realistic magneto-hydrodynamical (MHD) simulations. In this first work, we focus on the global evolution of the natal gas and its dynamical imprint on the stellar population. Across all explored MHD setups, we find that the gas continues to collapse while stars are forming, increasing both the central concentration and velocity scale of the embedded stellar population before gas expulsion. Using a controlled grid of direct $N$-body simulations, we show that this embedded evolution strongly regulates both the survival and later expansion of young stellar systems. In particular, gas contraction shortens the stellar crossing time prior to gas expulsion, making the same gas-removal timescale effectively more adiabatic for the stars. We find that the present-day expansion of stellar associations still preserves information about the embedded dynamical state reached during formation. The expansion rate is limited by the velocity scale reached before gas expulsion, while the efficiency with which this velocity field is transformed into expansion depends on the gas-expulsion timescale. Finally, we show that some commonly used expansion diagnostics can directly trace the physical expansion rate of young stellar systems when full kinematic information is available, opening the possibility of using stellar kinematics to constrain the dynamical conditions of embedded star formation.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces the Dynamical Cluster Assembly Framework (D-CAF) that couples global gas evolution extracted from standalone MHD simulations as a time-dependent external potential to direct N-body simulations of gradual star formation. Across the explored setups, gas continues to collapse during star formation, raising the embedded stellar central concentration and velocity scale; a controlled N-body grid then shows that this pre-expulsion state regulates post-gas-expulsion survival and expansion, with present-day expansion rates preserving information about the embedded dynamical conditions (expansion limited by pre-expulsion velocity scale, efficiency set by expulsion timescale).

Significance. If the central results hold, the work supplies a concrete dynamical link between embedded formation physics and observable kinematics of young stellar associations, opening a route to constrain formation conditions from present-day data. The controlled N-body grid and use of realistic MHD-derived potentials constitute a systematic strength that allows isolation of the embedded-phase imprint.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and N-body grid section] Abstract and N-body grid description: the claims that embedded contraction shortens crossing times and regulates expansion rest on measured central concentration and velocity scale, yet no quantitative details are supplied on convergence tests, error bars, data exclusion, or the precise measurement procedure for these quantities. Without these, the support for the reported regulation of expansion cannot be verified.
  2. [Framework description] Framework description: the global gas density and potential evolution is imposed directly from standalone MHD runs as an external background. No test or estimate is provided showing that stellar feedback (winds, radiation, supernovae) does not appreciably modify the global collapse or expulsion timescale on the 0.1–1 Myr window; this decoupling is load-bearing for the claimed embedded dynamical state and the subsequent expansion results.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'velocity scale' appears without an explicit definition or reference to the quantity plotted or tabulated; a one-sentence clarification would improve immediate readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating the changes we will make to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and N-body grid section] Abstract and N-body grid description: the claims that embedded contraction shortens crossing times and regulates expansion rest on measured central concentration and velocity scale, yet no quantitative details are supplied on convergence tests, error bars, data exclusion, or the precise measurement procedure for these quantities. Without these, the support for the reported regulation of expansion cannot be verified.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript would benefit from explicit documentation of these procedures. In the revised version we will insert a new subsection (likely in the N-body methods or results) that reports: (i) the convergence tests performed on the measured central concentration and velocity scale, (ii) the associated error bars and how they were computed, (iii) any data-exclusion criteria applied to the simulation outputs, and (iv) the precise algorithmic definition used to extract these quantities from the particle data. These additions will allow readers to reproduce and verify the claimed regulation of post-expulsion expansion. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Framework description] Framework description: the global gas density and potential evolution is imposed directly from standalone MHD runs as an external background. No test or estimate is provided showing that stellar feedback (winds, radiation, supernovae) does not appreciably modify the global collapse or expulsion timescale on the 0.1–1 Myr window; this decoupling is load-bearing for the claimed embedded dynamical state and the subsequent expansion results.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the assumption of an unmodified global gas potential is central to the present framework. A fully self-consistent MHD+N-body run that includes stellar feedback lies outside the scope of this first paper. In the revision we will add a dedicated paragraph in the framework section that (a) cites existing literature on feedback timescales in comparable environments and (b) supplies order-of-magnitude estimates indicating that, for the densities and masses considered, global collapse and expulsion timescales remain largely unaffected over 0.1–1 Myr. We will also state this limitation explicitly and note that coupled feedback simulations are planned for follow-up work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained via external MHD inputs and N-body outcomes

full rationale

The paper extracts global gas evolution from standalone MHD simulations and imposes it as a time-dependent external potential on direct N-body stellar simulations. Reported results on embedded contraction shortening crossing times and regulating post-expulsion expansion are direct simulation outputs, not quantities defined in terms of parameters fitted to the target data or reduced by construction to inputs. No self-definitional steps, fitted predictions renamed as results, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the provided abstract and framework description. The central claim remains independent of the present paper's own fitted values and is externally falsifiable via the cited MHD runs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that MHD-derived global gas evolution can be treated as an external, non-reactive background potential for the forming stellar population.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Global gas evolution extracted from realistic MHD simulations can be used as an evolving background potential for star formation
    Stated in the abstract as the basis for modeling the natal gas.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5802 in / 1443 out tokens · 73307 ms · 2026-05-21T06:26:20.622686+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Expansion kinematics of young clusters. III. The kiloparsec sample

    Armstrong, J. J., & Tan, J. C. 2026, Expansion Kinematics of Young Clusters. III. The Kiloparsec Sample, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.08422

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.08422 2026

  2. [2]

    Barnes, P

    Barnes, J., & Hut, P. 1986, Nature, 324, 446, doi: 10.1038/324446a0 24

    work page doi:10.1038/324446a0 1986

  3. [3]

    G., Pringle J

    Baumgardt, H., & Kroupa, P. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 1589, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12209.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12209.x 2007

  4. [4]

    The Monthly Notices of The Royal Astronomical Society , keywords =

    Bressert, E., Bastian, N., Gutermuth, R., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 409, L54, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00946.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00946.x 2010

  5. [5]

    Bending, T. J. R. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 5448, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3367

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3367 2023

  6. [6]

    Cournoyer-Cloutier, C., Tran, A., Lewis, S., et al. 2020,

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    E., et al

    Cournoyer-Cloutier, C., Sills, A., Harris, W. E., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 977, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad90b3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad90b3 2024

  8. [8]

    2023, Young, Wild and Free: The Early Expansion of Star Clusters, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.02263

    Vesperini, E. 2023, Young, Wild and Free: The Early Expansion of Star Clusters, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.02263

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.02263 2023

  9. [9]

    E., Ercolano, B., & Bonnell, I

    Dale, J. E., Ercolano, B., & Bonnell, I. A. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts592

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts592 2013

  10. [10]

    E., Ercolano, B., & Bonnell, I

    Dale, J. E., Ercolano, B., & Bonnell, I. A. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 987, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv913

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv913 2015

  11. [11]

    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

  12. [12]

    Elmegreen, B. G. 2007, ApJ, 668, 1064, doi: 10.1086/521327

    work page doi:10.1086/521327 2007

  13. [13]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 5341, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty597

    Dabringhausen, J. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 5341, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty597

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty597 2018

  14. [14]

    P., Offner, S

    Farias, J. P., Offner, S. S. R., Grudi´ c, M. Y., Guszejnov, D., & Rosen, A. L. 2023, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 527, 6732, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3609

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3609 2023

  15. [15]

    P., Smith, R., Fellhauer, M., et al

    Farias, J. P., Smith, R., Fellhauer, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 2451, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv790

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv790 2015

  16. [16]

    P., & Tan, J

    Farias, J. P., & Tan, J. C. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 2083, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1532

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1532 2023

  17. [17]

    P., Tan, J

    Farias, J. P., Tan, J. C., & Chatterjee, S. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4999, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3470

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3470 2019

  18. [18]

    Federrath, C., & Klessen, R. S. 2012, ApJ, 761, 156, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/156

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

  19. [19]

    2000, title FLASH: An Adaptive Mesh Hydrodynamics Code for Modeling Astrophysical Thermonuclear Flashes , , 131, 273, 10.1086/317361

    Fryxell, B., Olson, K., Ricker, P., et al. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 131, 273, doi: 10.1086/317361

    work page doi:10.1086/317361 2000

  20. [20]

    2007, Publ

    Fujii, M., Iwasawa, M., Funato, Y., & Makino, J. 2007, Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan, 59, 1095, doi: 10.1093/pasj/59.6.1095

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/59.6.1095 2007

  21. [21]

    S., & Zwart, S

    Fujii, M. S., & Zwart, S. P. 2011, Science, 334, 1380, doi: 10.1126/science.1211927

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1211927 2011

  22. [22]

    D., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04105.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.320L...7C 320, L7

    Geyer, M. P., & Burkert, A. 2001, MNRAS, 323, 988, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04257.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04257.x 2001

  23. [23]

    2007, , 374, 1413, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11246.x

    Goodwin, S. P., & Bastian, N. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 752, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11078.x Grudi´ c, M. Y., Diederik Kruijssen, J. M., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C. A., et al. 2021a, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 506, 3239, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1894 Grudi´ c, M. Y., Guszejnov, D., Hopkins, P. F., et al. 2018, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 481, 688, doi: 10.1093/mnras...

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11078.x 2006

  24. [24]

    Y., Hopkins, P

    Guszejnov, D., Grudi´ c, M. Y., Hopkins, P. F., Offner, S. S. R., & Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A. A. 2021, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 502, 3646, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab278

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab278 2021

  25. [25]

    Y., Offner, S

    Guszejnov, D., Grudi´ c, M. Y., Offner, S. S. R., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, 4929, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2060

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2060 2022

  26. [26]

    N., Offner, S

    Guszejnov, D., Raju, A. N., Offner, S. S. R., et al. 2023, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 518, 4693, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3268

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3268 2023

  27. [27]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2015, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 450, 53, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv195

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv195 2015

  28. [28]

    F., & Raives, M

    Hopkins, P. F., & Raives, M. J. 2016, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 455, 51, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2180

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2180 2016

  29. [29]

    2002, Science (80-

    Kroupa, P. 2002, Science (80-. )., 295, 82, doi: 10.1126/SCIENCE.1067524

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1067524 2002

  30. [30]

    A., Hillenbrand, L

    Kuhn, M. A., Hillenbrand, L. A., Sills, A., Feigelson, E. D., & Getman, K. V. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 870, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaef8c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaef8c 2019

  31. [31]

    Disentangling the independently controllable factors of variation by interacting with the world

    Lada, C. J., & Lada, E. A. 2003, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 41, 57, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094844

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094844 2003

  32. [32]

    J., Margulis, M., & Dearborn, D

    Lada, C. J., Margulis, M., & Dearborn, D. 1984, ApJ, 285, 141, doi: 10.1086/162485

    work page doi:10.1086/162485 1984

  33. [33]

    L., & Goodwin, S

    Lee, P. L., & Goodwin, S. P. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 2997, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw988

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw988 2016

  34. [34]

    2004, Astrophys

    MacLow, M.-M. 2004, Astrophys. Space Sci., 289, 323, doi: 10.1023/B:ASTR.0000014961.72318.7c

    work page doi:10.1023/b:astr.0000014961.72318.7c 2004

  35. [35]

    Moeckel, N., & Bate, M. R. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 721, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16347.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16347.x 2010

  36. [36]

    J., 2012, MNRAS, 420, 3174

    Parker, R. J., Goodwin, S. P., & Allison, R. J. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 2565, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19646.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19646.x 2011

  37. [37]

    and Wright, Nicholas J

    Parker, R. J., Wright, N. J., Goodwin, S. P., & Meyer, M. R. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 620, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2231 25 Pavl´ ık, V. 2020, A&A, 638, 1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037490

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2231 2014

  38. [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, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321252

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321252 2013

  39. [39]

    A., Betti, S

    Pokhrel, R., Gutermuth, R. A., Betti, S. K., et al. 2020, Astrophys. J., 896, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab92a2 Portegies Zwart, S., McMillan, S. L., Van Elteren, A.,

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab92a2 2020

  40. [40]

    I., & De Vries, N

    Pelupessy, F. I., & De Vries, N. 2013, Comput. Phys. Commun., 184, 456, doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2012.09.024

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2012.09.024 2013

  41. [41]

    A new Gaia census of OB associations within 1 kpc

    Quintana, A. L., Wright, N. J., Kormann, L. A., et al. 2025, A New Gaia Census of OB Associations within 1 Kpc, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.05854

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.05854 2025

  42. [42]

    J., 2012, MNRAS, 420, 3174

    Assmann, P. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 383, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19039.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19039.x 2011

  43. [43]

    A., & van Wyk, F

    Springel, V. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x 2005

  44. [44]

    M., Dalcanton, J

    Wainer, T. M., Dalcanton, J. J., Grudi´ c, M. Y., et al. 2025, The Timescales of Embedded Star Formation as Observed in STARFORGE, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.18322

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.18322 2025

  45. [45]

    E., Low, M.-M

    Wall, J. E., Low, M.-M. M., McMillan, S. L. W., et al. 2020, Astrophys. J., 904, 192, doi: flash

    work page 2020

  46. [46]

    E., McMillan, S

    Wall, J. E., McMillan, S. L. W., Mac Low, M.-M., Klessen, R. S., & Zwart, S. P. 2019,

    work page 2019

  47. [47]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 536, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1915

    Wang, L., Iwasawa, M., Nitadori, K., & Makino, J. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 536, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1915

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1915 2020

  48. [48]

    Wright, N. J. 2018, doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.1489060

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.1489060 2018

  49. [49]

    J., & Parker, R

    Wright, N. J., & Parker, R. J. 2019, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 489, 2694, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2303

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2303 2019