Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

A Comprehensive All-Sky Catalog of 3345 Molecular Clouds from Three-dimensional Dust Extinction

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes an all-sky catalog of 3,345 molecular clouds by applying distance-adaptive dendrogram clustering to a three-dimensional dust extinction map, showing that these clouds trace the Local Bubble shell and Galactic-scale…

desk verdict Useful all-sky molecular cloud catalog from 3D dust, but the tuning and missing uncertainties make it a resource rather than a definitive measurement. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.07670 v1 pith:VWGTGDCO submitted 2025-09-09 astro-ph.GA

Tao Wang , Haibo Yuan , Bingqiu Chen , Guangxing Li , Bowen Huang , Helong Guo , Ruoyi Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords molecularcloudsinterstellarmediumthree-dimensionaldustextinctiondendrogramclusteringLocalBubbleGalacticstructurereddeningastronomicalcatalogs
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

The paper sets out to show that an all-sky three-dimensional dust extinction map, rather than CO emission alone, can serve as a complete basis for finding molecular clouds and measuring their distances. By applying a dendrogram decomposition with distance-adaptive thresholds to the W25 reddening map, it identifies 3,345 clouds from roughly 90 pc to 4.3 kpc and assigns each a position, radius, mass, surface density, and dust density. The resulting spatial distribution traces the Local Bubble shell, a population of high-latitude clouds, and large-scale cavities and spurs in the Galactic disk. If correct, the catalog extends cloud studies to CO-dark and nearby diffuse clouds and provides a distance-resolved view of the local interstellar medium.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the dendrogram, a hierarchical clustering structure built from iso-density contours of an extinction-gradient data cube, pruned by minimum value, minimum contrast, and minimum pixel count. The distance-adaptive twist is that these thresholds change with heliocentric distance so that angular resolution and contrast effects do not systematically bias selection; each cloud is then a dendrogram leaf whose voxels yield a dust-weighted centroid, projected area, and total mass. This permits uniform physical-size selection across a wide distance range.

What would settle it

Compare the catalog with an independent census built from CO emission with well-characterized distances: if a large fraction of the dust-selected clouds lack any CO counterpart and cannot be attributed to known CO-dark gas, the dust-only selection may be counting structures that are not molecular clouds. Alternatively, inject artificial clouds of known size and contrast into the W25 map and measure the recovery fraction at each distance bin to test the completeness of the dendrogram parameters.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that hierarchical clustering of the W25 three-dimensional dust reddening map, with clustering thresholds that adapt to distance, recovers an all-sky population of 3,345 molecular clouds whose spatial distribution directly reflects the structure of the local interstellar medium. About 650 of these clouds lie on the boundary of the Local Bubble, and about 740 sit at high Galactic latitudes. The cloud positions outline the Local Bubble shell, a chimney and tunnel feature, the Giant Oval Cavity, the Carina cavity, and a continuous Lower Sagittarius-Carina Spur. The paper also argues that mass estimation based on the resolved dust voxels gives a more physically meaningful measure of the bound component than line-of-sight integrated extinction, and that clouds beyond 1 kpc follow a power-law mass-radius relation while nearby Local Bubble clouds scatter about it.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the fixed, distance-adaptive dendrogram thresholds separate genuine molecular clouds from noise fluctuations in the dust map without systematically splitting or merging real structures; the paper selects these thresholds by extensive empirical testing and provides no independent completeness or contamination estimate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Molecular clouds can be cataloged all-sky from dust extinction alone, including CO-dark clouds and nearby diffuse clouds that CO surveys miss.
  • Cloud distances come directly from the 3D map, avoiding kinematic distance ambiguities for clouds without associated stars.
  • The catalog gives a distance-resolved census of the local interstellar medium, including the Local Bubble shell, high-latitude clouds, and large-scale cavities and spurs.
  • Comparisons with CO-based catalogs become possible, showing that this method selects compact dense substructures and yields lower masses and smaller radii.
  • The cloud sample provides a well-characterized target list for follow-up studies of star formation, cloud evolution, and ISM dynamics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because dust extinction traces all dusty gas, the catalog likely includes many transient, unbound clouds; a comparison with CO emission at matched distances could test what fraction are genuinely molecular versus dark dust features.
  • The distance-adaptive thresholds mean completeness varies with distance; injecting synthetic clouds of known size and contrast into the W25 map and measuring recovery rates would directly quantify this selection effect.
  • The apparent large-scale cavities and spurs seen in the cloud distribution could be tested by checking whether they persist in independent tracers such as HI emission or other 3D dust maps beyond 4.3 kpc.
  • The scatter in the mass-radius relation for nearby clouds may indicate an evolutionary sequence from pressure-confined to self-gravitating clouds; kinematic measurements would separate those families observationally.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents an all-sky catalog of 3,345 molecular clouds identified by applying the astrodendro algorithm to the W25 three-dimensional dust extinction map. The method converts the HEALPix-based map into twelve data cubes with adaptive distance binning, computes extinction gradients, and runs dendrogram clustering with distance-dependent thresholds (Table 1). For each dendrogram leaf, the paper derives Galactic coordinates, distance, size, mass, surface density, and average dust density, and flags clouds associated with the Local Bubble shell. The catalog is used to trace the Local Bubble, high-latitude clouds, and large-scale Galactic structures including the Giant Oval Cavity, the Carina cavity, and the Lower Sagittarius-Carina Spur. The authors compare cloud property distributions with earlier CO- and dust-based catalogs and discuss systematic differences in mass and radius measurements.

Significance. If the catalog is reliable, it would be a valuable community resource: it provides all-sky coverage with heliocentric distances from 90 pc to 4.3 kpc, is based on dust extinction rather than CO emission, and therefore can include CO-dark clouds; the authors also make the input map and access software publicly available and compare their results with several previous catalogs. The paper is transparent about the algorithmic steps and provides a machine-readable table of cloud properties. However, the scientific value is conditional on the stability and validity of the dendrogram decomposition, because the headline number of 3,345 clouds, the Local Bubble shell morphology, and the reported large-scale cavities are all products of tuned clustering thresholds applied to a parametric dust map. The manuscript currently offers only limited quantitative validation of those products.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2, Table 1] The dendrogram thresholds (min_value = 0.05 mag/kpc; min_delta = 0.5/0.4/0.3/0.1 mag/kpc; min_npix = 2000/500/200/50) are justified only by 'extensive empirical testing,' and Figure S1 shows histograms of derived properties under single-parameter variations but does not report how the number or identity of the 3,345 clouds changes, nor any false-positive or false-negative rate. Because the central claim of the paper is the catalog itself, the absence of a completeness and contamination analysis (for example, injection-recovery tests into the W25 map, or a comparison against CO-selected clouds with known distances) leaves open the possibility that a substantial fraction of the leaves are noise fluctuations or parameter artifacts. This is a load-bearing issue for the catalog and for all structural conclusions drawn from it.
  2. [Section 2 and Section 4.1] The input W25 map is a parametric model that already includes a Local Bubble component and 'various molecular cloud components,' so the later identification of a quasi-spherical shell of clouds around the Local Bubble in Figure 9 may partly reflect the imprinted model rather than an independent detection. This circularity concern should be addressed by a concrete test, such as repeating the cloud extraction on an independent 3D dust map (e.g., Vergely et al. 2022) or by comparing the Local Bubble shell clouds with CO or HI observations that were not used to construct W25.
  3. [Section 4.1, Figure 9] The classification of roughly 650 clouds as Local Bubble shell members relies on adding 'a conservative offset of 70 pc' to the boundary distance derived from the W25 extinction profile, but no justification, derivation, or sensitivity analysis for this offset is given. Since the Local Bubble shell count and the associated structural interpretation depend directly on this offset, the paper should show how the number of flagged clouds and the shell morphology change as the offset is varied over a plausible range.
  4. [Table 2 and Section 3.3] The catalog entries in Table 2 list distances, radii, masses, surface densities, and dust densities without any uncertainties. For a catalog paper whose central product is Table 2, missing error bars are a serious omission: the paper quotes a typical reddening precision of 0.01–0.05 mag, but does not propagate these uncertainties, the distance-bin width, or the smoothing scale into the derived physical parameters. The authors should provide at least representative uncertainties, and preferably per-cloud uncertainties, for the tabulated quantities.
  5. [Section 3.2 and Figure 10] The distance-adaptive min_delta and min_npix values are chosen to maintain a roughly constant physical size selection, yet Figure 10 and the text attribute part of the observed differences between Local Bubble and non-Local Bubble clouds to these distance-dependent parameters. The paper does not separate the intrinsic physical trends from the selection effects introduced by the parameter choices. A quantitative statement of the selection function of the algorithm as a function of distance, density, and angular size is needed before the mass-radius relation in Figure 12 or the physical-property comparisons in Section 5.1 can be interpreted.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.2] The sentence 'Although each parameter set is run on the full cube, only structures whose centroids fall within the corresponding distance range are retained' should be reconciled with Table 1, which lists four parameter sets and four distance ranges; the text does not explain how a structure with a centroid outside the chosen range is handled when multiple sets overlap at the bin boundaries.
  2. [Section 4.2] The paper refers to 'dust density' while the voxel values are extinction gradients in mag/kpc; this terminology is potentially confusing, and a brief clarification of the relation between rho_dust and the tabulated quantity would help readers.
  3. [Section 2] The reference to Wang et al. (2025) is listed as 'Submitted' in the reference list but described as 'ApJS, in press' in Section 1; this inconsistency should be corrected.
  4. [Supplementary Material captions] There are several typographical errors in the supplementary captions, including 'regio' in Figure S3, 'Gaiacoverage' in Figure S3, and 'Similarto' in Figure S8; these should be fixed in the final version.
  5. [Section 3.1, Equation (4)] The distance binning starts at 0.05 kpc 'to exclude the Local Bubble,' but the Local Bubble is a three-dimensional structure, not merely a distance cutoff; the motivation for this choice should be stated more precisely.
  6. [Section 5.1] The claim that voxel-based mass estimation 'yields a more physically meaningful measure of the gravitationally bound component' is a strong interpretive statement that goes beyond the data presented; I suggest softening it or supporting it with a virial or CO-line comparison.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the Local Bubble shell clouds are selected using W25's own fitted Local Bubble boundary, though the core catalog extraction is independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2 (Data) and Section 4.1 / Figure 9 (Local Bubble shell)]
    "To construct the 3D map, W25 modeled the relationship between reddening and distance along different lines of sight using smooth, monotonically increasing parametric functions. This parametric model accounts for contributions from the Local Bubble, the diffuse interstellar medium, and various molecular cloud components. ... For each nearby cloud, we compute the average Local Bubble boundary distance based on the W25 extinction profile fit. Adding a conservative offset of 70pc, we classify clouds located within this limit as part of the Local Bubble shell."

    The input W25 map is not a neutral measurement cube: its parametric model already includes a fitted Local Bubble component and molecular-cloud components. The paper's Local Bubble association then uses the same W25 profile fit to set the boundary and labels dendrogram leaves within 70 pc of that fitted boundary as shell clouds. Therefore the reported result that about 650 clouds trace the Local Bubble shell, and the shell/cavity morphology shown in Figures 9 and 13, is partly a restatement of the W25 model's own fitted components rather than an independent detection from the raw Gaia/LAMOST reddening data. The dendrogram cloud extraction per se is independent, but this specific 'tracing the Local Bubble shell' claim is forced by the construction of the input.

full rationale

The catalog itself is a fresh analysis of the W25 three-dimensional reddening map, which is built from Gaia and LAMOST reddening measurements. The dendrogram decomposition, distance-adaptive thresholds, and physical parameter calculations are standard and not circular in themselves. The tuning of Table 1 parameters is justified only by extensive empirical testing and a sensitivity histogram, which is a completeness/purity concern rather than a circularity concern. Comparisons to external catalogs such as Miville-Deschênes et al. (2017), Cahlon et al. (2024), and Vergely et al. (2022) provide genuine checks of the derived radius, mass, and structural trends. The principal circular element is the Local Bubble shell: W25's parametric model already contains a Local Bubble component, and the paper classifies clouds as shell members using W25's own fitted boundary distance. Thus the 'discovery' that clouds trace the Local Bubble shell is partially imprinted by the construction of the input map, not an independent result. This partial circularity affects a headline finding but does not invalidate the core catalog, so the score is moderate rather than severe.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the accuracy of the self-authored W25 map, on four distance-adaptive dendrogram thresholds chosen by trial and error, on the standard DGR and R_V conversion, and on an ad hoc 70 pc offset for Local Bubble membership. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • min_value = 0.05 mag/kpc (all distance bins)
    Intensity threshold for dendrogram leaves; chosen to reject noise based on testing over 0.01-0.05 mag/kpc (Section 3.2).
  • min_delta (per distance bin) = 0.5, 0.4, 0.3, 0.1 mag/kpc
    Minimum contrast between substructure and parent; tuned per distance range to balance noise at high latitude vs. suppression of distant structures (Section 3.2, Table 1).
  • min_npix (per distance bin) = 2000, 500, 200, 50 pixels
    Minimum structure size, chosen to correspond to ~10, 20, 30, 40 pc physical diameters (Section 3.2, Table 1).
  • Local Bubble offset = 70 pc
    Added to the W25 Local Bubble boundary distance to decide which clouds belong to the shell (Section 4.1); arbitrary 'conservative' choice.
  • Gaussian smoothing sigma = 0.1 deg
    Applied on the plane of the sky before clustering (Section 2); no justification given.
  • distance binning coefficients = a=0.01 kpc, b=0.1
    Delta d = sqrt(a^2 + (b*d)^2) in Equation 4; the two coefficients set the distance uncertainty model and define the 50 voxel layers.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The W25 3D reddening map accurately represents the dust distribution at the angular scales used (down to about 3.4 arcmin in high-resolution regions)
    The entire catalog is built on this map; errors in the map propagate directly to cloud properties (Section 2).
  • domain assumption Dendrogram leaves in the extinction-gradient cubes correspond to distinct molecular clouds, not noise or substructure of larger complexes
    The paper identifies leaves with clouds; no external CO or dust validation is performed for individual objects (Section 3.2).
  • domain assumption A constant dust-to-gas ratio DGR=4.15e-22 mag cm^2 and R_V=3.1 apply to all identified clouds
    Used to convert extinction to gas mass (Eqs. 11-12); variations in dust properties would change masses (Section 3.3).
  • domain assumption The extinction gradient threshold of 0.05 mag/kpc separates molecular clouds from the diffuse ISM
    The min_value threshold is uniform; clouds fainter than this are missed (Section 3.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Comprehensive All-Sky Catalog of 3345 Molecular Clouds from Three-dimensional Dust Extinction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VWGTGDCO

@misc{pith2026250907670,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Comprehensive All-Sky Catalog of 3345 Molecular Clouds from Three-dimensional Dust Extinction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VWGTGDCO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.07670}
}
abstract

Understanding the distribution and properties of molecular clouds is crucial for tracing the structure and evolution of the interstellar medium and the large-scale morphology of the Milky Way. Here we present an all-sky catalog of 3,345 molecular clouds identified from our previous three-dimensional dust reddening map using a dendrogram-based clustering method with distance-adaptive parameters. The catalog spans heliocentric distances from 90 pc to 4.3 kpc and includes key physical properties for each cloud, including position, size, mass, surface density, and dust density. Approximately 650 clouds in our catalog are associated with the boundary of the Local Bubble, while around 740 clouds (excluding those associated with the Local Bubble) are located at high Galactic latitudes ($|b| > 20^\circ$). The spatial distribution of the cataloged clouds reveals prominent large-scale features in the Galactic disk, including coherent spur-like structures, large-scale cavities, and a more detailed view of the Local Bubble shell. These findings refine our understanding of how molecular clouds trace the Galactic spiral arm network and provide new insight into the spatial structure of the Local Bubble. The catalog serves as a valuable resource for future studies of star formation, Galactic structure, and the interaction between molecular clouds and large-scale ISM features.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.07670 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: the 12 base HEALPix pixels at k = 0 resolution dividing the full sky into equal-area regions. Right: an example of refining the n = 4 base pixel to k = 2, resulting in an 8 × 8 grid. The main and secondary diagonals correspond to Galactic longitude and latitude of 0 ◦ , spanning 90◦ . The numbers in each cell represent the HEALPix pixel IDs (with nested ordering) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Bin widths as a function of distance. Colors indicate the use of different parameters in different regions, as discussed in Section 3.2. We construct 12 data cubes (one per base HEALPix pixel), each with 50 distance layers and 1024×1024 spa￾tial resolution. These serve as input for the hierarchical clustering analysis using Dendrograms. 3.2. Identification of the Molecular clouds Dendrograms identify hierarchical st… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example projections of a dendrogram clustering result. Top: X ′ –Y ′ plane (sky view), Middle: X ′ –Z ′ plane, Bottom: Y ′ –Z ′ plane. Here, Z ′ represents the line-of-sight (distance) direction, and X ′ –Y ′ corresponds to the celestial sphere, as described in Section 3.1. The color scale repre￾sents the average dust density (i.e., extinction gradient in mag/kpc). For each projection, the mean is calculated using p… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: This figure presents the clustering results for the region corresponding to HEALPix pixel index 7 in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of molecular clouds in Galactic coordinates. Left: Galactic longitude versus distance from the Sun. Right: Galactic latitude versus distance. In both panels, each circle represents a molecular cloud. The radius of the circle reflects the physical size of t…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Sky distribution of cataloged molecular clouds in Galactic coordinates. Circle sizes represent angular radii, and colors indicate distances from the Sun. The void outlined by the red dashed line corresponds to the "chimney" structure identified by T. J. O’Neill et al. …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Spatial distribution of molecular clouds not associated with the Local Bubble in the X-Y , X-Z, and Y -Z planes.The Sun is located at (X, Y, Z) = (8.12, 0.00, 0.02) kpc, and the Galactic center at the origin. In the X-Y panel, clouds are shown as hollow circles with ra…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: spatial distribution of molecular clouds within 0.3 kpc of the Sun, projected onto the X-Y plane. The Sun is at the origin. The color scale shows the vertical coordinate Z in parsecs. Right: molecular clouds likely associated with the Local Bubble boundary, selec…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Histograms of key physical properties of the molecular clouds cataloged in this work. Top left: physical radius; top right: total mass; bottom left: surface mass density; bottom right: average dust density. Solid red lines represent the full sample, dashed goldenrod l…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Mass-radius relation for molecular clouds in our catalog. Green circles: Local Bubble clouds; gold circles: nonLocal Bubble clouds within 1 kpc; blue circles: clouds beyond 1 kpc. The black solid line shows the best-fit for the blue population. Data from previous stud…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of physical properties of molecular clouds in this work (excluding Local Bubble clouds; red) with those from M.-A. Miville-Deschênes et al. (2017) (purple), B. Q. Chen et al. (2020) (blue), H. L. Guo et al. (2022) (green), and Y.-H. Xie et al. (2024) (orang…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Spatial distribution of cataloged molecular clouds in the Galactic X-Y plane. Each circle represents a molecular cloud, with radius proportional to its physical size and transparency indicating average dust density (a proxy for compactness). The Sun is at (X, Y ) = (8…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Unveiling the Milky Way with a Gaia DR3 census of OB-type stars within 2 kpc. I. Tracing local Galactic structure, massive star-forming regions and core-collapse supernova progenitors

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A Gaia DR3-based census of 105,971 OB stars within 2 kpc maps local Galactic structure and identifies over 4,200 core-collapse supernova or black hole progenitor candidates.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Barnard, E. E. 1919, ApJ, 49, 1, doi: 10.1086/142439

    work page doi:10.1086/142439 1919

  2. [2]

    Barnard, E. E. 1927, Catalogue of 349 dark objects in the sky

    work page 1927

  3. [3]

    Blitz, L., & Stark, A. A. 1986, ApJL, 300, L89, doi: 10.1086/184609

    doi:10.1086/184609 1986

  4. [4]

    E., Bialy, S., et al

    Burkhart, B., Dharmawardena, T. E., Bialy, S., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02541-7

    doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02541-7 2025

  5. [5]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0cf8

    Cahlon, S., Zucker, C., Goodman, A., Lada, C., & Alves, J. 2024, ApJ, 961, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0cf8

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0cf8 2024

  6. [6]

    Q., Liu, X

    Chen, B. Q., Liu, X. W., Ren, J. J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 3924, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2287

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2287 2017

  7. [7]

    Q., Huang, Y., Yuan, H

    Chen, B. Q., Huang, Y., Yuan, H. B., et al. 2019a, MNRAS, 483, 4277, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3341

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3341

  8. [8]

    Q., Huang, Y., Hou, L

    Chen, B. Q., Huang, Y., Hou, L. G., et al. 2019b, MNRAS, 487, 1400, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1357

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1357

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Q., Li, G

    Chen, B. Q., Li, G. X., Yuan, H. B., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 351, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa235

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    P., & Reynolds, R

    Cox, D. P., & Reynolds, R. J. 1987, ARA&A, 25, 303, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.25.090187.001511

    1987

  3. [11]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    Cui, X.-Q., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    2012 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Hartmann, D., & Thaddeus, P

    Dame, T. M., Hartmann, D., & Thaddeus, P. 2001, ApJ, 547, 792, doi: 10.1086/318388 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272

    2001 doi

  5. [13]

    Glover, S. C. O., & Mac Low, M. M. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 337, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17907.x

    2011

  6. [14]

    A., Barranco, J

    Goodman, A. A., Barranco, J. A., Wilner, D. J., & Heyer, M. H. 1998, ApJ, 504, 223, doi: 10.1086/306045

    1998 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Alves, J., Beaumont, C

    Goodman, A. A., Alves, J., Beaumont, C. N., et al. 2014, ApJ, 797, 53, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/1/53 Górski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, 759, doi: 10.1086/427976

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    A., Casandjian, J.-M., & Terrier, R

    Grenier, I. A., Casandjian, J.-M., & Terrier, R. 2005, Science, 307, 1292, doi: 10.1126/science.1106924

    2005 doi

  9. [17]

    L., Chen, B

    Guo, H. L., Chen, B. Q., & Liu, X. W. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2302, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac213

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    L., Chen, B

    Guo, H. L., Chen, B. Q., Yuan, H. B., et al. 2021, ApJ, 906, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc68a

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    2008, ApJ, 672, 410, doi: 10.1086/523837

    Lombardi, M. 2008, ApJ, 672, 410, doi: 10.1086/523837

    2008 doi

  12. [20]

    Lada, E. A. 1992, ApJL, 393, L25, doi: 10.1086/186442

    1992 doi

  13. [21]

    2003, A&A, 411, 447, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031214

    Sfeir, D. 2003, A&A, 411, 447, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031214

    2003 doi

  14. [22]

    H., Glatzle, M., & Enßlin, T

    Leike, R. H., Glatzle, M., & Enßlin, T. A. 2020, A&A, 639, A138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038169

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    S., Leurini, S., et al

    Li, G.-X., Urquhart, J. S., Leurini, S., et al. 2016, A&A, 591, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527468

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    2013, A&A, 559, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322411

    Li, G.-X., Wyrowski, F., Menten, K., & Belloche, A. 2013, A&A, 559, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322411

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    W., Yuan, H

    Liu, X. W., Yuan, H. B., Huo, Z. Y., et al. 2014, in IAU

    2014

  18. [26]

    298, Setting the scene for Gaia and LAMOST, ed

    Symposium, Vol. 298, Setting the scene for Gaia and LAMOST, ed. S. Feltzing, G. Zhao, N. A. Walton, & P. Whitelock, 310–321, doi: 10.1017/S1743921313006510

    doi

  19. [27]

    Lombardi, M., Alves, J., & Lada, C. J. 2011, A&A, 535, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116915

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    1985, ApJ, 295, 402, doi: 10.1086/163385

    Magnani, L., Blitz, L., & Mundy, L. 1985, ApJ, 295, 402, doi: 10.1086/163385

    1985 doi

  21. [29]

    Mamajek, E. E. 2008, Astronomische Nachrichten, 329, 10, doi: 10.1002/asna.200710827

    2008 doi

  22. [30]

    1997, A&A, 327, 325 Miville-Deschênes, M.-A., Murray, N., & Lee, E

    May, J., Alvarez, H., & Bronfman, L. 1997, A&A, 327, 325 Miville-Deschênes, M.-A., Murray, N., & Lee, E. J. 2017, ApJ, 834, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/57

    1997 doi

  23. [31]

    C., Dame, T

    Myers, P. C., Dame, T. M., Thaddeus, P., et al. 1986, ApJ, 301, 398, doi: 10.1086/163909 O’Neill, T. J., Zucker, C., Goodman, A. A., & Edenhofer, G. 2024, ApJ, 973, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad61de Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A1, doi...

    1986 doi

  24. [32]

    J., Menten, K

    Reid, M. J., Menten, K. M., Brunthaler, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a11

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    S., Goodman, A

    Rice, T. S., Goodman, A. A., Bergin, E. A., Beaumont, C., & Dame, T. M. 2016, ApJ, 822, 52, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/52

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    Goodman, A. A. 2008, ApJ, 679, 1338, doi: 10.1086/587685

    2008 doi

  27. [35]

    F., Green, G., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., Green, G., Finkbeiner, D. P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 116, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/116

    2015 doi

  28. [36]

    Z., & Good, J

    Scoville, N. Z., & Good, J. C. 1989, ApJ, 339, 149, doi: 10.1086/167283

    1989 doi

  29. [37]

    J., Glover, S

    Smith, R. J., Glover, S. C. O., Clark, P. C., Klessen, R. S., & Springel, V. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 1628, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu616

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    2024, AJ, 168, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad7b2f

    Sun, M., Jiang, B., Guo, H., & Cui, W. 2024, AJ, 168, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad7b2f

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    C., Caselli, P., & Walmsley, C

    Tafalla, M., Myers, P. C., Caselli, P., & Walmsley, C. M. 2004, A&A, 416, 191, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031704

    2004 doi

  32. [40]

    L., Lallement, R., & Cox, N

    Vergely, J. L., Lallement, R., & Cox, N. L. J. 2022, A&A, 664, A174, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243319

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 4043, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv735

    Wang, K., Testi, L., Ginsburg, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 4043, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv735

    2015 doi

  34. [42]

    2025, Submitted

    Wang, T., Yuan, H., Chen, B., et al. 2025, Submitted

    2025

  35. [43]

    Y., & Shelton, R

    Welsh, B. Y., & Shelton, R. L. 2009, Ap&SS, 323, 1, doi: 10.1007/s10509-009-0053-3 18

    2009 doi

  36. [44]

    W., Jefferts, K

    Wilson, R. W., Jefferts, K. B., & Penzias, A. A. 1970, ApJL, 161, L43, doi: 10.1086/180567

    1970 doi

  37. [45]

    G., Hollenbach, D., & McKee, C

    Wolfire, M. G., Hollenbach, D., & McKee, C. F. 2010, ApJ, 716, 1191, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/2/1191

    2010 doi

  38. [46]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7378

    Xie, Y.-H., Li, G.-X., & Chen, B.-Q. 2024, ApJ, 975, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7378

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    B., Liu, X

    Yuan, H. B., Liu, X. W., & Xiang, M. S. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 2188, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt039

    2013 doi

  40. [48]

    M., & Rix, H.-W

    Zhang, X., Green, G. M., & Rix, H.-W. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1855, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1941

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 723, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002

    Zhao, G., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., Jing, Y.-P., & Deng, L.-C. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 723, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002

    2012 doi

  42. [50]

    S., Schlafly, E

    Zucker, C., Speagle, J. S., Schlafly, E. F., et al. 2019, ApJ, 879, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2388

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    A., Alves, J., et al

    Zucker, C., Goodman, A. A., Alves, J., et al. 2022, Nature, 601, 334, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04286-5 19 SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL Figure S1 shows histograms of the physical properties of identified clouds under several different sets of clustering parameters. This supplementary ...

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.