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 accessAbstract
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.
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 cosmological simulation code gadget-2
Springel, V. (2005) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x · Cited by 6,368
Variations in the Galactic star formation rate and density thresholds for star formation
Longmore, S. N., Bally, J., Testi, L., Purcell, C. R., Walsh, A. J., Bressert, E., Pestalozzi, M., Molinari, S., Ott, J., Cortese, L., et al. (2013) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/sts376 · Cited by 357
Self-citation
Cited by
Dusty star-forming galaxies at high redshift
Casey, C. M., Narayanan, D., & Cooray, A. (2014) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2014.02.009 · Cited by 800
Self-citationTheoretical Challenges in Galaxy Formation
Naab, T., & Ostriker, J. P. (2017) · Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics · doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040019 · Cited by 722
Wetzel, A. R., Hopkins, P. F., Kim, J.-H., Faucher-Giguère, C.-A., Kereš, D., & Quataert, E. (2016) · The Astrophysical Journal Letters · doi:10.3847/2041-8205/827/2/l23 · Cited by 623
Self-citationThe cosmic baryon cycle and galaxy mass assembly in the FIRE simulations
Anglés-Alcázar, D., Faucher-Giguère, C.-A., Kereš, D., Hopkins, P. F., Quataert, E., & Murray, N. (2017) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1517 · Cited by 422
Self-citationPHANGS–ALMA: Arcsecond CO(2–1) Imaging of Nearby Star-forming Galaxies
Leroy, A. K., Schinnerer, E., Hughes, A., Rosolowsky, E., Pety, J., Schruba, A., Usero, A., Blanc, G. A., Chevance, M., Emsellem, E., et al. (2021) · The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series · doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac17f3 · Cited by 391
Metadata
- Authors
- Hopkins, P. F., Narayanan, D., & Murray, N.
- Venue
- Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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.