The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A COMPARISON OF METHODS FOR DETERMINING THE MOLECULAR CONTENT OF MODEL GALAXIES
Open accessAbstract
Recent observations indicate that star formation occurs only in the molecular phase of a galaxy's interstellar medium. A realistic treatment of star formation in simulations and analytic models of galaxies therefore requires that one determine where the transition from the atomic to molecular gas occurs. In this paper, we compare two methods for making this determination in cosmological simulations where the internal structures of molecular clouds are unresolved: a complex time-dependent chemistry network coupled to a radiative transfer calculation of the dissociating ultraviolet (UV) radiation field and a simple time-independent analytic approximation. We show that these two methods produce excellent agreement at all metallicities ≳10 −2 of the Milky Way value across a very wide range of UV fields. At lower metallicities the agreement is worse, likely because time-dependent effects become important; however, there are no observational calibrations of molecular gas content at such low metallicities, so it is unclear if either method is accurate. The comparison suggests that, in many but not all applications, the analytic approximation provides a viable and nearly cost-free alternative to full time-dependent chemistry and radiative transfer.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
THE STAR FORMATION EFFICIENCY IN NEARBY GALAXIES: MEASURING WHERE GAS FORMS STARS EFFECTIVELY
Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., Brinks, E., Bigiel, F., de Blok, W. J. G., Madore, B., & Thornley, M. D. (2008) · The Astronomical Journal · doi:10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2782 · Cited by 1,919
Dunkley, J., Komatsu, E., Nolta, M. R., Spergel, D. N., Larson, D., Hinshaw, G., Page, L., Bennett, C. L., Gold, B., Jarosik, N., et al. (2009) · The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series · doi:10.1088/0067-0049/180/2/306 · Cited by 1,787
Cited by
simba: Cosmological simulations with black hole growth and feedback
Davé, R., Anglés-Alcázar, D., Narayanan, D., Li, Q., Rafieferantsoa, M. H., & Appleby, S. (2019) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stz937 · Cited by 1,111
Cosmological simulations of galaxy formation
Vogelsberger, M., Marinacci, F., Torrey, P., & Puchwein, E. (2020) · Nature Reviews Physics · doi:10.1038/s42254-019-0127-2 · Cited by 614
Narayanan, D., Krumholz, M. R., Ostriker, E. C., & Hernquist, L. (2012) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20536.x · Cited by 383
Self-citationThe MassiveBlack-II simulation: the evolution of haloes and galaxies to z ∼ 0
Khandai, N., Di Matteo, T., Croft, R., Wilkins, S., Feng, Y., Tucker, E., DeGraf, C., & Liu, M.-S. (2015) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stv627 · Cited by 342
mufasa: galaxy formation simulations with meshless hydrodynamics
Davé, R., Thompson, R., & Hopkins, P. F. (2016) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1862 · Cited by 334
Metadata
- Authors
- Krumholz, M. R., & Gnedin, N. Y.
- Venue
- The Astrophysical Journal
- Publisher
- American Astronomical Society
- Published
- 2011-02-07
- Volume
- 729
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 36
- ISSN
- 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
- 1538-4357
- OpenAlex
- W2003245539
- Cited by
- 308
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 7.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A COMPARISON OF METHODS FOR DETERMINING THE MOLECULAR CONTENT OF MODEL GALAXIES. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1088/0004-637x/729/1/36
- The paper
- Krumholz, M. R., & Gnedin, N. Y. (2011). A COMPARISON OF METHODS FOR DETERMINING THE MOLECULAR CONTENT OF MODEL GALAXIES. The Astrophysical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637x/729/1/36
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.