Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Magnetic Fields in Massive Star-forming Regions (MagMaR). V. The Magnetic Field at the Onset of High-mass Star Formation

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read G11.92 MM2, long treated as a massive prestellar core, was already in runaway collapse when its first star turned on, and the magnetic field adds almost nothing to the energy budget.

desk verdict A solid, data-rich core-scale magnetic field measurement whose strong claim against core accretion rests on a load-bearing prestellar proxy assumption that the current protostellar core does not obviously support. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08790 v1 pith:FC6X64RN submitted 2024-12-11 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Patricio Sanhueza , Junhao Liu , Kaho Morii , Josep Miquel Girart , Qizhou Zhang , Ian W. Stephens , James M. Jackson , Paulo C. Cortes
show 31 more authors
Patrick M. Koch Claudia J. Cyganowski Piyali Saha Henrik Beuther Suinan Zhang Maria T. Beltran Yu Cheng Fernando A. Olguin Xing Lu Spandan Choudhury Kate Pattle Manuel Fern andez-Lopez Jihye Hwang Ji-hyun Kang Janik Karoly Adam Ginsburg A. -Ran Lyo Kotomi Taniguchi Wenyu Jiao Chakali Eswaraiah Qiu-yi Luo Jia-Wei Wang Benoit Commercon Shanghuo Li Fengwei Xu Huei-Ru Vivien Chen Luis A. Zapata Eun Jung Chung Fumitaka Nakamura Sandhyarani Panigrahy Takeshi Sakai
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords magneticfieldshigh-massstarformationprestellarcoresvirialparametermass-to-fluxratioprotostellarbinariesALMApolarizationdustcontinuum
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

G11.92 MM2 is a 31-solar-mass core that was long treated as the best available candidate for a genuine high-mass prestellar core. This paper combines ALMA polarization data at 1000 au resolution with high-resolution 160 au images to show that, once star formation actually begins, the core is nowhere near equilibrium: the magnetic field is about 6 mG, yet the virial parameter is 0.064 and the mass-to-flux ratio is 18. The authors conclude that turbulence and magnetic support together cannot stop gravity, so the core is very likely in runaway collapse, and they argue this directly contradicts the core-accretion model in which massive cores collapse slowly from a quasi-equilibrium state. The same data resolve the core into a 505 au binary, and the paper argues the magnetic field, minor at core scales, probably shapes the binary's properties at smaller scales.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the Davis-Chandrasekhar-Fermi method applied through an angle dispersion function (ADF) analysis, which converts maps of dust polarization angles into an estimate of the plane-of-sky magnetic field strength of 6.2 mG while accounting for the turbulent-to-total field ratio and line-of-sight integration. This field enters a full energy budget through the magnetic-field-inclusive virial parameter $\alpha_{\mathrm{vir,B}} = (2E_{\rm K} + E_{\rm B})/|E_{\rm G}|$ and the normalized mass-to-flux ratio $\lambda$, the two quantities that place MM2 far from equilibrium. For the binary, the paper applies the Tsuribe-Inutsuka fragmentation criterion, which uses the thermal-to-gravitational ($\alpha'$) and rotational-to-gravitational ($\beta'$) energy ratios, and compares the measured mass ratio and separation with the outputs of radiation-magnetohydrodynamic simulations of disk fragmentation.

What would settle it

A direct check is a measurement showing that MM2's mass at the time its outflow began was much lower than the present 31 solar masses, for example from chemical clocks or from reconstructing the past accretion history of the surrounding filament; such a finding would remove the premise that the current core is a faithful proxy for the prestellar state. A survey of comparable young massive cores that found many with virial parameters near unity after including magnetic fields would also undercut the claim that core accretion is contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central result is that this young massive core is strongly subvirialized even after magnetic energy is included, with $\alpha_{\mathrm{vir,B}} = 0.064$ and a normalized mass-to-flux ratio of 18; the measured field of 6.2 mG is strong in absolute terms but magnetically supercritical, so it cannot prevent collapse. Taking the core's extreme youth, with an outflow dynamical time of a few thousand years, as evidence that its current state approximates the prestellar phase, the authors infer that MM2 was never in virial equilibrium and is very likely collapsing on a dynamical time scale, in direct tension with the core-accretion scenario. The high-resolution data also reveal a binary with projected separation 505 au and mass ratio 1.14, and the paper argues the binary could have formed either by fragmentation of the core itself or by disk fragmentation under super-Alfvenic turbulence; the observations alone do not separate the two channels.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the properties measured today in the already-protostellar MM2 core, including its 31-solar-mass mass and weak turbulence, are a faithful proxy for its prestellar state, so the conclusion that it was never in equilibrium applies to the phase before star formation began.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Surveys of young massive cores should find the most massive members systematically subvirial even after magnetic fields are included, making the absence of true high-mass prestellar cores a physical result rather than a selection effect.
  • Mass accretion from the surrounding filament, at roughly $10^{-4}$ solar masses per year, can build the core while it is already collapsing, favoring clump-fed formation scenarios.
  • The magnetic field contributes little to the energy budget at about 1000 au scales but is likely to set binary separation and mass ratio at scales of a few hundred au.
  • Both core fragmentation and disk fragmentation remain viable explanations for the observed 505 au binary; distinguishing them requires simulations with testable predictions rather than the current energy-ratio arguments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the runaway-collapse reading is right, the binary should still be dynamically young; astrometric monitoring of the two components over a few years would show whether the pair is still settling or already relaxed.
  • The proxy assumption can be tested chemically: measurements of deuteration or other cold-core chemical clocks would reveal how long MM2 stayed cold and dense before its protostar turned on, and a very short prestellar lifetime would support the runaway-collapse conclusion.
  • A population-level extension of the same analysis across other young massive cores could look for an anticorrelation between virial parameter and the youth of the embedded binary, connecting this single-core result to the broader multiplicity problem.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper combines MagMaR 250 GHz full-polarization observations at ~1000 au resolution with DIHCA 220 GHz long-baseline observations at ~160 au resolution to study the massive core G11.92 MM2. The authors derive a core mass of about 31 Msun, estimate a plane-of-sky magnetic field strength of 5.0 mG (3D value 6.2 mG) using ADF-DCF, compute a virial parameter of 0.064 including magnetic energy, and a normalized mass-to-flux ratio of about 18. They detect a young CS outflow with a dynamical age of a few thousand years, a binary system with projected separation 505 au and mass ratio 1.14, and a filament velocity gradient interpreted as infall at 1.9--5.6 x 10^-4 Msun/yr. The headline conclusion is that MM2 is strongly subvirial and magnetically supercritical, that it is likely undergoing runaway collapse, and that this directly contradicts the core-accretion model while supporting clump-fed scenarios. The paper also argues that the magnetic field, although minor at core scales, may set binary properties at smaller scales.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a valuable and rare measurement: a young massive core with both resolved magnetic fields and resolved fragmentation, analyzed with a complete energy budget. The multi-resolution ALMA dataset is strong, the temperature robustness check (20 versus 50 K) is useful, and the authors are transparent about the DCF/ADF caveats, explicitly noting that the magnetic field estimate may be an upper limit. The core's subvirial and supercritical state is robust to treating B as an upper limit, which is a genuine strength. However, the paper's most dramatic conclusion - that MM2 contradicts core accretion - rests on treating the current protostellar core as a proxy for the prestellar phase, and that assumption is not adequately supported. The paper is therefore significant but needs substantial reframing or new supporting evidence before the strong astrophysical conclusion can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.3] The prestellar-proxy assumption is load-bearing for the claim that MM2 was never in virial equilibrium and that this directly contradicts core accretion. The core is already protostellar (Section 3: CS outflow, CH3CN internal heating) and is measured to be accreting from its filament at 1.9--5.6e-4 Msun/yr (Section 4.2). Over the mass-growth timescale M/Mdot = 5.5e4--1.6e5 yr, the core could have accumulated a large fraction of its current 31 Msun, and the outflow dynamical age of 2700--4500 yr does not bound the duration of this pre- or early-accretion. Since alpha_vir is proportional to R sigma^2/M, a smaller initial mass and larger initial radius would raise alpha toward the quasi-equilibrium values required by core accretion. The statement in Section 4.3 that 'under the assumption of core accretion, the core mass should have not significantly changed' is inconsistent with the measured filament accretion, so the direct contradiction with core accretion is not established by the current data.
  2. [Appendix B, Eq. (B7)] The quantitative field-strength result B = 6.2 ± 3.5 mG and the derived values MA = 1.6 ± 0.7 and lambda = 18 depend on the numerical correction factor 0.21 in the ADF method and on the statistical B3D/B factor 1.25, both taken from simulation-based studies by overlapping authors (Liu et al. 2021, 2022b) without independent validation. The authors are transparent that B may be an upper limit, and this does not jeopardize the conclusion that the core remains strongly subvirial. However, the abstract and conclusions quote the corrected values as though they were direct measurements. The paper should either propagate the systematic uncertainty from these correction factors through all derived quantities, show how MA and lambda change under plausible alternative correction factors, or explicitly label B as a provisional upper limit wherever it is quoted.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.3 and Appendix B/Table 2] The normalized mass-to-flux ratio is quoted as 18 ± 9 in the text and abstract, but Appendix B and Table 2 give 18 ± 13 at 20 K; these values should be harmonized.
  2. [Section 4.3] The phrase 'unquestionably magnetically supercritical' is too strong given the systematic uncertainties in B and M; at 50 K the value is lambda = 10 ± 5, so a statement such as 'robustly supercritical at the lower envelope of the uncertainties' would be more precise.
  3. [Section 4.4] The comparison of the observed binary parameters to the SUPAS and SUPA simulations is qualitative; a quantitative model comparison, even simple, would make the statement 'cannot rule out disk fragmentation' more persuasive.
  4. [Appendix A.2] The notation M is used both for the core mass and for the Mach number in Table 1; using M or an explicit subscript for the Mach number would improve clarity.
  5. [Abstract and Section 4] The abstract calls this a 'full energy analysis', but rotation is only treated as an upper limit and external pressure/surface terms are not included in the virial estimate; adding a brief caveat in the energy budget description would be more accurate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the subvirial and supercritical state of MM2 follows from independent measurements, not from a fitted parameter or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central conclusion—that MM2 has a virial parameter of 0.064 including the magnetic field and a mass-to-flux ratio of 18—is derived from directly observed quantities: dust continuum flux and radius for the mass, H13CO+ line width for the velocity dispersion, and the ADF-fitted polarization angle dispersion for the magnetic field strength. No equation defines the conclusion in terms of its own input. The DCF/ADF correction factors are adopted from Liu et al. (2021, 2022b), which are external numerical studies by overlapping authors, but the qualitative conclusion is insensitive to these corrections: the paper explicitly states that DCF may overestimate B, so the magnetic virial parameter is an upper limit, and even without any magnetic support the kinetic virial parameter is 0.060, still far below unity. At an alternative dust temperature of 50 K the conclusions also hold (alpha = 0.23, lambda = 10). The 'prestellar proxy' argument in Section 4.3 is an inference about how the core evolved, not a circular reduction: it conditionally adopts core-accretion mass conservation to argue that the past virial parameter was comparable to or higher than the current one. This may be debatable as an evolutionary assumption, but it is not equivalent to the input by construction. Self-citations to the MagMaR and DIHCA surveys are for data provenance, and citations to Liu et al. provide method corrections; neither carries the load-bearing physical conclusion. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to force the result.

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

The central collapse conclusion rests on standard radiative transfer and virial-theorem assumptions plus one ad hoc extrapolation (current core as prestellar proxy). The DCF field corrections are self-cited but non-decisive: even treating the B field as an upper limit leaves the core subvirial and supercritical. The unpublished dendrogram catalog is a reproducibility gap.

free parameters (6)
  • Dust temperature (T_dust) = 20 K
    Adopted in Appendix A.1 from Cyganowski et al. (2014); sets mass (31 Msun), virial parameter, and B. Authors test 50 K (Tables 1 and 2) and conclusions survive.
  • Dust opacity and gas-to-dust ratio = kappa=1.03 cm2/g, R=100, beta=1.6
    Standard assumptions from Ossenkopf and Henning (1994); contribute roughly 30-40 percent systematic uncertainty in mass (Appendix A.1).
  • ADF and B3D correction factors = 0.21; 1.25
    From Liu et al. (2021, 2022b), with overlapping authorship; convert ADF fit to plane-of-sky B and then to 3D B. The field is a minor term in the virial balance, so these factors do not control the central claim.
  • Density profile index n = 2
    Chosen in Appendix A.2 for virial and mass-to-flux coefficients; central-peaked profile assumption.
  • Rotational velocity upper limit = 0.56 km/s
    No rotation detected; spectral resolution adopted as upper limit in Appendix A.2 to evaluate the Tsuribe-Inutsuka fragmentation criterion.
  • Infall inclination angle = 30-60 deg
    Used in Section 4.2 to convert velocity gradient to infall rate; gives 1.9-5.6e-4 Msun/yr range.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Dust continuum at 1.2 mm and 1.33 mm is optically thin and traces the total gas mass.
    Used in Appendix A.1 and Section 4.1 to convert flux to mass; if false, masses (31 Msun core, binary mass ratio) would be underestimated.
  • domain assumption The H13CO+ line width measures the non-thermal velocity dispersion of the gas, and this non-thermal component is independent of the tracer.
    Appendix A.2, Equation A3; used to compute Mach number, virial parameter, and Alfvenic Mach number.
  • domain assumption The DCF/ADF method, with the adopted correction factor 0.21 and B3D factor 1.25, yields a valid estimate of the magnetic field strength in this dense core.
    Appendix B; the authors note the field may be an upper limit because equipartition and line-of-sight conditions may fail. The main conclusion holds even if B is an upper limit.
  • ad hoc to paper MM2's current state can be extrapolated to its prestellar phase: similar mass, weaker turbulence, and weaker magnetic field in the past.
    Section 4.3: 'We can therefore adopt MM2 as a proxy to infer what the physical conditions were in the prestellar phase.' This premise is required for the conclusion that core accretion is contradicted.
  • domain assumption The core is spherical with density profile rho proportional to R^-n (n=2) for volume, energy, and magnetic flux estimates.
    Appendix A.2 and B; affects coefficients in virial parameter, rotational energy, and mass-to-flux ratio by factors of order unity.
  • domain assumption The dendrogram leaf from Sanhueza et al. (2025, in prep.) defines the core boundary and area over which all properties are measured.
    Section 4.1 and Appendix A.1; the leaf determines radius, flux, mass, and all energy ratios. The catalog is not yet public.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic Fields in Massive Star-forming Regions (MagMaR). V. The Magnetic Field at the Onset of High-mass Star Formation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FC6X64RN

@misc{pith2026241208790,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic Fields in Massive Star-forming Regions (MagMaR). V. The Magnetic Field at the Onset of High-mass Star Formation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FC6X64RN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08790}
}
read the original abstract

A complete understanding of the initial conditions of high-mass star formation and what processes determine multiplicity require the study of the magnetic field (B-field) in young, massive cores. Using ALMA 250 GHz polarization (0.3" = 1000 au) and ALMA 220 GHz high-angular resolution observations (0.05" = 160 au), we have performed a full energy analysis including the B-field at core scales and have assessed what influences the multiplicity inside a massive core previously believed to be in the prestellar phase. With 31 Msun, the G11.92 MM2 core has a young CS outflow with a dynamical time scale of a few thousand years. At high-resolution, the MM2 core fragments into a binary system with a projected separation of 505 au and a binary mass ratio of 1.14. Using the DCF method with an ADF analysis, we estimate in this core a B-field strength of 6.2 mG and a mass-to-flux ratio of 18. The MM2 core is strongly subvirialized with a virial parameter of 0.064, including the B-field. The high mass-to-flux ratio and low virial parameter indicate that this massive core is very likely undergoing runaway collapse, which is in direct contradiction with the core-accretion model. The MM2 core is embedded in a filament that has a velocity gradient consistent with infall. In line with clump-fed scenarios, the core can grow in mass at a rate of 1.9--5.6 x 10^-4 Msun/yr. In spite of the B-field having only a minor contribution to the total energy budget at core scales, it likely plays a more important role at smaller scales by setting the binary properties. Considering energy ratios and a fragmentation criterion at the core scale, the binary could have been formed by core fragmentation. The binary properties (separation and mass ratio), however, are also consistent with radiation-magnetohydrodynamic simulations with super-Alfvenic, supersonic (or sonic) turbulence that form binaries by disk fragmentation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08790 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. a shows the 1.2 mm dust continuum emis￾sion image (and white contours) with the magnetic field directions projected on the plane of the sky in green seg￾ments at 1000 au scales. The centrally condensed MM2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Integrated intensity (a), velocity field (b), and line FWHM (c) obtained from fitting a Gaussian component to the H 13CO+ emission pixel-by-pixel. Contours show the dust continuum emission (same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Fitted velocity field to derive the velocity gradi￾ent in the filaments. The error bars correspond to the bin width and the standard deviation of the velocities inside each bin for the horizontal and vertical axes, respectively. In the top panel, the velocity gradient of 0.44 km s−1 arcsec−1 cor￾responds to 26.9 km s−1 pc−1 , while in the bottom panel the velocity gradient of 1.01 km s−1 arcsec−1 corresponds to 61.5… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Challenges in probing turbulent and magnetic support in cores: the W43-MM1 protocluster case study

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Simplified virial analyses of W43-MM1 cores overestimate non-thermal support because linewidths include organized motions of 1–3 km/s and surface terms are omitted, producing unexpectedly high stability fractions.

  2. ALMA-IMF XIX: C18O (J=2-1): Measurements of turbulence in 15 massive protoclusters

    astro-ph.GA 2025-07 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    C18O observations of 15 massive protoclusters show supersonic turbulence (Mach 4 to 25) that is weaker in dense DCN cores, with size-linewidth slopes of 0.41 to 0.64.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    H., Stutz, A

    ´Alvarez-Guti´ errez, R. H., Stutz, A. M., Sandoval-Garrido, N., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.07363, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.07363

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.07363 2024

  2. [2]

    T., Liu, J., Zhang, Q., et al

    Barnes, A. T., Liu, J., Zhang, Q., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245668 The Magnetic Field at the Onset of High-mass Star Formation 13 T able 2.Magnetic Field Properties at Different Dust Temperatures T B 3D σA MA λ E B αvir,B (K) (mG) (km s −1) (cm −3) (km s −1) (erg) 20 6 .2 ± 3.5 0 .37 ± 0.23 1 .6 ± 0.7 18 ± 13 4 .2 ± 4.1 × 1043...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245668 2023

  3. [3]

    D., Vlemmings, W., et al

    Beuther, H., Soler, J. D., Vlemmings, W., et al. 2018, A&A, 614, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732378

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732378 2018

  4. [4]

    2009, ApJS, 181, 360, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/181/2/360

    Simon, R. 2009, ApJS, 181, 360, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/181/2/360

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/181/2/360 2009

  5. [5]

    1953, ApJ, 118, 116, doi: 10.1086/145732

    Chandrasekhar, S., & Fermi, E. 1953, ApJ, 118, 116, doi: 10.1086/145732

    doi:10.1086/145732 1953

  6. [6]

    V., Zhang, Q., Wright, M

    Chen, H.-R. V., Zhang, Q., Wright, M. C. H., et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0f3e Commer¸ con, B., Hennebelle, P., & Henning, T. 2011, ApJL, 742, L9, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/742/1/L9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0f3e 2019

  7. [7]

    M., et al

    Contreras, Y., Sanhueza, P., Jackson, J. M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac2ec

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac2ec 2018

  8. [8]

    C., Le Gouellec, V

    Cortes, P. C., Le Gouellec, V. J. M., Hull, C. L. H., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcafb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abcafb 2021

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    C., Girart, J

    Cortes, P. C., Girart, J. M., Sanhueza, P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.14663, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.14663

    2024 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Kirk, J. M. 2004, ApJ, 600, 279, doi: 10.1086/379705

    2004 doi

  3. [11]

    2016, A&A, 586, A149, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425404

    Csengeri, T., Leurini, S., Wyrowski, F., et al. 2016, A&A, 586, A149, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425404

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    2023, A&A, 678, A194, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245429

    Cunningham, N., Ginsburg, A., Galv´ an-Madrid, R., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A194, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245429

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    J., Brogan, C

    Cyganowski, C. J., Brogan, C. L., Hunter, T. R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 3694, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx043

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    J., Ilee, J

    Cyganowski, C. J., Ilee, J. D., Brogan, C. L., et al. 2022, ApJL, 931, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac69ca

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    J., Brogan, C

    Cyganowski, C. J., Brogan, C. L., Hunter, T. R., et al. 2014, ApJL, 796, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/796/1/L2

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    1951, Physical Review, 81, 890, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.81.890.2

    Davis, L. 1951, Physical Review, 81, 890, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.81.890.2

    1951 doi

  9. [17]

    2016, ApJ, 828, 100, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/2/100 Fern´ andez-L´ opez, M., Girart, J

    Feng, S., Beuther, H., Zhang, Q., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 100, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/2/100 Fern´ andez-L´ opez, M., Girart, J. M., L´ opez-V´ azquez, J. A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace786 Fern´ andez-L´ opez, M., Sanhueza, P., Zapata, L. A., et al...

    2016

  10. [18]

    Houde, M., Hull, C. L. H., Plambeck, R. L., Vaillancourt, J. E., & Hildebrand, R. H. 2016, ApJ, 820, 38, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/38

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    2009, ApJ, 706, 1504, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/2/1504

    Chitsazzadeh, S., & Kirby, L. 2009, ApJ, 706, 1504, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/2/1504

    2009 doi

  12. [20]

    D., Cyganowski, C

    Ilee, J. D., Cyganowski, C. J., Brogan, C. L., et al. 2018, ApJL, 869, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaeffc

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    D., Cyganowski, C

    Ilee, J. D., Cyganowski, C. J., Nazari, P., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 4386, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1912

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.06845, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.06845

    Ishihara, K., Sanhueza, P., Nakamura, F., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.06845, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.06845

    2024 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    F., Galv´ an-Madrid, R., Maud, L

    Izquierdo, A. F., Galv´ an-Madrid, R., Maud, L. T., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 2505, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1096

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    C., Bourke, T

    Kirk, H., Myers, P. C., Bourke, T. L., et al. 2013, ApJ, 766, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/2/115

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    R., Klein, R

    Krumholz, M. R., Klein, R. I., McKee, C. F., Offner, S. S. R., & Cunningham, A. J. 2009, Science, 323, 754, doi: 10.1126/science.1165857

    2009 doi

  18. [26]

    2019, ApJ, 886, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab464e

    Li, S., Zhang, Q., Pillai, T., et al. 2019, ApJ, 886, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab464e

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    2020, ApJ, 903, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb81f —

    Li, S., Sanhueza, P., Zhang, Q., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb81f —. 2023, ApJ, 949, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc58f

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 472, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02181-9

    Li, S., Sanhueza, P., Beuther, H., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 472, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02181-9

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    B., Galv´ an-Madrid, R., Jim´ enez-Serra, I., et al

    Liu, H. B., Galv´ an-Madrid, R., Jim´ enez-Serra, I., et al. 2015, ApJ, 804, 37, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/37

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    2022a, ApJ, 925, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3911

    Liu, J., Qiu, K., & Zhang, Q. 2022a, ApJ, 925, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3911

    doi

  23. [31]

    2021, ApJ, 919, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0cec 14 Sanhueza et al

    Liu, J., Zhang, Q., Commer¸ con, B., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0cec 14 Sanhueza et al

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    2022b, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 943556, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.943556

    Liu, J., Zhang, Q., & Qiu, K. 2022b, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 943556, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.943556

    2022

  25. [33]

    2020, ApJ, 895, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9087

    Liu, J., Zhang, Q., Qiu, K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9087

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3105

    Liu, J., Zhang, Q., Lin, Y., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3105

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    S., et al

    Liu, T., Lacy, J., Li, P. S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8d73

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    N., Tomisaka, K., Matsumoto, T., & Inutsuka, S.-i

    Machida, M. N., Tomisaka, K., Matsumoto, T., & Inutsuka, S.-i. 2008, ApJ, 677, 327, doi: 10.1086/529133

    2008 doi

  29. [37]

    2024, ApJL, 961, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad19c3

    Mai, X., Liu, T., Liu, X., et al. 2024, ApJL, 961, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad19c3

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Golap, K. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw, F. Hill, & D. J. Bell, 127

    2007

  31. [39]

    2023, A&A, 673, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345845

    Mignon-Risse, R., Gonz´ alez, M., & Commer¸ con, B. 2023, A&A, 673, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345845

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    2021, A&A, 652, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140617

    Rosdahl, J. 2021, A&A, 652, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140617

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    2019, A&A, 626, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935497

    Molet, J., Brouillet, N., Nony, T., et al. 2019, A&A, 626, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935497

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2365 —

    Morii, K., Sanhueza, P., Nakamura, F., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2365 —. 2023, ApJ, 950, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acccea

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad32d0

    Morii, K., Sanhueza, P., Zhang, Q., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad32d0

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    2016, A&A, 585, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526238

    Moscadelli, L., S´ anchez-Monge,´A., Goddi, C., et al. 2016, A&A, 585, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526238

    2016 doi

  37. [45]

    T., McKee, C

    Myers, A. T., McKee, C. F., Cunningham, A. J., Klein, R. I., & Krumholz, M. R. 2013, ApJ, 766, 97, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/2/97

    2013 doi

  38. [46]

    2018, A&A, 618, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833863

    Nony, T., Louvet, F., Motte, F., et al. 2018, A&A, 618, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833863

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    Offner, S. S. R., Moe, M., Kratter, K. M., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 275, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.10066

    2023 doi arXiv

  40. [48]

    V., et al

    Ohashi, S., Sanhueza, P., Chen, H.-R. V., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/209

    2016 doi

  41. [49]

    A., Sanhueza, P., Ginsburg, A., et al

    Olguin, F. A., Sanhueza, P., Ginsburg, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 929, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5bd8

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    A., Sanhueza, P., Guzm´ an, A

    Olguin, F. A., Sanhueza, P., Guzm´ an, A. E., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 199, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abde3f

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    A., Sanhueza, P., Chen, H.-R

    Olguin, F. A., Sanhueza, P., Chen, H.-R. V., et al. 2023, ApJL, 959, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1100

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    1994, A&A, 291, 943

    Ossenkopf, V., & Henning, T. 1994, A&A, 291, 943

    1994

  45. [53]

    A., Andr´ e, P., et al

    Peretto, N., Fuller, G. A., Andr´ e, P., et al. 2014, A&A, 561, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322172

    2014 doi

  46. [54]

    2019, A&A, 622, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732570

    Pillai, T., Kauffmann, J., Zhang, Q., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732570

    2019 doi

  47. [55]

    M., Jackson, J

    Rathborne, J. M., Jackson, J. M., & Simon, R. 2006, ApJ, 641, 389, doi: 10.1086/500423

    2006 doi

  48. [56]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2208.01675

    Redaelli, E., Bovino, S., Sanhueza, P., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2208.01675. https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.01675

    2022 arXiv

  49. [57]

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

    2008 doi

  50. [58]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.16654, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.16654

    Saha, P., Sanhueza, P., Padovani, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.16654, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.16654

    2024 doi arXiv

  51. [59]

    M., Foster, J

    Sanhueza, P., Jackson, J. M., Foster, J. B., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/60 —. 2013, ApJ, 773, 123, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/123

    2012 doi

  52. [60]

    M., Zhang, Q., et al

    Sanhueza, P., Jackson, J. M., Zhang, Q., et al. 2017, ApJ, 841, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6ff8

    2017 doi

  53. [61]

    2019, ApJ, 886, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab45e9

    Sanhueza, P., Contreras, Y., Wu, B., et al. 2019, ApJ, 886, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab45e9

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    M., Padovani, M., et al

    Sanhueza, P., Girart, J. M., Padovani, M., et al. 2021, ApJL, 915, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac081c

    2021 doi

  55. [63]

    W., Immer, K., et al

    Sato, M., Wu, Y. W., Immer, K., et al. 2014, ApJ, 793, 72, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/72

    2014 doi

  56. [64]

    2017, ApJ, 847, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa88c6

    Silva, A., Zhang, Q., Sanhueza, P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 847, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa88c6

    2017 doi

  57. [65]

    C., Beltr´ an, M

    Tan, J. C., Beltr´ an, M. T., Caselli, P., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 149–172, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816531240-ch007

    2014 doi

  58. [66]

    C., Kong, S., Butler, M

    Tan, J. C., Kong, S., Butler, M. J., Caselli, P., & Fontani, F. 2013, ApJ, 779, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/96

    2013 doi

  59. [67]

    C., Kong, S., Zhang, Y., et al

    Tan, J. C., Kong, S., Zhang, Y., et al. 2016, ApJL, 821, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/821/1/L3

    2016 doi

  60. [68]

    Tanaka, K. E. I., Zhang, Y., Hirota, T., et al. 2020, ApJL, 900, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abadfc

    2020 doi

  61. [69]

    A., et al

    Taniguchi, K., Sanhueza, P., Olguin, F. A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acca1d

    2023 doi

  62. [70]

    1999, ApJ, 526, 307, doi: 10.1086/307983

    Tsuribe, T., & Inutsuka, S.-i. 1999, ApJ, 526, 307, doi: 10.1086/307983

    1999 doi

  63. [71]

    Vaillancourt, J. E. 2006, PASP, 118, 1340, doi: 10.1086/507472

    2006 doi

  64. [72]

    2014, MNRAS, 439, 3275, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu127

    Wang, K., Zhang, Q., Testi, L., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 3275, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu127

    2014 doi

  65. [73]

    Wells, M. R. A., Beuther, H., Molinari, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.08299, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.08299 The Magnetic Field at the Onset of High-mass Star Formation 15

    2024 doi arXiv

  66. [74]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 3259, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad012

    Xu, F.-W., Wang, K., Liu, T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 3259, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad012

    2023 doi

  67. [75]

    A., Fern´ andez-L´ opez, M., Sanhueza, P., et al

    Zapata, L. A., Fern´ andez-L´ opez, M., Sanhueza, P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.10199, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.10199

    2024 doi arXiv

  68. [76]

    2009, ApJ, 696, 268, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/268

    Zhang, Q., Wang, Y., Pillai, T., & Rathborne, J. 2009, ApJ, 696, 268, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/268

    2009 doi

  69. [77]

    J., Henshaw, J

    Zhang, S., Cyganowski, C. J., Henshaw, J. D., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 1075, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1844

    2024 doi

  70. [78]

    C., Tanaka, K

    Zhang, Y., Tan, J. C., Tanaka, K. E. I., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 517, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0718-y

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.