Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Shear-gravity transition determines the steep velocity dispersion-size relation in molecular clouds: confronting analytical formula with observations

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A two-mechanism sum explains the steep cloud velocity-size law

desk verdict The steep sigma_v-R slope is explained by fitting a model to a synthetic target drawn from the same relation, so the gravity-shear transition is not yet established. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03027 v2 pith:Q3XT35ZN submitted 2025-01-06 astro-ph.GA

Yi-Heng Xie , Guang-Xing Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords molecularcloudsvelocitydispersion-sizerelationgalacticshearself-gravityLarson'srelationsinterstellardynamicsrotationMilkyWaydisk
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

Molecular clouds larger than a few parsecs show a velocity dispersion–size relation steeper than the classic Larson law with slope about 0.5, and no single mechanism explains the observed slopes above 0.6. This paper argues that the steep slope arises from a gradual transition between two regimes: small clouds whose internal motions are set by self-gravity, and large clouds whose motions are set by the shear of Galactic rotation. The two are combined in one analytical formula, $\sigma_{v,\rm total}=A[(GM/R)^{1/2}+f(R/t_{\rm shear})]$, and the transition scale comes out near 100 pc, about the scale height of the Milky Way's molecular gas disk. If the model is right, the steep slope and its variation with Galactocentric distance are not separate puzzles but the same interplay of internal gravity and external shear. The paper confronts the formula with observations in the solar vicinity and across the Galactic disk, and reports agreement with the measured slopes.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is Equation (1), a two-component velocity dispersion formula $\sigma_{v,\rm total}=A[(GM/R)^{1/2}+f(R/t_{\rm shear})]$, where $M$ and $R$ are the cloud mass and size, $t_{\rm shear}=\kappa^{-1}=(2A_{\rm Oort})^{-1}$ is the shear timescale from Galactic rotation, and $A$ and $f$ are fitted parameters that set the normalization and the relative efficiency of the two channels. The self-gravity term scales as $R^{1/2}$ under the Larson mass–size relation and the shear term scales as $R^{1}$, so their relative weight changes with cloud size, making the slope of the combined relation interpolate continuously between 0.5 and 1. The paper uses the ratio $\lambda_{1}\sigma_{v,g}/\lambda_{2}\sigma_{v,\rm shear}=t_{\rm shear}(GM/R^{3})^{1/2}/f$ to locate the transition scale and to map gravity-dominated versus shear-dominated regions of the Galaxy; this ratio is the diagnostic that turns the formula from a curve fit into a physical classification of cloud dynamics.

What would settle it

Measure, for a sample of molecular clouds spanning 10–300 pc in the solar vicinity, the internal velocity dispersion and the velocity gradient expected from Galactic rotation across each cloud's projected extent; the model predicts that the shear term rises linearly with size and becomes comparable to the self-gravity term near 100 pc. A cleaner test is the predicted shape of the $\sigma_{v}$–$R$ relation itself: it should curve from slope about 0.5 at small sizes to about 1 at large sizes, with the transition at roughly the local disk scale height; if the relation is a single power law with no detectable steepening over 10–200 pc, or if the transition scale differs by more than a factor of two from the disk scale height, the gravity–shear transition described here would be ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the steep velocity dispersion–size relation $\sigma_{v}\sim R^{\beta}$ with $\beta\sim0.6$–$0.8$, observed for molecular clouds above several parsecs, is produced by the combined action of self-gravity and Galactic shear. Gravity alone gives $\sigma_{v}\sim R^{1/2}$ and shear alone gives $\sigma_{v}\sim R^{1}$; neither reproduces the observed slope. The authors posit a two-component sum $\sigma_{v,\rm total}=A[(GM/R)^{1/2}+f(R/t_{\rm shear})]$ with $\sigma_{v,\rm g}=(GM/R)^{1/2}$ and $\sigma_{v,\rm shear}=R/t_{\rm shear}$, where $t_{\rm shear}$ is the local shear timescale. Under the Larson mass–size relation $M\sim R^{2}$, each term retains its own slope, so the combined relation spans the observed intermediate slopes through a gradual transition. Fitting the formula to solar-vicinity data yields $A=1.94$, $f=0.96$, and a transition scale near 100 pc at which gravity and shear contribute equally; small clouds are gravity-dominated and roughly virialized, while large clouds are shear-dominated and supervirial. Applied to Galactic disk samples at different Galactocentric distances, the same formula predicts the observed normalization and slope changes, tracing them to variations in cloud density structure and shear rate.

Load-bearing premise

The calibration assumes that the velocity dispersion–size relation measured for YSO associations by Zhou et al. (2022) can be assigned, point by point, to the dust clouds of Xie et al. (2024) as their individual velocity dispersions, making the fit target synthetic rather than directly measured; if this cross-sample equivalence or the assumed 45-degree projection fails, the fitted parameters, the 100 pc transition scale, and the radial predictions lose their anchor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Small clouds should be roughly in virial equilibrium while large clouds are supervirial, with a virial parameter that rises with size as $\alpha_{\rm vir}\sim R^{0.5}$ for the calibrated solar-vicinity sample.
  • The observed normalization of the $\sigma_{v}$–$R$ relation should decline with Galactocentric distance as both the shear rate and cloud surface density fall; the model predicts $\sigma_{v}=0.52\,R^{0.61}$ at 5–6 kpc and $0.24\,R^{0.67}$ at 10–11 kpc for the Miville-Deschênes et al. (2017) sample.
  • The slope of the relation should steepen slightly with Galactocentric distance in the outer Galaxy, from 0.81 to 0.84 across the Sun et al. (2024) radial bins, driven by the declining shear rate.
  • Below a few parsecs the relation is expected to flatten or decouple from cloud size, consistent with observed breaks, because the shear–gravity combination no longer controls the dynamics on those scales.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same two-component formula, with $t_{\rm shear}$ set by the local rotation curve, could be applied to other galaxies: their disk scale heights and rotation curve shapes would set their own gravity–shear transition scales, turning the transition scale into a diagnostic of galactic environment.
  • Because the gravity term depends on cloud mass, the model implies that the observed slope and normalization depend on how clouds are defined and on the tracer used; comparing different tracers with the same fitted parameters would test whether $A$ and $f$ absorb real physics or just sample-selection effects.
  • A direct test would measure velocity gradients across large clouds that are attributable to Galactic rotation and compare them with the internal velocity dispersion; if shear contributions are absent in clouds near 100 pc, the claimed transition scale would fail.
  • The predicted rise of virial parameter with cloud size, if confirmed with independent samples, would contradict the frequently reported declining virial parameter–size trend, suggesting that boundary definitions rather than physics drive much of that discrepancy.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes that the observed steep velocity dispersion-size relation (β > 0.6) in molecular clouds above a few parsecs results from a gradual transition between self-gravity-dominated and galactic-shear-dominated regimes. The model is σ_v,total = A[(GM/R)^{1/2} + f(R/t_shear)]. The authors calibrate A and f using the Zhou et al. (2022) YSO-association scaling relation imposed on the Xie et al. (2024) dust clouds, infer a transition scale of about 100 pc, and then apply the model with f = 1 to the Miville-Deschênes et al. (2017) and Sun et al. (2024) samples to predict the radial variation of the scaling relation. The paper concludes that the steep slope and its environmental variation are explained by the interplay of internal gravity and external shear.

Significance. If validated, the model would provide a simple physical explanation for a currently puzzling observational result and would make concrete, testable predictions for resolved cloud surveys and simulations. The analytical formula is transparent, the manuscript uses published catalogues, and the radial predictions are specific and falsifiable. However, the current significance is limited because the solar-vicinity calibration uses a synthetic velocity-dispersion target, and the external-sample comparisons fix the crucial parameter f rather than measure it. With an independent calibration or a held-out test, the paper could be a valuable contribution to the interpretation of molecular cloud scaling relations.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.2.2, Eq. (6)] The calibration target is synthetic, not measured. The velocity dispersion of every Xie et al. (2024) cloud is generated from the Zhou et al. (2022) relation through Eq. (6), σ_v(1D)=0.52(R/pc)^0.67 km/s, with 20% Gaussian noise, rather than being a directly measured quantity for those clouds. Fitting Eq. (1) to this target therefore cannot validate the model: the fitted slope (Eq. 7) and f ≈ 0.96 largely recover the input relation, and the ~100 pc transition scale in Sec. 3.2.3 is a derived property of the assumed Zhou slope and the Xie et al. mass-size relation (Eq. 11). The central claim that the model explains the steep observed relation is not supported by this exercise. Please re-fit using directly measured cloud velocity dispersions, or explicitly present the solar-vicinity result as a demonstration of the model's functional form rather than as an observational test.
  2. [Sec. 3.3 and Appendix A] The external applications do not test the key parameter of the model. For both Miville-Deschênes et al. (2017) and Sun et al. (2024), f is fixed to 1 based on the solar calibration, and A is fitted on the same dataset whose relation is then compared with the prediction. Since Eq. (1) is linear in A, the normalization agreement is guaranteed by construction. The gravity-shear transition, controlled by f, is therefore never measured independently. The authors should fit A and f freely on one sample and predict a held-out sample, or at least test whether f=1 is consistent with the Miville-Deschênes and Sun data, and propagate uncertainties into the predicted slopes.
  3. [Sec. 3.2.1, Eq. (5)] The size calibration assumes a fixed 45° angle between the cloud major axis and the line of sight. The projected size enters all subsequent fits, so the inferred A, f, the ~100 pc transition scale, and the virial-parameter slope all depend on this assumption, but no sensitivity study or uncertainty is given. Please vary the projection angle over a plausible range or marginalize over it.
  4. [Sec. 3.2.4, Eq. (12)] The virial-parameter trend is not an independent check. As the authors note in Eq. (12), the positive slope β3 = 2β2 - β1 + 1 is forced by the fitted mass-size relation (Eq. 11) and velocity dispersion-size relation (Eq. 7) once the model form is adopted. The text should state clearly that this is a derived consistency relation, not empirical support for the gravity-shear mechanism.
  5. [Sec. 3.3, Eq. (17); Appendix A, Eq. (A4)] The assumption that f remains equal to 1 at all Galactocentric distances is not justified. Section 3.1 explicitly states that A and f are expected to vary with cloud definition and observational tracer, and the shear efficiency relative to gravity could plausibly vary with radius, yet the radial predictions fix f=1 and only vary A and the shear timescale. Without a physical argument or a fit of f in the radial bins, the predicted radial variation is conditional on an untested assumption.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 3.2.1] The conversion σ_v,2D = √2 σ_v,1D assumes isotropic velocity dispersions; please state this assumption and discuss its effect on the calibration.
  2. [Fig. 5 caption, Eq. (A1)] The caption contains 'km s□1' in several places instead of 'km s^{-1}', and Eq. (A1) quotes σ_v(Sun)=0.19(R/pc)^0.78 while the text mentions β=0.65±0.004 for the whole resolved sample without clarifying which sample that slope refers to; please correct and clarify.
  3. [Facilities line] The Facilities line contains 'FL WO:2MASS, CTIO:2MASS', which appears to be a formatting artifact; please correct.
  4. [Secs. 3.2.2, 3.3, Appendix A] Best-fit values A and f are quoted without uncertainties; please provide error bars and, for the transition scale, a confidence interval.
  5. [Sec. 3.2.3] The identification of the ~100 pc transition scale with the molecular gas disk scale height is only qualitative; please quantify the comparison (e.g., with a reference value and its radial variation) or label it as a suggestion.
  6. [Abstract and Conclusion] The manuscript uses 'explain' for what is currently a reproduction of an assumed relation; please use more cautious wording such as 'is consistent with' or 'can reproduce' unless an independent test is added.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The solar-vicinity calibration fits the model to synthetic velocity dispersions drawn from the very steep sigma_v-R relation the paper claims to explain; f=1 is then carried into the Miville/Sun applications, so the gravity-shear transition is never independently tested.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2.2, Eqs. (5)-(7), with Eq. (6)]
    "sigma_v(zhou) (1D) = 0.52 (R/pc)0.67 (km s-1) ... we apply Equation (6) to the calibrated cloud size from Equation (5) to calculate the corresponding velocity dispersion (we add a Gaussian noise of 20% to represent observational uncertainties)."

    The fit target is synthetic: Equation (6) imposes the Zhou et al. (2022) power law on every Xie et al. (2024) cloud. For these clouds, M ~ R^1.94 (Eq. 11), so the gravity term in Eq. (1) scales as R^0.47 and the shear term as R. A two-parameter linear combination of R^0.47 and R can easily mimic R^0.67 over the observed size range, so the recovered slope 0.72 and f ~ 0.96 are inherited from the input relation by construction. Consequently, the ~100 pc 'transition scale' is not an independent measurement but a derived output of this circular calibration.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3 and Appendix A, Eqs. (13)-(17) and (A3)-(A4)]
    "We assume f = 1 following the result f = 0.96 in section 3.2.2 and apply Equation (1) to the cloud sample of Miville-Deschênes et al. (2017) ... With the same procedure in section 3.3, we assume f = 1 and extract the resolved clouds from Sun et al. (2024) ... to fit the appropriate value of A."

    f is the parameter that determines where the gravity-to-shear transition lies and hence the slope of the combined relation, but it is neither fitted to nor tested against the Miville-Deschênes and Sun samples; it is imported as f = 1 from the circular solar-vicinity fit. A is then fitted to the same samples whose binned relations are later presented as predictions. Thus the 'predictions' of slope variation with Galactocentric radius are partly forced by the assumed f and by each sample's own mass-size and velocity data, rather than being an independent confirmation of the transition.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self definitional [Section 3.2.4, Eqs. (9)-(12)]
    "The positive slope of virial parameter-size relation should hold for our sample clouds with size larger than 10 pc, since our M ∝ R1.94 and σv ∝ R0.72 (Equation (7)) relations necessarily imply such positive virial parameter-size relation with a slope ∼ 0.5."

    The paper explicitly derives Eq. (10) from the already-fitted M ~ R^1.94 and sigma_v ~ R^0.72; Eq. (9) defines alpha_vir from the model's own components. The rising virial parameter is therefore a mathematical restatement of the earlier fit, not evidence for the model.

full rationale

The central calibration in Sec. 3.2.2 builds the target sigma_v values from the very steep relation (Zhou et al. 2022) the paper claims to explain, and the fitted two-component formula is sufficiently flexible to reproduce that input power law. Since the Xie et al. (2024) clouds satisfy M ~ R^1.94, the model's gravity term contributes R^0.47 and the shear term R, so a sum of the two can mimic R^0.67 over a limited size range; the steep slope and the ~100 pc transition are therefore largely built into the fitting procedure. The subsequent applications to Miville-Deschênes et al. (2017) and Sun et al. (2024) fix f = 1 rather than measure it, and fit A to the same samples they later compare against, so the key parameter controlling the gravity-shear transition is never independently constrained. The paper does contain independent physical content: the model's mass- and shear-dependent normalization reproduces the observed radial variation with a single fitted A, and the Rgal dependence follows from physically motivated changes in density and shear rate. But because the primary support for 'shear-gravity transition determines the steep relation' comes from a synthetic calibration target, the central claim is circular to a substantial degree. The virial-parameter trend is also admitted to be a necessary consequence of earlier fits. Overall score 7 reflects partial circularity: the central derivation reduces to fitting the relation it purports to explain, although the model is not a pure renaming and has some independent predictive structure.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two fitted coefficients, a synthetic data construction for the solar-vicinity fit, and several domain assumptions about linear superposition and constant conversion efficiencies. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • A = 1.94 (solar vicinity), 0.63 (Miville-Deschenes), 0.70 (Sun)
    Overall normalization absorbing conversion factors and observational calibrations; fitted separately to each dataset.
  • f = 0.96 in solar vicinity, assumed 1.0 for Miville-Deschenes and Sun
    Relative efficiency of shear to gravity contributions; controls the slope and transition scale and is not derived from first principles.
  • Projection angle between cloud major axis and line of sight = 45 degrees (assumed)
    Used in Eq. (5) to convert 3D cloud sizes to projected sizes; the assumed value affects the synthetic sigma_v relation and the fitted parameters.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Velocity dispersions from self-gravity and shear add linearly with scale-independent coefficients.
    Eq. (1) assumes sigma_total = lambda1 sigma_g + lambda2 sigma_shear without justification for a linear sum rather than quadrature or nonlinear coupling.
  • domain assumption Self-gravity converts gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy with a constant efficiency f1.
    Eq. (2) uses f1 as a constant, but the conversion efficiency could depend on cloud structure, magnetization, or environment.
  • domain assumption Shear velocity dispersion scales as R/t_shear with t_shear = (2 A_Oort)^-1.
    Eqs. (3)-(4) treat shear as a pure velocity gradient over cloud size, ignoring the cloud's internal density response.
  • ad hoc to paper The Zhou et al. (2022) sigma_v-R relation for YSO associations applies to Xie et al. (2024) dust clouds.
    Sec. 3.2.1 uses this cross-sample equivalence to generate the synthetic fit target for the solar-vicinity calibration.
  • ad hoc to paper The relative shear efficiency f determined in the solar vicinity remains valid at all Galactocentric distances.
    Sec. 3.3 and Appendix A fix f = 1 for the Miville-Deschenes and Sun samples, without independent calibration.
  • domain assumption Cloud sizes are projected using a typical inclination of 45 degrees and sigma_2D = sqrt(2) sigma_1D.
    Eqs. (5)-(6) are schematic conversions that directly affect the fitted parameter values.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Shear-gravity transition determines the steep velocity dispersion-size relation in molecular clouds: confronting analytical formula with observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q3XT35ZN

@misc{pith2026250103027,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Shear-gravity transition determines the steep velocity dispersion-size relation in molecular clouds: confronting analytical formula with observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q3XT35ZN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03027}
}
abstract

The velocity dispersion-size relation ($\sigma_{\rm v}\sim R^{\beta}$) is a crucial indicator of the dynamic properties of interstellar gas, where the slope is considered as $\beta \sim 0.5$. Recent observations reveal a steep velocity dispersion-size relation with the slope $\beta> 0.6$, which cannot be explained by a single mechanism with only gravity ($\beta\sim0.5$) or shear ($\beta \sim 1$). We present a two-component model $\sigma_{\rm v_{total}} = \lambda_1 \sigma_{\rm v_{g}} + \lambda_2 \sigma_{\rm v_{shear}} = A[(GM/R)^{\frac{1}{2}} + f(R/t_{\rm shear})]$ to explain the steep velocity dispersion-size relation for clouds larger than several parsecs in observations from e.g. Miville-Desch\^{e}nes et al. (2017), Zhou et al. (2022) and Sun et al. (2024). We find that, above several parsecs, the velocity dispersion of small clouds is mainly caused by self-gravity, while large clouds are primarily affected by shear, and these two regimes are linked by a gradual transition with a transition scale $\sim100$ pc -- the scale height of the Galactic molecular gas disk. The variation of cloud velocity dispersion-size relation with the Galactocentric distance results from the variation of both cloud internal density structure and Galactic shear rate. Our two-component model captures how the dynamics of the molecular gas can be affected by both internal and external factors, and we expect it to be applied to data from galaxies with different physical conditions to reveal the physics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03027 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Fitted velocity dispersion-size relation in the solar vicinity. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Locations of shear-dominated and gravity-dominated clouds in the Milky Way disk. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Virial parameter as a function of cloud size. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Prediction of the variation of velocity dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Prediction of the slope of velocity dispersion-size relation at different Galactocentric distances. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Map of gravity-dominated and shear-dominated gas. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Gravity-weighted gas density at Galactic mid-plane ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Shear-weighted gas density at Galactic mid-plane ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Characterising the Kinematics and Evolution of Young Stellar Groups within 1 kpc of the Sun Using Gaia DR3

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

    HDBSCAN on Gaia DR3 yields 145 YSO groups whose 3D velocity dispersion obeys Larson's relation with slope 0.38, unchanged across age bins to 20 Myr.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    G., & Bershady, M

    Akritas, M. G., & Bershady, M. A. 1996, ApJ, 470, 706, doi: 10.1086/177901 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., ...

    doi:10.1086/177901 1996

  2. [2]

    W., V´ azquez-Semadeni, E., Heitsch, F., & Zamora-Avil´ es, M

    Ballesteros-Paredes, J., Hartmann, L. W., V´ azquez-Semadeni, E., Heitsch, F., & Zamora-Avil´ es, M. A. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 65, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17657.x

    arXiv 2011

  3. [3]

    2015, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Beaumont, C., Goodman, A., & Greenfield, P. 2015, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 495, Astronomical Data Analysis Software an Systems XXIV (ADASS XXIV), ed. A. R. Taylor & E. Rosolowsky, 101

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    2020, A&A, 633, A147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936096

    Benedettini, M., Molinari, S., Baldeschi, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936096

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936096 2020

  5. [5]

    D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A

    Bolatto, A. D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A. K. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 207, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944 2013

  6. [6]

    M., & Mac Low, M.-M

    Brunt, C. M., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2004, ApJ, 604, 196, doi: 10.1086/381648

    work page doi:10.1086/381648 2004

  7. [7]

    2021, ApJL, 906, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abcecb

    Cen, R. 2021, ApJL, 906, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abcecb

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abcecb 2021

  8. [8]

    R., McLeod, A

    Chevance, M., Krumholz, M. R., McLeod, A. F., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    2023

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed

    Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 1, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09570

    doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    2024, A&A, 686, A155, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348983

    Colman, T., Brucy, N., Girichidis, P., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A155, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348983

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

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

    Dame, T. M., Hartmann, D., & Thaddeus, P. 2001, ApJ, 547, 792, doi: 10.1086/318388

    2001 doi

  4. [12]

    L., Burkert, A., & Pringle, J

    Dobbs, C. L., Burkert, A., & Pringle, J. E. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 2935, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18371.x

    2011

  5. [13]

    G., & Scalo, J

    Elmegreen, B. G., & Scalo, J. 2004, ARA&A, 42, 211, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094859

    2004 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Fleck, R. C., J. 1980, ApJ, 242, 1019, doi: 10.1086/158533 —. 1981, ApJL, 246, L151, doi: 10.1086/183573 Garc ´ ıa, P., Bronfman, L., Nyman, L.-˚A., Dame, T. M., &

    1980 doi

  7. [15]

    2014, ApJS, 212, 2, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/212/1/2

    Luna, A. 2014, ApJS, 212, 2, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/212/1/2

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    Grisdale, K., Agertz, O., Renaud, F., & Romeo, A. B. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 3167, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1595

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    Heyer, M., Krawczyk, C., Duval, J., & Jackson, J. M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 1092, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1092

    2009 doi

  11. [19]

    H., Carpenter, J

    Heyer, M. H., Carpenter, J. M., & Snell, R. L. 2001, ApJ, 551, 852, doi: 10.1086/320218

    2001 doi

  12. [20]

    E., Colombo, D., et al

    Hughes, A., Meidt, S. E., Colombo, D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/46 12 Ib´ a˜ nez-Mej ´ ıa, J. C., Mac Low, M.-M., Klessen, R. S., &

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    2016, ApJ, 824, 41, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/41 —

    Baczynski, C. 2016, ApJ, 824, 41, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/41 —. 2017, ApJ, 850, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa93fe

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    Kauffmann, J., Pillai, T., & Goldsmith, P. F. 2013, ApJ, 779, 185, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/185

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    2017, A&A, 603, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628088

    Kauffmann, J., Pillai, T., Zhang, Q., et al. 2017, A&A, 603, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628088

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    J., & Dame, T

    Lada, C. J., & Dame, T. M. 2020, ApJ, 898, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9bfb

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    Larson, R. B. 1981, MNRAS, 194, 809, doi: 10.1093/mnras/194.4.809

    1981 doi

  18. [26]

    2019, ApJ, 872, 205, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0104

    Li, C., Zhao, G., & Yang, C. 2019, ApJ, 872, 205, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0104

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 4048, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1537

    Liu, L., Bureau, M., Blitz, L., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 4048, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1537

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    2024, AJ, 167, 228, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad35ca

    Luo, A.-X., Liu, H.-L., Qin, S.-L., Yang, D.-t., & Pan, S. 2024, AJ, 167, 228, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad35ca

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    F., & Ostriker, E

    McKee, C. F., & Ostriker, E. C. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 565, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110602

    2007 arXiv

  22. [30]

    F., & Zweibel, E

    McKee, C. F., & Zweibel, E. G. 1992, ApJ, 399, 551, doi: 10.1086/171946 Miville-Deschˆ enes, M.-A., Murray, N., & Lee, E. J. 2017, ApJ, 834, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/57 Mr´ oz, P., Udalski, A., Skowron, D. M., et al. 2019, ApJL, 870, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf73f

    1992 doi

  23. [31]

    S., Georganopoulos, M., Guiriec, S., et al

    Nemmen, R. S., Georganopoulos, M., Guiriec, S., et al. 2012, Science, 338, 1445, doi: 10.1126/science.1227416

    2012 doi

  24. [32]

    S., Goodman, A

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

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    2017, glueviz v0.13.1: multidimensional data exploration, 0.13.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1237692

    Goodman, A. 2017, glueviz v0.13.1: multidimensional data exploration, 0.13.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1237692

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

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

    2008 doi

  27. [35]

    N., Burton, M

    Shetty, R., Beaumont, C. N., Burton, M. G., Kelly, B. C., & Klessen, R. S. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 720, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21588.x

    2012

  28. [36]

    M., Rivolo, A

    Solomon, P. M., Rivolo, A. R., Barrett, J., & Yahil, A. 1987, ApJ, 319, 730, doi: 10.1086/165493

    1987 doi

  29. [37]

    2024, ApJS, 275, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad8237

    Sun, Y., Yang, J., Yan, Q.-Z., et al. 2024, ApJS, 275, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad8237

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    2018, MNRAS, 477, 2220, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty798

    Traficante, A., Duarte-Cabral, A., Elia, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 2220, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty798

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

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

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

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    Wada, K., Meurer, G., & Norman, C. A. 2002, ApJ, 577, 197, doi: 10.1086/342151

    2002 doi

  34. [42]

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

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

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 638, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac900

    Zhou, J.-X., Li, G.-X., & Chen, B.-Q. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 638, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac900

    2022 doi

Pith tools

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