Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 53 references

JWST-ALMA Study of a Hub-Filament System in the Nascent Phase

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using ALMA N2H+ observations, this paper confirms that G11P1-HFS is a small-scale, nascent hub-filament system around the high-mass protostar G11P1, and shows that its dense-gas kinematics are consistent with gravity-driven inflow along…

desk verdict Solid kinematic confirmation of a sub-parsec hub-filament system, but the gravity-alignment claim needs a significance test before it carries the paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00506 v1 pith:HGLYGDSR submitted 2024-12-31 astro-ph.GA

N. K. Bhadari , L. K. Dewangan , O. R. Jadhav , Ariful Hoque , L. E. Pirogov , Paul F. Goldsmith , A. K. Maity , Saurabh Sharma
show 2 more authors
A. Haj Ismail Tapas Baug
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords hub-filamentsystemhigh-massstarformationdensegaskinematicsALMAN2H+observationsvelocitygradientsgravitationalinflowPPVanalysisinfrared-darkcloudG11.11-0.12
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

This paper aims to establish that G11P1-HFS, a hub-filament system around the high-mass protostar G11P1 in the infrared-dark cloud G11.11-0.12, is a genuine small-scale system (less than 0.6 pc) in a nascent, pre-feedback phase, and that its gas kinematics reveal gravity-driven inflow toward the hub. Using ALMA N2H+ observations, the authors confirm the filamentary morphology first seen in JWST images, measure steep on-sky velocity gradients of about 5 and -7 km/s/pc on opposite sides of the hub, and find that the velocity-gradient vectors align with the gravitational force vectors along the filaments. This alignment is the key evidence that mass assembly is dominated by gravity, supporting clump-fed accretion scenarios for high-mass star formation. The paper also highlights a wiggled funnel morphology in position-position-velocity space, suggesting that sub-filaments and transverse gas flows matter for feeding the hub. If correct, it provides a rare observational snapshot of a high-mass protostar still being built by its parent gas streams.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the comparison of sky-projected velocity-gradient vectors with sky-projected gravitational force vectors, both derived from the ALMA N2H+ data. Velocity gradients are computed from the centroid-velocity field via second-order central differences of the line-of-sight velocity in right ascension and declination; gravitational force vectors are computed from the H2 column density map, which is obtained by converting N2H+ column densities using a fixed abundance ratio of 3 times 10 to the minus 10. The relative angle between the velocity-gradient and gravitational-force vectors along the filaments is the diagnostic that separates gravity-driven inflow from other mechanisms. A second diagnostic is the V-shaped velocity profile and the radial decrease of the velocity-gradient magnitude toward the hub, which the paper reads as evidence of convergent gas streams onto the protostar.

What would settle it

Compute H2 column density independently from the ALMA dust continuum at matched resolution and recompute the gravitational force vectors; if the low relative angle between velocity-gradient and gravitational-force vectors along the filaments does not survive a factor-of-two variation in the assumed abundance or the continuum-based mass map, the gravity-driven inflow interpretation would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that ALMA N2H+ observations confirm G11P1-HFS as a small-scale (less than about 0.6 pc) hub-filament system in a nascent phase, with five hub-joining filaments that spatially match the structures traced by JWST. The key kinematic discovery is a V-shaped velocity profile across the hub: velocity gradients of about -7 and +5 km/s/pc on the northeast and southwest sides, respectively, with the gradient magnitude decreasing toward the hub center, which the authors interpret as converging, mass-accreting flows onto the protostar G11P1. In support, the projected gravitational force vectors derived from the H2 column density map are well aligned with the on-sky velocity-gradient vectors along the filament spines, with a mean relative angle of about 41 degrees and median of about 39 degrees, indicating that gravity rather than turbulence drives the inflow. The paper further reports that the system appears as a wiggled funnel in position-position-velocity space, a signature the authors associate with sub-filamentary or transverse gas flows feeding the main hub.

Load-bearing premise

The gravity-driven inflow conclusion rests on the H2 column density map and its derived gravitational force vectors, which assume a fixed N2H+ abundance ratio of 3e-10; the paper itself notes this introduces 60-70 percent uncertainties in N(H2) and mass, and those uncertainties are not propagated into the velocity-gradient versus gravitational-force alignment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • G11P1-HFS is confirmed as a real small-scale hub-filament system, strengthening the evidence that hub-filament structures are hierarchical across scales from less than 0.1 pc to more than 10 pc.
  • The alignment of velocity-gradient and gravitational-force vectors along the filaments implies that gravity, not turbulence or magnetic pressure, drives mass inflow toward the high-mass protostar G11P1.
  • The decreasing velocity gradient toward the hub and the V-shaped velocity profile are consistent with a mass-accreting hub, supporting clump-fed accretion scenarios such as global hierarchical collapse and inertial inflow.
  • The wiggled funnel morphology in position-position-velocity space suggests that sub-filaments and transverse gas flows contribute to mass transport into the hub, refining how funnel-inflow signatures should be interpreted.
  • The estimated filament accretion rates of 0.92 to 1.44 solar masses per million years are about two orders of magnitude below values from models and larger-scale observations, which the paper attributes to missing flux from interferometric observations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the abundance-uncertainty caveat is set aside, the velocity-gradient versus gravitational-force alignment method could be applied systematically to other nascent hub-filament candidates found in ALMA surveys, testing whether gravity-driven inflow is the norm at sub-parsec scales.
  • The wiggled-funnel signature might be a generic observational marker for hierarchical, sub-filamentary feeding, and could be searched for in existing ALMA position-position-velocity cubes of other protostellar hubs without requiring new observations.
  • Comparing G11P1-HFS with the more evolved Mon R2 system suggests an observational sequence in which stellar feedback progressively erases the funnel signature, which could be turned into an evolutionary diagnostic for hub-filament systems.
  • The missing-flux discrepancy in accretion rates could be checked by combining ALMA data with single-dish N2H+ observations; if the rates rise to model values, the nascent-phase interpretation would be reinforced.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses ALMA N2H+(1-0) observations to confirm the presence of the small-scale (<0.6 pc) hub-filament system G11P1-HFS around the high-mass protostar G11P1, previously identified in JWST images. The authors build a position-position-velocity map with SCOUSEPY, measure on-sky velocity gradients, derive N(H2) with XCLASS, and compute sky-projected gravitational force vectors following Wang et al. (2022). They report a V-shaped VLSR profile toward the hub, steep velocity gradients of about 4.7 and -7 km/s/pc, a decreasing Vg toward the hub, and low relative angles between Vg and Fg vectors, from which they conclude that the system is a nascent HFS with gravity-driven inflows along filaments.

Significance. If the gravity-alignment result holds, the paper provides a rare example of a pre-feedback, small-scale HFS and supports hierarchical, clump-fed accretion scenarios. The strengths are the combination of JWST and ALMA data, the explicit PPV-space description of a wiggled funnel, and the comparison of derived quantities with external benchmarks (Zhou et al. 2023; Padoan et al. 2020). The morphological confirmation of the HFS and the V-shaped velocity profile are defensible from the observations. However, the quantitative evidence for gravity-driven inflow is currently weaker than the abstract and conclusions claim: the reported mean alignment angle is close to the random expectation, and the gravitational force vectors inherit an unpropagated abundance uncertainty. These issues are fixable with additional statistical analysis and robustness tests.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix A, Fig. A.5; abstract and Sec. 4.2] The central claim that "V_g and F_g align along the filaments, indicating gravity-driven flows" rests on the distribution of Δθ_v,g in Fig. A.5b. The paper reports mean and median values of approximately 41° and 39°. For uniformly distributed angles in [0°, 90°], the expected mean is 45°, so the observed mean is only about 4° from the random expectation. No uncertainty, sample size, or null-hypothesis test is provided, and the histogram in Fig. A.5b is not shown to have a statistically significant excess at small angles. Please report the standard error or a bootstrap confidence interval for the mean, test the distribution against uniformity with an appropriate test for folded angles, and/or restrict the quantitative comparison to the filament spines where Fig. A.5a visually shows low Δθ_v,g values. Without this, the quantitative support for the abstract's alignment claim is not established.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, Figs. A.3a and A.5a] The gravitational force vectors F_g are computed from the H2 column density map derived with a fixed abundance ratio X(N2H+/H2)=3×10^-10. The paper explicitly states that the derived N(H2) and mass carry 60-70% uncertainties due to potentially lower N2H+ abundance from chemical differentiation and to uncertainties in X. A constant rescaling of N(H2) would change the magnitude but not the direction of F_g, so the V_g-F_g angle would be unaffected by a global abundance normalization. However, the same passage invokes chemical differentiation, which implies that X could vary spatially and thereby change the direction of F_g and hence Δθ_v,g. Please test the robustness of the alignment to plausible spatial abundance variations, for example by recomputing F_g with a varying-X map or by masking low-column-density pixels, and state explicitly that the alignment angle is invariant only to constant scaling of the column density.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.1] The formula for the mass accretion rate is ambiguous: as written, Ẍ = ΔV_obs M / tan(α), where ΔV_obs is described as a velocity gradient (km/s/pc), omits the filament length, and the tangent factor is not clearly defined. Please state the filament length L explicitly and give the full Kirk et al. (2013) expression, or clarify that ΔV_obs is already the velocity gradient per unit length.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. 3.2] The abstract quotes a velocity gradient of 5 km/s/pc on the southwest side, while Sec. 3.2 reports 4.7 km/s/pc for the same feature; please harmonize the two numbers.
  3. [Fig. A.5] The histogram legend uses the notation |i,g|, |i,v|, and |v,g|, whereas the text uses Δθ_{i,j}; please define the absolute-value and angle-folding conventions in the caption so the reader can relate the two notations.
  4. [Sec. 3.2 and Sec. 4.2] The text in Sec. 3.2 states that the low relative angle "hints" at the supportive role of gravity, while the abstract and Sec. 4.2 state more decisively that V_g and F_g align and indicate gravity-driven flows; please align the strength of the claims with the quantitative evidence presented.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the velocity-gradient and gravity-vector comparison uses independent moments of the same ALMA cube and is benchmarked against external studies.

full rationale

The central claim does not reduce to a fitted input by construction. Vg is computed as the central-difference gradient of the N2H+ centroid velocity, while Fg is computed from a column-density map that is derived from N2H+ intensities under a fixed abundance ratio. These are different moments of the same data cube, but neither quantity is defined in terms of the other, and the Vg-Fg alignment is a measured cross-correlation rather than an imposed fit. No equation in the paper makes the predicted gradient or alignment equal to an input parameter by definition. The identification of G11P1-HFS rests on the JWST morphology from Dewangan et al. 2024a, which is a heavily overlapping self-citation, but the ALMA N2H+ data independently corroborate the morphology, and the kinematic and gravitational analysis is new rather than a restatement of Paper I. Interpretations are also checked against external benchmarks such as Zhou et al. 2023 for V-shaped infall profiles and Padoan et al. 2020 for accretion rates, so the self-citation is not load-bearing for the main kinematic result. Concerns raised by the reviewer, such as the 60-70% column-density abundance uncertainty and the 41-degree mean alignment angle being close to the random 45-degree expectation, are statistical and systematic robustness issues, not cases where a prediction is equivalent to its input by construction. Therefore no circular step is flagged.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a handful of adopted constants and interpretive assumptions. The N2H+ abundance ratio and the filament inclination angle are the main hand-picked inputs. The distance and the identification of G11P1 as a high-mass protostar are taken from a companion paper, and the infall interpretation follows existing literature. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • N2H+ abundance ratio X = 3e-10
    Adopted from Caselli et al. (2002) to convert N(N2H+) to N(H2); uncertainty of 60-70% acknowledged, affects column density and gravitational force vectors.
  • filament inclination angle alpha = 45 deg
    Assumed for converting observed velocity gradient and mass into mass inflow rate in Sec. 4.1; affects Mdot by factor 1/tan(alpha).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The distance to the Galactic Snake is 2.92 kpc.
    Adopted from Dewangan et al. (2024a); all physical scales (0.07 pc per beam, 0.3 pc scale bar) and mass/column density estimates depend on it. Entered in Sec. 2.
  • domain assumption N2H+ traces high-density gas and the fixed abundance X(N2H+/H2)=3e-10 is applicable.
    Used in Sec. 3.2 to derive H2 column density and gravitational force vectors; uncertainty acknowledged but not propagated.
  • domain assumption The 'V'-shaped VLSR profile toward the hub is a signature of mass accretion, following Zhou et al. (2023).
    Used in Sec. 3.2 and 4.2 to interpret the velocity profile as infall toward G11P1.
  • domain assumption The projected gravitational force vectors Fg computed from the column density map (Wang et al. 2022, Eq. 3) represent the local gravitational field.
    Used in Sec. 3.2 and Appendix A to support the gravity-driven flow conclusion; assumes the column density map traces the mass distribution and ignores 3D geometry.
  • ad hoc to paper Absence of extended radio emission indicates a nascent phase (before feedback disrupts the HFS).
    Used in Sec. 4.2 to argue G11P1-HFS is nascent; no quantitative upper limit is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of JWST-ALMA Study of a Hub-Filament System in the Nascent Phase." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HGLYGDSR

@misc{pith2026250100506,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: JWST-ALMA Study of a Hub-Filament System in the Nascent Phase},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HGLYGDSR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00506}
}
abstract

Star clusters, including high-mass stars, form within hub-filament systems (HFSs). Observations of HFSs that remain unaffected by feedback from embedded stars are rare yet crucial for understanding the mass inflow process in high-mass star formation. Using the JWST NIRCAM images, Dewangan et al. 2024, reported that the high-mass protostar G11P1 is embedded in a candidate HFS (G11P1-HFS; $<0.6$ pc). Utilizing ALMA N$_{2}$H$^{+}$(1-0) data, we confirm the presence of G11P1-HFS and study the dense gas kinematics. We analyzed the position-position-velocity (PPV) map and estimated on-sky velocity gradient ($V_g$) and gravity ($\mathcal{F}_{g}$) vectors. The spatial distribution of gas velocity and H$_2$ column density was examined. The steep $V_g$ of 5 km s$^{-1}$ pc$^{-1}$ and $-$7 km s$^{-1}$ pc$^{-1}$ toward either side of G11P1-hub, and the decreasing $V_g$ toward the hub, identify G11P1-HFS as a small-scale HFS in its nascent phase. $V_g$ and $\mathcal{F}_{g}$ align along the filaments, indicating gravity-driven flows. This work highlights the wiggled, funnel-shaped morphology of a HFS in PPV space, suggesting the importance of subfilaments or transverse gas flows in mass transportation to the hub.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00506 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Morphology of G11P1-HFS seen in the Spitzer, JWST, and ALMA observations. a) Spitzer 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overlay of velocity gradient (Vg) vectors, and dendrogram leaves on the N2H +(1–0) peak intensity map. The arrow-heads point to local blueshifted velocity material. The reference Vg vector and ALMA beam are shown in the lower left corner. Cyan contour presents the N2H + emission at level of 0.2 Jy beam−1 km s−1 . Two circular regions (radii ∼12′′ (∼0.17 pc) and 22′′ (∼0.3 pc)) typically mark the bound￾aries of hub a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The PPV map of ALMA N2H +(1–0) toward G11P1-HFS derived using the SCOUSEPY. The PP space at the bottom of the map displays the integrated intensity map for the entire structure. Five filaments compris￾ing G11P1-HFS are marked. The 3D view of the PPV map is available here. To quantify the on-sky velocity variation, we first derived the magnitude of velocity gradient (Vg) along RA-(Gα) and DEC￾direction (Gδ) as the se… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: a) Distribution of N(H2) and VLSR along the rectangular strip shown in Fig. A.2a. The dots and shaded regions represent the mean and standard deviation range for each box in the strip. Dashed and solid vertical lines mark the boundary of two concentric circular regions…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Schematic diagram of hierarchical HFSs in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, apj, 935, 167

    2022

  4. [4]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33

    2013

  5. [5]

    K., Dewangan , L

    Bhadari , N. K., Dewangan , L. K., Ojha , D. K., Pirogov , L. E., & Maity , A. K. 2022, , 930, 169

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    K., Dewangan, L

    Bhadari, N. K., Dewangan, L. K., Pirogov, L. E., & Ojha, D. K. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 899, 167

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    K., Dewangan , L

    Bhadari , N. K., Dewangan , L. K., Pirogov , L. E., et al. 2023, , 526, 4402

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Bonnell , I. A. & Bate , M. R. 2006, , 370, 488

    work page 2006

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    J., Clark , F

    Carey , S. J., Clark , F. O., Egan , M. P., et al. 1998, , 508, 721

    1998

  2. [10]

    J., Myers , P

    Caselli , P., Benson , P. J., Myers , P. C., & Tafalla , M. 2002, , 572, 238

    2002

  3. [11]

    C., & Thaddeus , P

    Caselli , P., Myers , P. C., & Thaddeus , P. 1995, , 455, L77

    1995

  4. [12]

    V., Zhang , Q., Wright , M

    Chen , H.-R. V., Zhang , Q., Wright , M. C. H., et al. 2019, , 875, 24

    2019

  5. [13]

    Daniel , F., Cernicharo , J., & Dubernet , M. L. 2006, , 648, 461

    2006

  6. [14]

    K., Bhadari , N

    Dewangan , L. K., Bhadari , N. K., Maity , A. K., et al. 2024 a , , 527, 5895

    2024

  7. [15]

    K., Bhadari , N

    Dewangan , L. K., Bhadari , N. K., Maity , A. K., et al. 2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.02628

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    K., Maity , A

    Dewangan , L. K., Maity , A. K., Mayya , Y. D., et al. 2023, , 958, 51

    2023

  9. [17]

    K., Ojha , D

    Dewangan , L. K., Ojha , D. K., Sharma , S., et al. 2020, , 903, 13

    2020

  10. [18]

    K., Zinchenko, I

    Dewangan, L. K., Zinchenko, I. I., Zemlyanukha, P. M., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 925, 41

    2022

  11. [19]

    R., et al

    Eswaraiah , C., Li , D., Samal , M. R., et al. 2020, , 897, 90

    2020

  12. [20]

    2021, , 73, S405

    Fukui , Y., Inoue , T., Hayakawa , T., & Torii , K. 2021, , 73, S405

    2021

  13. [21]

    2023, , 674, A160

    Gieser , C., Beuther , H., Semenov , D., et al. 2023, , 674, A160

    2023

  14. [22]

    G \'o mez , G. C. & V \'a zquez-Semadeni , E. 2014, , 791, 124

    2014

  15. [23]

    E., Heitsch , F., et al

    Hacar , A., Clark , S. E., Heitsch , F., 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 , 153

    2023

  16. [24]

    2018, , 610, A77

    Hacar , A., Tafalla , M., Forbrich , J., et al. 2018, , 610, A77

    2018

  17. [25]

    D., Ginsburg , A., Haworth , T

    Henshaw , J. D., Ginsburg , A., Haworth , T. J., et al. 2019, , 485, 2457

    2019

  18. [26]

    D., Longmore , S

    Henshaw , J. D., Longmore , S. N., Kruijssen , J. M. D., et al. 2016, , 457, 2675

    2016

  19. [27]

    & Miyama , S

    Inutsuka , S.-I. & Miyama , S. M. 1992, , 388, 392

    1992

  20. [28]

    & Pillai , T

    Kauffmann , J. & Pillai , T. 2010, , 723, L7

    2010

  21. [29]

    C., Bourke , T

    Kirk , H., Myers , P. C., Bourke , T. L., et al. 2013, , 766, 115

    2013

  22. [30]

    Kumar , M. S. N., Arzoumanian , D., Men'shchikov , A., et al. 2022, , 658, A114

    2022

  23. [31]

    Kumar, M. S. N., Palmeirim, P., Arzoumanian, D., & Inutsuka, S. I. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 642, A87

    2020

  24. [32]

    K., Inoue , T., Fukui , Y., et al

    Maity , A. K., Inoue , T., Fukui , Y., et al. 2024, , 974, 229

    2024

  25. [33]

    McKee , C. F. & Tan , J. C. 2003, , 585, 850

    2003

  26. [34]

    2017, , 598, A7

    M \"o ller , T., Endres , C., & Schilke , P. 2017, , 598, A7

    2017

  27. [35]

    2018, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 56, 41

    Motte, F., Bontemps, S., & Louvet, F. 2018, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 56, 41

    2018

  28. [36]

    Myers, P. C. 2009, Astrophysical Journal, 700, 1609

    2009

  29. [37]

    2020, , 900, 82

    Padoan , P., Pan , L., Juvela , M., Haugb lle , T., & Nordlund , A . 2020, , 900, 82

    2020

  30. [38]

    A., Andr \'e , P., et al

    Peretto , N., Fuller , G. A., Andr \'e , P., et al. 2014, , 561, A83

    2014

  31. [39]

    A., Duarte-Cabral, A., et al

    Peretto, N., Fuller, G. A., Duarte-Cabral, A., et al. 2013, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 555, A112

    2013

  32. [40]

    K., Thomasson , M., Wu , Y

    Pirogov , L., Ojha , D. K., Thomasson , M., Wu , Y. F., & Zinchenko , I. 2013, , 436, 3186

    2013

  33. [41]

    Pirogov , L., Zinchenko , I., Caselli , P., Johansson , L. E. B., & Myers , P. C. 2003, , 405, 639

    2003

  34. [42]

    2014, , 796, 130

    Rosero , V., Hofner , P., McCoy , M., et al. 2014, , 796, 130

    2014

  35. [43]

    2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 132, 1

    Schneider, N., Simon, R., Guevara, C., et al. 2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 132, 1

    2020

  36. [44]

    P., Fuente, A., S \' a nchez-Monge, et al

    Trevi \ n o-Morales, S. P., Fuente, A., S \' a nchez-Monge, et al. 2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 629, A81

    2019

  37. [45]

    C., & Zamora-Avil \'e s , M

    V \'a zquez-Semadeni , E., Palau , A., Ballesteros-Paredes , J., G \'o mez , G. C., & Zamora-Avil \'e s , M. 2019, , 490, 3061

    2019

  38. [46]

    C., & González-Samaniego, A

    Vázquez-Semadeni, E., Gómez, G. C., & González-Samaniego, A. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 530, 3445

    2024

  39. [47]

    M., Tang , Y.-W., et al

    Wang , J.-W., Koch , P. M., Tang , Y.-W., et al. 2022, , 931, 115

    2022

  40. [48]

    2014, , 439, 3275

    Wang , K., Zhang , Q., Testi , L., et al. 2014, , 439, 3275

    2014

  41. [49]

    2023, , 953, 40

    Yang , D., Liu , H.-L., Tej , A., et al. 2023, , 953, 40

    2023

  42. [50]

    2018, , 852, 12

    Yuan , J., Li , J.-Z., Wu , Y., et al. 2018, , 852, 12

    2018

  43. [51]

    S., et al

    Zhou, J., Wyrowski, F., Urquhart, J. S., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics [ [arXiv] 2305.12573 ]

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    J., et al

    Zhou , J.-W., Liu , T., Evans , N. J., et al. 2022, , 514, 6038

    2022

  45. [53]

    2009, , 395, 2234

    Zinchenko , I., Caselli , P., & Pirogov , L. 2009, , 395, 2234

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.