Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 86 references

Intensity Gradients Technique: Synergy with Velocity Gradients and Polarization Studies

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Intensity gradients in thick velocity channels can trace the magnetic-field direction, gauge magnetization, and mark shocks in diffuse interstellar gas.

desk verdict IGT is a useful, honest extension of VGT with clear independent checks for B-field tracing, but the shock/Mach-number diagnostics rest on simulation-tuned thresholds and the paper carries an internal AM-versus-histogram inconsistency that needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09488 v3 pith:VIWHKXKS submitted 2019-08-26 astro-ph.GA

Yue Hu , Ka Ho Yuen , Alex Lazarian This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords magneticfieldsinterstellarmediumMHDturbulenceintensitygradientsvelocitypolarizationHIspectroscopyshockidentification
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

Astronomers usually need polarization measurements to see interstellar magnetic fields, but polarization is hard to obtain in many regions and can fail where starlight extinction is high. This paper argues that the geometry of intensity fluctuations alone—the gradients of brightness in thick velocity-channel maps—can stand in for those measurements under the right conditions. The proposed Intensity Gradients Technique (IGT) rotates intensity gradients by 90 degrees and averages them in sub-blocks to recover the projected magnetic-field direction, and it calibrates how peaked the gradient-orientation histogram is as a measure of how magnetized the medium is. Applying IGT to a diffuse hydrogen region observed by GALFA-HI, the authors find that its field maps agree with Planck polarization maps, though less tightly than velocity-gradient maps do, and that the disagreements mark shock-like structures. If the technique is sound, astronomers can extract magnetic-field orientation, magnetization, shock positions, and hints of self-gravitating collapse from intensity-only data, and combine this with velocity-gradient maps to get a fuller picture.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the gradient field of a position–position–velocity cube's intensity maps, processed the way velocity gradients were earlier: each pixel gets a gradient angle, sub-block averaging turns the local histogram of those angles into a Gaussian, and the Gaussian's peak gives the likely magnetic-field direction while its sharpness reports magnetization. The control knob is velocity-channel thickness: the theory of PPV statistics says thin channels are velocity-dominated and thick channels are density-dominated, so switching thickness switches which turbulent statistics the gradients follow. Two diagnostics carry the analysis: the Alignment Measure (AM), which compares rotated gradients with a reference field direction, and the Z-score of gradient amplitude, which flags high-contrast shock structures. The 90-degree rotation rule is justified by the GS95 picture of anisotropic MHD turbulence, in which turbulent eddies and low-amplitude density fluctuations are elongated along the local magnetic field with scale-dependent anisotropy.

What would settle it

On a set of diffuse HI sightlines with high signal-to-noise Planck polarization, compute the Alignment Measure between 90-degree-rotated intensity gradients and polarization angles: if the median AM does not come out clearly positive (say, at least about 0.4) for sub-Alfvénic regions, the rotation rule fails. In simulations with known magnetic fields, the direct test is to check whether low-contrast density isocontours in thick synthetic channels are actually parallel to the local field; if they are not, the field maps from IGT would be systematically wrong even when AM looks acceptable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that channel thickness selects what a gradient map measures, and that this selection can be exploited. In thin velocity channels, velocity fluctuations dominate and produce gradients that, after a 90-degree rotation and sub-block averaging, point along the local magnetic field; in thick channels and integrated intensity maps, density fluctuations dominate, but low-contrast density filaments are also elongated along the field, so the same rotation recovers the field direction from intensity alone. Shocks are the exception: high-contrast density structures formed by compression lie perpendicular to the magnetic field, so in shock regions raw intensity gradients rotate toward the field direction instead. That predicted flip gives IGT a second use as a shock finder, and it explains why intensity-gradient and velocity-gradient maps disagree precisely where the Z-score of gradient amplitude is large. The paper further reports that the sharpness of the gradient-orientation histogram, characterized by a $T/B$ ratio, falls with increasing Alfvénic Mach number (the ratio of turbulent speed to magnetic Alfvén speed), making IGT a limited but polarization-free probe of magnetization. In the observed GALFA-HI field, rotated intensity gradients and velocity-channel gradients both align with Planck 353 GHz polarization, with velocity gradients the more accurate of the two, while their mutual misalignment tracks the shock-flagged region.

Load-bearing premise

The technique's 90-degree rotation rule assumes that low-contrast density structures in thick velocity channels are elongated along the local magnetic field, an alignment the paper takes from MHD turbulence theory and simulations rather than establishing directly in the observed sky.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Column-density maps and dust-emission maps, which contain no velocity information at all, can yield a statistically meaningful projected magnetic-field orientation through IGT.
  • The $T/B$ ratio of the intensity-gradient orientation histogram can serve as a rough, polarization-free estimator of the Alfvénic Mach number, with weaker sensitivity than the corresponding velocity-gradient statistic.
  • Shock candidates can be found as places where intensity gradients and velocity-gradient maps rotate relative to each other by about 90 degrees, independently of polarization data.
  • Gradients analyzed in the HRO style with velocity fields (VHRO) can mark self-gravitating regions, because the gradients change their orientation only once gravitational energy begins to dominate the turbulence.
  • IGT and VGT together give a more complete magnetic-ecosystem readout—field orientation, magnetization, shocks, and collapse—than either technique alone, and they extend to regions where polarimetry is unreliable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because IGT works on integrated intensity, a testable extension is to apply it to low-spectral-resolution or unresolved HI surveys where velocity-channel structure is smeared out, as long as the thick-channel density-dominated condition holds; the paper does not pursue this regime.
  • The paper proposes re-rotating raw intensity gradients by 90 degrees inside shock candidates before sub-block averaging; implementing this correction and checking whether it lifts the Alignment Measure inside shocked regions would directly test the shock-flip model.
  • The shock signature could be turned into a survey product: a map of the angle between intensity gradients and velocity-channel gradients, whose near-90-degree patches would be a polarization-free shock finder across large sky areas.
  • IGT's weaker magnetization sensitivity (nearly flat $T/B$ versus $M_A$ for super-Alfvénic cases) suggests its best role is a cross-check or prior for velocity-gradient estimates, not a standalone precision measurement at high $M_A$.
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 introduces the Intensity Gradients Technique (IGT), which treats gradients of thick-channel and velocity-integrated intensity maps as tracers of the projected magnetic-field direction after a 90-degree rotation and sub-block averaging. The authors apply IGT to a diffuse HI region in GALFA-HI, compare the resulting field maps with velocity-channel gradients (VChGs), reduced-velocity-centroid gradients (RVCGs), and Planck 353 GHz polarization, and report alignment measures of 0.68±0.02 (VChGs) and 0.45±0.02 (IGs). They further propose using the T/B ratio of gradient-orientation histograms to estimate the Alfvénic Mach number, a Z-score threshold to identify shock structures, and a VHRO modification of HRO to locate self-gravitating regions. The central conclusion is that IGT can reveal magnetic-field orientation and magnetization in diffuse media and identify shock structures, and that use in synergy with VGT improves performance over either technique alone.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper offers a polarization-independent way to trace the projected magnetic-field direction and a limited magnetization measure from intensity-only maps, which is practically valuable for HI column-density and dust-emission data. The main strengths are the direct comparison against Planck polarization and the use of simulation truth for validating the field-tracing aspect; these give the paper a concrete observational anchor. The claims are not parameter-free: the magnetization power laws, the shock Z-score threshold, and the self-gravity threshold are calibrated on specific simulations, so the broader significance depends on the generality of those calibrations. No code or machine-readable outputs are supplied, so the quantitative results are not independently reproducible from the paper as it stands.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 5.1] The calibration of the T/B–M_A power laws is circular with respect to the simulations used: the exponents are fitted to the ZEUS-MP models in Table 1 and the same functional forms are then used to estimate M_A in observations. Please provide an independent calibration (for example, a different MHD code, a different numerical resolution, or a different forcing scheme) or at least a sensitivity analysis showing that the exponents are stable. Without this, the magnetization estimate is a simulation-calibrated fit rather than a validated measurement.
  2. [Secs. 2.5 and 5.2] The 90-degree rotation rule for IGT relies on the premise, stated in Sec. 2.5, that low-contrast column-density structures are elongated parallel to the local magnetic field. This premise is not measured in the observed GALFA-HI region; it is imported from earlier simulations and from GS95 theory. Because the observed HI is a two-phase, line-of-sight-mixed medium, please test this premise directly by comparing rotated IGs with Planck after masking high-density/high-Z pixels and by running synthetic observations of independent simulations, quantifying how the alignment measure varies with line-of-sight mixing. Currently every IGT field map inherits this untested premise.
  3. [Sec. 6 and Fig. 8] The histogram of relative angles between rotated IGs and Planck polarization is described as 'concentrated on ~5°', but the quoted AM=0.45 is hard to reconcile with such a narrow peak: a distribution peaked at 5 degrees would give AM close to 0.98. The histogram must have a substantial tail or the AM must be computed on a different sample. Please show the full histogram and verify that the quoted AM follows from it; this check is necessary before the reader can assess the field-tracing claim.
  4. [Secs. 5.3 and 6] The shock-identification algorithm uses a Z-score threshold of 8 in simulations and 10 in observations, with no derivation or robustness analysis. Please report how the threshold depends on M_A, M_s, numerical resolution, and observational noise, and give a formal criterion rather than a tuned value. Without this, the shock maps in Fig. 7 and the claim that IGs become parallel to the magnetic field in front of shocks are not quantitatively supported.
  5. [Sec. 7.3] The VHRO self-gravity indicator is calibrated on a single subsonic simulation (Ms0.2) and uses ζ≤−0.1 as a threshold with no reported uncertainty or sensitivity analysis. The critical intensity ratios I/I0≈0.4, 1.0, and 1.19 are presented as generally applicable but are measured from one realization. Please test these thresholds against simulations with different Mach numbers and against additional observed regions before claiming that VHRO can identify self-gravitating regions.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 4.1, Eq. (4)] The text says the channel width is 'satisfied with Eq. 4', but Eq. (4) is the definition of the channel map; it should refer to the thick-channel criterion in Eq. (3).
  2. [Sec. 6] 'Equilateral coordinate' should be 'Equatorial coordinate'.
  3. [Sec. 5.1] The sentence 'The uncertainty of T/B ratio is negligible' is unsupported; please report the fitting uncertainties of T/B and propagate them into the M_A estimates.
  4. [References] Several references are duplicated or incomplete: Lazarian & Yuen (2018) and Lazarian et al. (2018) appear twice, and the arXiv identifiers for Xu et al. (2019) and Yuen et al. (2019) are truncated.
  5. [Sec. 7.3] The text contains repeated 'free all time' typos; these should read 'free-fall time'.
  6. [Sec. 7.2] The claim that the weighted cos(θ) histogram becomes Gaussian because |∇I| is itself Gaussian needs quantitative support; please specify the normalization and binning of the histograms in Fig. 10 so that the reader can verify the shape comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No exhibit-able circular reduction; the derivation is calibration plus an external Planck benchmark.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. IGT is defined by applying gradient/sub-block statistics to intensity maps, while its target (B-field orientation) is measured independently from Planck 353 GHz polarization; the reported AM=0.45 is an external, non-tautological check. The T/B–MA power laws in Sec. 5.1 are empirical correlations fitted to MHD simulations, not parameters fitted to the observed data: the paper does not quote an MA value predicted for the GALFA field from those fits, so no in-sample 'prediction' is forced by construction. The shock-identification Z-score thresholds are classifiers trained on simulations and transferred to observations, which is model calibration rather than a circular reduction. The load-bearing premise that low-contrast density structures are aligned with B is inherited from same-group simulation/theory (Beresnyak et al. 2005; Xu et al. 2019) and is only indirectly tested against Planck; its modest support (AM=0.45 and an apparent tension with the reported ~5-degree histogram peak) is a correctness/validity concern, not a circularity under the required standard. No equation-level reduction (Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction) or fitted-parameter-renamed-as-prediction is exhibited, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The IGT method rests on a chain of prior theory and simulations: anisotropic MHD turbulence aligned with the local field, density-dominated thick channels, and the alignment of low-contrast density structures with B. The paper's own new contributions are the application of sub-block averaging to intensity gradients, the Z-score shock detector, and the VHRO self-gravity diagnostic. The free parameters are calibration thresholds and power laws fitted to simulations.

free parameters (3)
  • Z-score shock threshold = 8 for simulations, 10 for GALFA-HI observations
    Chosen from where AM-Z curves change sign or flatten in Sec. 5.3 and Sec. 6, not derived from first principles.
  • IG T/B-MA power-law exponents = -0.21 (sub-Alfvenic), -0.04 (super-Alfvenic) for IGs
    Fitted to MHD simulations to calibrate a Mach number estimator; the super-Alfvenic exponent is consistent with zero, so the claimed correlation there is weak.
  • VHRO zeta threshold = -0.1
    Chosen in Sec. 7.3 as the value at which gradients are said to start changing orientation relative to the magnetic field.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption MHD turbulence eddies are anisotropic and aligned with the local magnetic field (GS95 plus turbulent reconnection).
    Used in Sec. 2.1 to justify deriving B from gradient orientations.
  • domain assumption In thick velocity channels, density fluctuations dominate over velocity fluctuations in PPV cubes.
    From Lazarian and Pogosyan (2000), invoked in Sec. 2.4 to make intensity maps carry density statistics.
  • domain assumption Low-contrast density structures are elongated parallel to the local magnetic field, while high-contrast shocks are perpendicular.
    Relied on in Sec. 2.5 and Sec. 5.3; evidence is from prior simulations by the same group.
  • domain assumption Planck 353 GHz polarization measures the projected magnetic field direction of the observed diffuse gas.
    Used as the ground truth in Sec. 6; dust polarization traces B only under grain alignment assumptions.
  • domain assumption Gradient orientations within a sub-block follow a Gaussian distribution whose peak gives the local B direction.
    Basis of sub-block averaging in Sec. 4.1; the paper shows intensity gradient histograms are more dispersed and can become non-Gaussian near shocks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Intensity Gradients Technique: Synergy with Velocity Gradients and Polarization Studies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VIWHKXKS

@misc{pith2026190809488,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Intensity Gradients Technique: Synergy with Velocity Gradients and Polarization Studies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VIWHKXKS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09488}
}
read the original abstract

Magnetic fields are ubiquitous in the interstellar medium but are notoriously difficult to study through observation. Making use of the advances in our understanding of MHD turbulence and turbulent reconnection, the Velocity Gradient Technique (VGT) was suggested and successfully applied to study magnetic fields utilizing spectroscopic data. Applying the tools developed for VGT to intensity statistics, we introduce the Intensity Gradients Technique (IGT) as a complementary tool that can be used synergistically with VGT. In this paper, we apply IGT to a diffuse HI region selected from the GALFA-HI survey and compare the intensity gradient maps with those obtained using velocity gradients as well as Planck polarization measurements. We demonstrate the possibility of using IGT and VGT for both studying the magnetic field and identifying shocks in the diffuse interstellar medium. We also explore the ability of IGT in locating self-gravitating regions and calculating Alfvenic Mach number, both alone and in combination with VGT and polarimetry. We compare IGT with the Histogram of Relative Orientation (HRO), which utilizes intensity gradients to characterize the relative orientation of column density structures and local magnetic fields.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.co...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t...

  3. [3]

    E.\ 2015, , 53, 501

    Andersson, B.-G., Lazarian, A., & Vaillancourt, J. E.\ 2015, , 53, 501

    2015

  4. [4]

    W., Rickett, B

    Armstrong, J. W., Rickett, B. J., & Spangler, S. R.\ 1995, , 443, 209

    1995

  5. [5]

    N., & Bhardwaj, S.\ 2006, , 372, L33

    Begum, A., Chengalur, J. N., & Bhardwaj, S.\ 2006, , 372, L33

    2006

  6. [6]

    Biskamp, D.\ 2003, Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence, by Dieter Biskamp, pp. 310. ISBN 0521810116. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, September 2003., 310

    2003

  7. [7]

    De Gruyter Studies in Mathematical Physics (Book 12), April 1, 2019

    Beresnyak, A., & Lazarian, A.\ 2019, Turbulence in Magnetohydrodynamics, by Andrey Beresnyak & Alexander, Lazarian, ISBN 3110262908. De Gruyter Studies in Mathematical Physics (Book 12), April 1, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Beresnyak, A., Lazarian, A., & Cho, J.\ 2005, , 624, L93

    work page 2005

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    Burkhart, B., & Mocz, P.\ 2019, , 879, 129

    2019

  2. [10]

    Chandrasekhar, S., & Fermi, E.\ 1953, , 118, 113

    1953

  3. [11]

    Chepurnov, A., & Lazarian, A.\ 2006, arXiv:astro-ph/0611465

    2006 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Chepurnov, A., Lazarian, A., Stanimirovi \'c , S., Heiles, C., & Peek, J. E. G.\ 2010, , 714, 1398

    2010

  5. [13]

    2002, 4 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.245001

    Cho, J., & Lazarian, A. 2002, 4 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.245001

    2002 doi

  6. [14]

    2003, http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06941.x MNRAS , 345, 325

    Cho, J., & Lazarian, A. 2003, http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06941.x MNRAS , 345, 325

    2003

  7. [15]

    T.\ 2000, , 539, 273

    Cho, J., & Vishniac, E. T.\ 2000, , 539, 273

    2000

  8. [16]

    E., Hill, J

    Clark, S. E., Hill, J. C., Peek, J. E. G., Putman, M. E., & Babler, B. L. 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.241302 Physical Review Letters , 115, 1

    2015 doi

  9. [17]

    E., Peek, J

    Clark, S. E., Peek, J. E. G., & Miville-Desch \^e nes, M.-A.\ 2019, , 874, 171

    2019

  10. [18]

    M., Wandelt, B., Heiles, C., Falgarone, E., & Troland, T

    Crutcher, R. M., Wandelt, B., Heiles, C., Falgarone, E., & Troland, T. H.\ 2010, , 725, 466

    2010

  11. [19]

    M.\ 2012, \ Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 50, 29

    Crutcher, R. M.\ 2012, \ Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 50, 29

    2012

  12. [20]

    Davis, L.\ 1951, Physical Review, 81, 890

    1951

  13. [21]

    A., Dwarakanath, K

    Deshpande, A. A., Dwarakanath, K. S., & Goss, W. M.\ 2000, , 543, 227

    2000

  14. [22]

    M., McClure-Griffiths, N

    Dickey, J. M., McClure-Griffiths, N. M., Stanimirovi \'c , S., Gaensler, B. M., & Green, A. J.\ 2001, , 561, 264

    2001

  15. [23]

    Draine , B. T. 2009, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 414, Cosmic Dust - Near and Far, ed. T. Henning , E. Gr \"u n , & J. Steinacker , 453

    2009

  16. [24]

    Esquivel, A., & Lazarian, A.\ 2005, , 631, 320

    2005

  17. [25]

    G., & Scalo, J.\ 2004, , 42, 211

    Elmegreen, B. G., & Scalo, J.\ 2004, , 42, 211

    2004

  18. [26]

    H., & Allen, A.\ 2006, , 647, 374

    Galli, D., Lizano, S., Shu, F. H., & Allen, A.\ 2006, , 647, 374

    2006

  19. [27]

    1995, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/174600 The Astronomical Journal , 438, 763

    Goldreich, P., & Sridhar, S. 1995, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/174600 The Astronomical Journal , 438, 763

    1995 doi

  20. [28]

    F., & Lazarian, A.\ 2017, , 835, 41

    Gonz \'a lez-Casanova, D. F., & Lazarian, A.\ 2017, , 835, 41

    2017

  21. [29]

    F., Lazarian, A., & Burkhart, B.\ 2019, , 483, 1287

    Gonz \'a lez-Casanova, D. F., Lazarian, A., & Burkhart, B.\ 2019, , 483, 1287

    2019

  22. [30]

    F., & Lazarian, A.\ 2019, , 874, 25

    Gonz \'a lez-Casanova, D. F., & Lazarian, A.\ 2019, , 874, 25

    2019

  23. [31]

    A.\ 1993, , 262, 327

    Green, D. A.\ 1993, , 262, 327

    1993

  24. [32]

    C., Norman, M

    Hayes, J. C., Norman, M. L., Fiedler, R. A., et al.\ 2006, , 165, 188

    2006

  25. [33]

    H., & Brunt, C

    Heyer, M. H., & Brunt, C. M.\ 2004, , 615, L45

    2004

  26. [34]

    Heyer, M., Gong, H., Ostriker, E., & Brunt, C.\ 2008, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/587510 , 680, 420

    2008 doi

  27. [35]

    Hsieh, C.-H., Hu, Y., Lai, S.-P., et al.\ 2019, , 873, 16

    2019

  28. [36]

    H., & Lazarian, A.\ 2018, , 480, 1333

    Hu, Y., Yuen, K. H., & Lazarian, A.\ 2018, , 480, 1333

    2018

  29. [37]

    H., Lazarian, V., et al.\ 2019, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-019-0769-0 Nature Astronomy , 3, 776

    Hu, Y., Yuen, K. H., Lazarian, V., et al.\ 2019, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-019-0769-0 Nature Astronomy , 3, 776

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    H., Lazarian, A., et al.\ 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1904.04391, accepted for publication in ApJ

    Hu, Y., Yuen, K. H., Lazarian, A., et al.\ 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1904.04391, accepted for publication in ApJ

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    H., Lazarian, A.\ 2019, arXiv e-prints, in prep

    Hu, Y., Yuen, K. H., Lazarian, A.\ 2019, arXiv e-prints, in prep

    2019

  32. [40]

    M.\ 2007, , 664, 975

    Johns-Krull, C. M.\ 2007, , 664, 975

    2007

  33. [41]

    Kowal, G., Lazarian, A., & Beresnyak, A.\ 2007, , 658, 423

    2007

  34. [42]

    Kolmogorov, A.\ 1941, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, 30, 301

    1941

  35. [43]

    Kandel, D., Lazarian, A., & Pogosyan, D.\ 2016, , 461, 1227

    2016

  36. [44]

    2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw2512 , 464,3617

    Kandel et al. 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw2512 , 464,3617

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    Kandel, D., Lazarian, A., & Pogosyan, D.\ 2017, , 470, 3103

    2017

  38. [46]

    Khalil, A., Joncas, G., Nekka, F., Kestener, P., & Arneodo, A.\ 2006, , 165, 512

    2006

  39. [47]

    Krasnopolsky, R., Li, Z.-Y., Shang, H., & Zhao, B.\ 2012, , 757, 77

    2012

  40. [48]

    B.\ 1981, , 194, 809

    Larson, R. B.\ 1981, , 194, 809

    1981

  41. [49]

    Lazarian, A., & Hoang, T.\ 2007, , 378, 910

    2007

  42. [50]

    Lazarian, A., & Pogosyan, D.\ 2000, , 537, 720

    2000

  43. [51]

    Lazarian, A., & Pogosyan, D.\ 2004, , 616, 943

    2004

  44. [52]

    Lazarian, A., & Pogosyan, D.\ 2006, , 652, 1348

    2006

  45. [53]

    Lazarian, A., & Pogosyan, D.\ 2008, , 686, 350

    2008

  46. [54]

    T.\ 1999, , 517, 700

    Lazarian, A., & Vishniac, E. T.\ 1999, , 517, 700

    1999

  47. [55]

    H., Lee, H., et al.\ 2018, , 855, 72

    Lazarian, A., Yuen, K. H., Lee, H., et al.\ 2018, , 855, 72

    2018

  48. [56]

    H.\ 2018, , 865, 59

    Lazarian, A., & Yuen, K. H.\ 2018, , 865, 59

    2018

  49. [57]

    Lazarian, A.\ 2006, Spectral Line Shapes: XVIII, 874, 301

    2006

  50. [58]

    Lazarian, A.\ 2009, , 143, 357

    2009

  51. [59]

    H.\ 2018, , 853, 96

    Lazarian, A., & Yuen, K. H.\ 2018, , 853, 96

    2018

  52. [60]

    Lazarian A., et al., 2018, ApJ, 865, 46

    2018

  53. [61]

    Lithwick, Y., & Goldreich, P.\ 2001, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 33, 90.03

    2001

  54. [62]

    Maron, J., & Goldreich, P.\ 2001, , 554, 1175

    2001

  55. [63]

    F., & Ostriker, E

    McKee, C. F., & Ostriker, E. C.\ 2007, , 45, 565

    2007

  56. [64]

    Mestel, L., & Spitzer, L., Jr.\ 1956, , 116, 503

    1956

  57. [65]

    C., Tassis, K., & Kunz, M

    Mouschovias, T. C., Tassis, K., & Kunz, M. W.\ 2006, , 646, 1043

    2006

  58. [66]

    C.\ 1991, , 373, 169

    Mouschovias, T. C.\ 1991, , 373, 169

    1991

  59. [67]

    Peek, J. E. G., Babler, B. L., Zheng, Y., et al.\ 2018, , 234, 2

    2018

  60. [68]

    L.\ 2006, , 653, L125

    Padoan, P., Juvela, M., Kritsuk, A., & Norman, M. L.\ 2006, , 653, L125

    2006

  61. [69]

    Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al.\ 2018, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1807.06207

    2018 arXiv

  62. [70]

    H.\ 1983, , 273, 202

    Shu, F. H.\ 1983, , 273, 202

    1983

  63. [71]

    D., & Hennebelle, P.\ 2017, , 607, A2

    Soler, J. D., & Hennebelle, P.\ 2017, , 607, A2

    2017

  64. [72]

    D., Hennebelle, P., Martin, P

    Soler, J. D., Hennebelle, P., Martin, P. G., et al. 2013, 16 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/774/2/128

    2013 doi

  65. [73]

    D., Ade, P

    Soler, J. D., Ade, P. A. R., Angil \`e , F. E., et al.\ 2017, , 603, A64

    2017

  66. [74]

    D., Beuther, H., Rugel, M., et al.\ 2019, , 622, A166

    Soler, J. D., Beuther, H., Rugel, M., et al.\ 2019, , 622, A166

    2019

  67. [75]

    New York Wiley-Interscience, 1978

    Spitzer, L.\ 1978, Physical processes in the interstellar medium, by Lyman Spitzer. New York Wiley-Interscience, 1978. 333 p.,

    1978

  68. [76]

    Stanimirovi \'c , S., & Lazarian, A.\ 2001, , 551, L53

    2001

  69. [77]

    M., Ostriker, E

    Stone, J. M., Ostriker, E. C., & Gammie, C. F.\ 1998, , 508, L99

    1998

  70. [78]

    G., Ostriker, E

    Vestuto, J. G., Ostriker, E. C., & Stone, J. M.\ 2003, , 590, 858

    2003

  71. [79]

    Xu, S., Ji, S., & Lazarian, A.\ 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.06341

    2019 arXiv

  72. [80]

    H., & Lazarian, A.\ 2017, , 837, L24

    Yuen, K. H., & Lazarian, A.\ 2017, , 837, L24

    2017

  73. [81]

    H., & Lazarian, A.\ 2017, arXiv:1703.03026

    Yuen, K. H., & Lazarian, A.\ 2017, arXiv:1703.03026

    2017 arXiv

  74. [82]

    H., Chen, J., Hu, Y., et al.\ 2018, , 865, 54

    Yuen, K. H., Chen, J., Hu, Y., et al.\ 2018, , 865, 54

    2018

  75. [83]

    H., Lazarian V., Lazarian A., 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1802.00024

    Yuen K. H., Lazarian V., Lazarian A., 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1802.00024

    2018 arXiv

  76. [84]

    H., Hu, Y., Lazarian, A., et al.\ 2019, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1904.03173

    Yuen, K. H., Hu, Y., Lazarian, A., et al.\ 2019, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1904.03173

    2019 arXiv

  77. [85]

    W., et al.\ 2019, , 486, 4813

    Zhang, J.-F., Lazarian, A., Ho, K. W., et al.\ 2019, , 486, 4813

    2019

  78. [86]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.archive archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if FUNCTION format.primaryClass primaryClass empty "" " [" primaryClass * "]" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty pages empty not booktitle empty not or or ""...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.