Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 191

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The meaning and consequences of star formation criteria in galaxy models with resolved stellar feedback

Open access
Hopkins, Philip F., Narayanan, Desika, Murray, Norman·2013·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Abstract

We consider the effects of different criteria for determining where stars will form in gas on galactic scales, in simulations with high (1 pc) resolution, with explicitly resolved physics of Giant Molecular Cloud (GMC) formation and destruction, and stellar feedback from supernovae, radiation pressure, stellar winds and photoheating. We compare: (1) a self-gravity criterion (based on the local virial parameter and the assumption that self-gravitating gas collapses to high density in a single free-fall time), (2) a fixed density threshold, (3) a molecular-gas law, (4) a temperature threshold, (5) a requirement that the gas be Jeans unstable, (6) a criteria that cooling times be shorter than dynamical times and (7) a convergent-flow criterion. We consider all of these in both a Milky Way (MW)-like and high-density (starburst or high-redshift) galaxy. With feedback present, all models produce identical integrated star formation rates (SFRs), in good agreement with the Kennicutt relation; without feedback all produce orders-of-magnitude excessive SFRs. This is totally dependent on feedback and independent of the star formation (SF) law, even if the ‘local’ collapse efficiency is 100 per cent. However, the predicted spatial and density distribution depend strongly on the SF criteria. Because cooling rates are generally fast within galaxy discs, and gas is turbulent, criteria (4)–(7) are very ‘weak’ and spread the SF uniformly over most of the disc (down to densities n ∼ 0.01–0.1 cm−3). A molecular criterion (3) localizes to slightly higher densities, but still a wide range; for metallicity near solar, it is almost identical to a fixed density threshold at n ∼ 1 cm−3 (well below the mean density in the central MW or starburst systems). A fixed density threshold (2) can always select the highest resolved densities, but must be adjusted both for simulation resolution and individual galaxy properties – the same threshold that works well in a MW-like simulation will select nearly all gas in a starburst. Binding criteria (1) tend to adaptively select the largest local overdensities, independent of galaxy model or resolution, and automatically predict clustered SF. We argue that this SF model (possible with other secondary criteria) is most physically motivated and presents significant numerical advantages in simulations with a large dynamic range.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/mnras/stt723

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 191

Metadata

Authors
Hopkins, P. F., Narayanan, D., & Murray, N.
Venue
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Published
2013-05-22
Volume
432
Issue
4
Pages
2647-2653
ISSN
  • 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2966
OpenAlex
W2078959314
Cited by
191
References
2
FWCI
6.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: The meaning and consequences of star formation criteria in galaxy models with resolved stellar feedback. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/mnras/stt723
The paper
Hopkins, P. F., Narayanan, D., & Murray, N. (2013). The meaning and consequences of star formation criteria in galaxy models with resolved stellar feedback. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stt723

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.