Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

B-fields And dust in interstelLar fiLAments using Dust POLarization (BALLAD-POL): III. Grain alignment and disruption mechanisms in G34.43+0.24 using polarization observations from JCMT/POL-2

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 The paper argues that the high-temperature drop in dust polarization toward G34.43+0.24's protostellar cores is a signature of radiative torque disruption, which spins large grains until they shatter, narrowing the aligned grain size…

desk verdict A careful, honest RAT-D test on G34 whose central disruption claim needs grain-size evidence it doesn't have. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11634 v1 pith:FZJWDAME submitted 2025-01-20 astro-ph.GA

Saikhom Pravash , Archana Soam , Pham Ngoc Diep , Thiem Hoang , Nguyen Bich Ngoc , Le Ngoc Tram This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords InterstellardustfilamentsStarformingregionsmagneticfieldsRadiativetorquealignmentdisruptionPolarizationfractionGrain
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 applies the radiative torque paradigm, alignment (RAT-A) and disruption (RAT-D) of spinning dust grains, to the infrared dark cloud filament G34.43+0.24 using 850 micron polarized dust emission from JCMT/POL-2. It finds the familiar polarization hole, a drop in polarization fraction P as intensity and column density rise, and shows that in the coreless South region magnetic field tangling drives the depolarization, while in the North and Center the dominant cause is reduced grain alignment efficiency. The key claim is that the additional decline of P at high dust temperature toward the protostellar cores MM3, MM1 and MM2 is a sign of radiative torque disruption: grains larger than about 0.86 microns in the North and 0.64 microns in the Center spin fast enough under intense radiation that centrifugal stress shatters them, narrowing the range of aligned grain sizes. If correct, this gives a physical mechanism linking dust temperature, grain growth, and polarization fraction in star-forming cores, and it also motivates magnetically enhanced RAT alignment (MRAT) to explain the unusually high 8-20% polarization in the filament's outer regions.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the two-size RAT calculation: a minimum alignment size $a_{\rm align}$ from RAT-A theory and a minimum disruption size $a_{\rm disr}$ from RAT-D theory, both evaluated pixel-wise from local radiation field strength, gas density, gas and dust temperature, and an assumed grain tensile strength $S_{\max}=10^5$ erg cm$^{-3}$ for porous composite grains. On the observational side, the polarization angle dispersion function S and its product P times S separate field-tangling depolarization from loss of net alignment efficiency. The maps of $a_{\rm align}$ and $a_{\rm disr}$ are the central objects; when $a_{\rm disr}$ falls below the expected maximum grain size in a hot core, the largest aligned grains are disrupted and the aligned size interval narrows, lowering P.

What would settle it

Measure the maximum grain size directly in MM1, MM2, and MM3, for example from mid-infrared extinction or far-infrared and sub-millimeter SED fitting. If the largest grains are smaller than the calculated disruption sizes, no RAT-D can operate, and the P versus T_d decline would have to be attributed to unresolved field tangling or inclination changes rather than grain shattering.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central assertion is that the measured decline of polarization fraction with dust temperature in the North and Center regions of G34.43+0.24, which is opposite to the RAT-A prediction, is possibly caused by RAT-D in the dense, hot cores. This is supported by three observational steps: first, P and the alignment-efficiency proxy P times S both fall for dust temperatures above 19.8 K in the North and above 25 K in the Center, while P does not show a strong correlation with the polarization angle dispersion function S, ruling out tangled fields as the main culprit there; second, the calculated minimum disruption size drops to roughly 0.86 microns and 0.64 microns in the respective core regions while the alignment size stays near 0.07-0.08 microns, so grains in that upper size range would be removed by centrifugal fragmentation; third, in the coreless South region P only rises with dust temperature and the P-S relation shows tangling, which RAT-A alone can explain. The authors present RAT-D as potential evidence and explicitly allow that unresolved B-field tangling or inclination changes could contribute. They additionally find that outer-region P of 8-20% can be explained by magnetically enhanced RAT alignment with super-paramagnetic grains, although missing flux in low-surface-brightness regions remains an alternative.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the largest grains inside MM1, MM2, and MM3 have actually grown beyond the calculated disruption sizes (about 0.86 microns in the North and 0.64 microns in the Center), but no observational grain size distribution is measured for these cores.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the North and Center regions of G34.43+0.24, the polarization hole traces decreasing grain alignment efficiency rather than B-field tangling, while in the South region tangled fields dominate the depolarization.
  • RAT-A predicts and explains the rise of P with dust temperature up to about 19.8 K in the North and 25 K in the Center in the envelope and cold regions outside the cores.
  • If grains have grown beyond about 0.86 microns in the North and 0.64 microns in the Center, RAT-D removes the largest aligned grains and can produce the observed P versus T_d downturn without invoking strong internal field disorder.
  • Magnetically enhanced RAT alignment (MRAT) with iron-cluster-bearing super-paramagnetic grains is a plausible origin of the high 8-20% polarization in the low-column-density outer regions.
  • B-field tangling and inclination changes within the beam remain alternative contributors to core depolarization, so the paper treats RAT-D as possible evidence rather than a definitive proof.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test would be to measure the grain size distribution in MM1, MM2, and MM3, for example through mid-infrared extinction or multi-wavelength SED fitting; finding a maximum grain size below the calculated disruption size would falsify the RAT-D interpretation without new polarimetry.
  • If RAT-D operates in such cores, it imposes a temperature-dependent maximum grain size, which could bias dust mass estimates and alter the calibration between polarization fraction and magnetic field strength in hot protostellar regions.
  • The same comparison of P times S with dust temperature, together with maps of $a_{\rm disr}$, can be exported to other infrared dark cloud filaments to identify candidate cores where grain growth has pushed the maximum grain size past the disruption threshold.
  • The synthetic intensity comparison in the appendix is approximate and does not fully settle whether missing flux creates the high-P outer envelope; deeper POL-2 observations or independent 850 micron maps would clarify whether MRAT is actually needed there.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes JCMT/POL-2 850 μm polarimetric observations of the filamentary infrared dark cloud G34.43+0.24, dividing the filament into North (containing MM3), Center (containing MM1 and MM2), and South (no cores) sub-regions. It reports a polarization hole in P vs. I and P vs. N(H2), separates the role of magnetic field tangling using the polarization angle dispersion function S and P×S, and interprets the depolarization in the North and Center as a decrease in net grain alignment efficiency while attributing part of the South depolarization to field tangling. The paper then uses RAT theory to compute minimum alignment sizes a_align and minimum disruption sizes a_disr, and argues that the decrease of P with dust temperature at Td > 19.8 K (North) and Td > 25 K (Center) is consistent with radiative torque disruption (RAT-D) in the dense protostellar cores. Finally, it proposes that magnetically enhanced RAT (MRAT) alignment can explain the high polarization fractions of 8–20% in the outer filament, with a caution in Appendix A about possible missing flux.

Significance. If the RAT-D interpretation is correct, this would be one of the few observational studies connecting sub-mm polarization holes to grain disruption in high-mass protostellar cores, and the MRAT discussion extends the grain-alignment interpretation to the high-P envelopes. The observational analysis is mostly standard: the P−I, P−N(H2), P−Td relations are quantified with slopes, the P×S decomposition follows Planck Collaboration et al. (2020), and the paper explicitly addresses the missing-flux concern with a synthetic intensity comparison in Appendix A. The central limitation is that the RAT-D claim depends on unmeasured and partly unsupported assumptions about the maximum grain size and tensile strength, and the break temperatures are read from the same data they are used to explain. These issues make the conclusion a plausible scenario rather than a demonstrated mechanism, but they are addressable with additional analysis and sensitivity tests.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2 and §3.2.2] The RAT-D interpretation requires that the high-temperature core pixels contain aligned grains with sizes above the computed disruption threshold (a_disr ≈ 0.86 μm in the North and ≈ 0.64 μm in the Center). The manuscript does not measure a_max in MM1/MM2/MM3; the constraints cited in §4.2 — the MRN diffuse-ISM cutoff of ≈ 0.25 μm and the Ngoc et al. (2023) lower limit a_max > 0.3 μm for a different filament — are both below these a_disr values. The statement that a_disr is "well below these a_max values" is therefore unsupported. Since RAT-D is inactive if a_max ≲ a_disr, this is load-bearing for the central claim. Please either provide direct grain-size constraints for these cores or explicitly reframe the RAT-D discussion as a conditional scenario whose applicability depends on unverified grain growth.
  2. [§3.1.4, §3.2.2, Figs. 7 and 16] The transition temperatures 19.8 K (North) and 25 K (Center), as well as the I = 850 mJy/beam and N(H2) = 5×10^22 cm^-2 splits, are selected post hoc from the same P–Td data that the RAT-D interpretation is meant to explain. No independent criterion, break-point test, or cross-validation is given, so the pre/post slopes are not a falsifiable test of RAT-D. Please add a robustness analysis, e.g., fitting a broken power law with a free break temperature, or repeating the P–Td analysis for several thresholds and showing that the inferred turnover is not an artifact of the chosen cut.
  3. [§3.1.4 and Fig. 11] The high-Td core pixels are also the high-N(H2) pixels (Figure 11, right panel), and P decreases monotonically with N(H2) (Figure 6). The observed P–Td turnover could therefore be a projection of the P–N(H2) polarization hole rather than an independent grain-disruption signature. No stratification by column density is presented. Please show the P–Td relation in restricted N(H2) bins, or fit a joint relation P(Td, N(H2)), before attributing the turnover to RAT-D.
  4. [§3.2.2, Eq. (6)] The assumed tensile strength S_max = 10^5 erg cm^-3 is load-bearing because a_disr ∝ S_max^{1/4}. Raising S_max to 10^6 or 10^7 erg cm^-3 increases a_disr by factors of about 1.8 and 3.2, respectively, which makes the required condition a_max > a_disr even harder to satisfy and could remove the RAT-D window entirely. Please provide a sensitivity analysis over the plausible range S_max ≈ 10^5–10^7 erg cm^-3 and discuss how the inferred disrupted sizes and the P–Td interpretation change.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.1.4] The sentence "We find similar trends with P − I plot in Figure 4" appears to refer to Figure 5, since Figure 4 is the S/N bar chart.
  2. [Table 1] For P×S vs. Td in the Center region with Td < 19.8 K, the reported slope is −3.35 ± 0.12, while the text and the running means describe an initial increase; please clarify whether this slope applies to a different subsample or is a typo.
  3. [Figure 16 caption] The caption states that horizontal lines are drawn at a = 0.08 μm and 0.8 μm, whereas the text quotes a_disr ≈ 0.86 μm in the North; use consistent values or label the line as approximate.
  4. [Appendix A] The synthetic versus observed intensity comparison in Figure 19 is qualitative; a correlation coefficient, residual RMS, or radial profile would make the missing-flux discussion more quantitative.
  5. [References] Tram et al. (2024) and Truong & Hoang (2024) are cited as arXiv preprints; update to the published versions if they are now available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction; RAT-D evidence rests on an unmeasured amax assumption, which is a support gap rather than a circular step.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular in the sense of Eq. X reducing to Eq. Y by construction or a fitted parameter being renamed a prediction. The RAT-A and RAT-D calculations are not fit to the polarization data: aalign and adisr are evaluated from published analytic formulas (Hoang et al. 2021; Hoang et al. 2022a) using independently derived Herschel temperature and column-density maps and adopted grain parameters; the observed polarization fraction is used afterward for comparison, not as an input to the size calculations. The theoretical framework has external antecedents (Draine & Weingartner 1997; Lazarian & Hoang 2007; Hoang & Lazarian 2008) and has been applied in other clouds, so citing same-team papers for the formulas is a normal citation chain rather than a circular reduction. The main weakness is evidential, not circular: the RAT-D conclusion requires amax greater than adisr, and Section 4.2's cited grain-growth constraints (MRN cutoff near 0.25 micron; Ngoc et al. 2023 lower limit above 0.3 micron) are below the computed adisr values of 0.64-0.86 micron, so the statement that adisr is 'well below these amax values' is not supported by the cited evidence. The transition temperatures are read off the same P-Td data that the RAT-D interpretation is meant to explain, but this is a post-hoc interpretation of an observed turnover rather than a fitted parameter masquerading as a prediction. The paper also explicitly acknowledges alternatives such as B-field tangling and inclination variation within the beam, and it does not invoke a uniqueness theorem to force its choice. Accordingly, the circularity burden is low: some self-citation around the theoretical formulas exists, but the central claim retains independent observational content.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's quantitative conclusions are driven by parameter choices inherited from the same group's prior RAT theory: gamma, Smax, Ncl, phi_sp and the assumed line-of-sight depths. The transition temperatures are taken from the data rather than predicted. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Radiation anisotropy gamma = 0.3 outside cores, 1.0 inside cores
    Adopted by hand in Section 3.2.1; aalign scales as gamma^-2/7 and adisr as gamma^1/2, so it shifts the inferred sizes.
  • Grain tensile strength Smax = 1e5 erg cm^-3
    Assumed for large porous composite grains in Section 3.2.2; directly sets adisr via Smax^1/4.
  • Line-of-sight depth for filament and cores = 0.6 pc filament; 0.19 pc MM1; 0.42 pc MM2; 0.38 pc MM3
    Used in Section 2.2 to convert N(H2) to n(H2); adisr depends on n^3/2, so this geometric assumption is load-bearing.
  • Iron cluster parameters Ncl and phi_sp = Ncl = 100, phi_sp = 0.01
    Chosen in Section 3.3 from Hoang and Lazarian 2016; delta_mag,sp is proportional to Ncl x phi_sp and determines the MRAT threshold.
  • Transition temperatures for RAT-D subsamples = 19.8 K for North and Center, 25 K for Center stronger decline
    Thresholds are read from the observed P-Td relations in Figure 7 and then used to define the hot core pixels where RAT-D is inferred; this is a data-defined split, not an a priori model prediction.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption RAT-A suprathermal rotation and the analytical alignment size formula (Eq. 5) are valid.
    Invoked in Section 3.2.1; the theory is externally supported but depends on grain shape, radiation spectrum and anisotropic radiation.
  • domain assumption RAT-D shatters grains larger than adisr when centrifugal stress exceeds the tensile strength.
    Invoked in Section 3.2.2; the threshold is theoretical and the tensile strength is not measured in G34.
  • domain assumption P x S is a valid proxy for line-of-sight averaged grain alignment efficiency.
    Used in Section 3.1.5 to separate magnetic field tangling from alignment efficiency, following Planck Collaboration 2020.
  • domain assumption Line-of-sight depth equals the filament width of 0.6 pc, and cores are spherical with depth equal to their FWHM diameters.
    Used in Section 2.2 to compute volume densities; the paper notes that filament width estimates are resolution-biased.
  • domain assumption Gas and dust temperatures are equal (Tgas = Td).
    Used in Eqs. 5 and 6; reasonable in cold dense regions but less certain at hot core boundaries.
  • domain assumption Total magnetic field strength is Btot = 1.3 times the plane-of-sky value.
    Used in Section 3.3 for delta_mag,sp; an approximate statistical relation from Crutcher et al. 2004.
  • domain assumption The radiation field strength follows U = (Td / 16.4 K)^6 for silicate grains.
    Used to convert dust temperature into radiation field strength in both aalign and adisr; a standard Draine 2011 relation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of B-fields And dust in interstelLar fiLAments using Dust POLarization (BALLAD-POL): III. Grain alignment and disruption mechanisms in G34.43+0.24 using polarization observations from JCMT/POL-2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FZJWDAME

@misc{pith2026250111634,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: B-fields And dust in interstelLar fiLAments using Dust POLarization (BALLAD-POL): III. Grain alignment and disruption mechanisms in G34.43+0.24 using polarization observations from JCMT/POL-2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FZJWDAME}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11634}
}
abstract

Polarization of starlight and thermal dust emission due to aligned non-spherical grains helps us to trace magnetic field (B-field) morphology in molecular clouds and to study grain alignment mechanisms. In this work, we study grain alignment and disruption mechanisms in a filamentary infrared dark cloud G34.43+0.24 using thermal dust polarization observations from JCMT/POL-2 at 850 $\mu\text{m}$. We study in three sub-regions as North harboring MM3 core, Center harboring MM1 and MM2 cores and South having no core. We find the decrease in polarization fraction P with increasing total intensity and gas column density, known as polarization hole. To disentangle the effect of magnetic field tangling on the polarization hole, we estimate the polarization angle dispersion function. We find depolarizations in North and Center regions are due to decrease in net alignment efficiency of grains but in South region, effect of magnetic field tangling is significant to cause depolarization. To test whether RAdiative Torque (RAT) mechanism can reproduce the observational data, we calculate minimum alignment and disruption sizes of grains using RAT theory and our study finds that RAT alignment mechanism can explain the depolarizations in North and Center regions where B-field tangling effect is less important, except for core regions. We find hints of RAdiative Torque Disruption (RAT-D) in the core regions of MM3 in North, MM1 and MM2 in Center. We also find that the high P value of around 8-20% in the outer regions of the filament can be explained potentially by magnetically enhanced RAT alignment mechanism.

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. OpenAlex reports about 3 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. DHARA: Data Handling and Automated Reduction pipeline for AIMPOL

    astro-ph.IM 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    An automated Python pipeline for AIMPOL dual-beam polarimetry recovers literature polarization values within 2σ for standards and the Alessi 1 cluster and is adaptable to similar instruments.

  2. B-fields And dust in interstelLar fiLAments using Dust POLarization (BALLAD-POL): IV. Grain alignment mechanisms in Cocoon Nebula (IC 5146) using polarization observations from JCMT/POL-2

    astro-ph.GA 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    In the Cocoon Nebula filaments, the polarization hole is best explained by decreasing radiative-torque alignment efficiency, with weak hints of magnetically enhanced alignment in a few pixels.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [1]

    Adam, R., Adane, A., Ade, P. A. R., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731503

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731503 2018

  2. [2]

    2016, A&A, 595, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628809

    Alina, D., Montier, L., Ristorcelli, I., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628809

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628809 2016

  3. [3]

    G., Lazarian, A., & Vaillancourt, J

    Andersson, B. G., Lazarian, A., & Vaillancourt, J. E. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 501, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122414

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122414 2015

  4. [4]

    S., Hasegawa, T., et al

    Arzoumanian, D., Furuya, R. S., Hasegawa, T., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038624 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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038624 2021

  5. [5]

    J., Chepurnov, A., Lazarian, A., & Kim, J

    Bethell, T. J., Chepurnov, A., Lazarian, A., & Kim, J. 2007, ApJ, 663, 1055, doi: 10.1086/516622 Chau Giang, N., Le Gouellec, V. J. M., Hoang, T., Maury, A. J., & Hennebelle, P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.10079, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.10079

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.10079 2007

  6. [6]

    2011, ApJ, 743, 196, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/196 Coud´ e, S., Bastien, P., Houde, M., et al

    Chen, H.-R., Liu, S.-Y., Su, Y.-N., & Wang, M.-Y. 2011, ApJ, 743, 196, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/196 Coud´ e, S., Bastien, P., Houde, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 877, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b23

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/743/2/196 2011

  7. [7]

    Crutcher, R. M. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 29, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125514

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125514 2012

  8. [8]

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

    doi:10.1086/379705 2004

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    Davis, Leverett, J., & Greenstein, J. L. 1951, ApJ, 114, 206, doi: 10.1086/145464

    1951 doi

  2. [10]

    Z., & Mitrofanov, I

    Dolginov, A. Z., & Mitrofanov, I. G. 1976, Ap&SS, 43, 291, doi: 10.1007/BF00640010

    1976 doi

  3. [11]

    Draine, B. T. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 241, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094840 —. 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium

    2003 arXiv

  4. [12]

    T., & Hensley, B

    Draine, B. T., & Hensley, B. S. 2021, ApJ, 919, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0050

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    T., & Weingartner, J

    Draine, B. T., & Weingartner, J. C. 1997, ApJ, 480, 633, doi: 10.1086/304008 Falceta-Gon¸ calves, D., Lazarian, A., & Kowal, G. 2008, ApJ, 679, 537, doi: 10.1086/587479

    1997 doi

  6. [14]

    B., Arce, H

    Foster, J. B., Arce, H. G., Kassis, M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 791, 108, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/791/2/108

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Friberg, P., Bastien, P., Berry, D., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9914, Millimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy VIII, ed. W. S. Holland & J. Zmuidzinas, 991403,...

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    Hall, J. S. 1949, Science, 109, 166, doi: 10.1126/science.109.2825.166

    1949 doi

  9. [17]

    A., Runyan, M

    Harper, D. A., Runyan, M. C., Dowell, C. D., et al. 2018, Journal of Astronomical Instrumentation, 7, 1840008, doi: 10.1142/S2251171718400081

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    2021, ApJ, 913, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf096

    Herranen, J., Lazarian, A., & Hoang, T. 2021, ApJ, 913, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf096

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    Hildebrand, R. H. 1988, QJRAS, 29, 327

    1988

  12. [20]

    Hiltner, W. A. 1949, ApJ, 109, 471, doi: 10.1086/145151

    1949 doi

  13. [21]

    2008, MNRAS, 388, 117, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13249.x —

    Hoang, T., & Lazarian, A. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 117, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13249.x —. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 680, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2240 —. 2016, ApJ, 831, 159, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/159

    2008

  14. [22]

    N., Lee, H., & Ahn, S.-H

    Hoang, T., Tram, L. N., Lee, H., & Ahn, S.-H. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 766, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0763-6

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    N., Lee, H., Diep, P

    Hoang, T., Tram, L. N., Lee, H., Diep, P. N., & Ngoc, N. B. 2021, ApJ, 908, 218, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd54f

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    N., Minh Phan, V

    Hoang, T., Tram, L. N., Minh Phan, V. H., et al. 2022a, AJ, 164, 248, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9af5

    doi

  17. [25]

    2024, ApJ, 965, 183, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a56

    Hoang, T., & Truong, B. 2024, ApJ, 965, 183, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a56

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    D., Ngoc, N

    Hoang, T. D., Ngoc, N. B., Diep, P. N., et al. 2022b, ApJ, 929, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5abf

    doi

  19. [27]

    Hull, C. L. H., Plambeck, R. L., Kwon, W., et al. 2014, ApJS, 213, 13, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/213/1/13

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    Hull, C. L. H., Girart, J. M., Tychoniec, L., et al. 2017, ApJ, 847, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7fe9

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    Jones, T. J. 1989, ApJ, 346, 728, doi: 10.1086/168054

    1989 doi

  22. [30]

    J., Klebe, D., & Dickey, J

    Jones, T. J., Klebe, D., & Dickey, J. M. 1992, ApJ, 389, 602, doi: 10.1086/171233

    1992 doi

  23. [31]

    L., Evans, II, N

    Kauffmann, J., Bertoldi, F., Bourke, T. L., Evans, II, N. J., & Lee, C. W. 2008, A&A, 487, 993, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809481

    2008 doi

  24. [32]

    2018, ApJ, 859, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabd82

    Kwon, J., Doi, Y., Tamura, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabd82

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    W., Tobin, J

    Kwon, W., Stephens, I. W., Tobin, J. J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 879, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab24c8

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    2007, JQSRT, 106, 225, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2007.01.038

    Lazarian, A. 2007, JQSRT, 106, 225, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2007.01.038

    2007 doi

  27. [35]

    G., & Hoang, T

    Lazarian, A., Andersson, B. G., & Hoang, T. 2015, in Polarimetry of Stars and Planetary Systems, ed. L. Kolokolova, J. Hough, & A.-C. Levasseur-Regourd, 81, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1511.03696

    2015 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    2007, MNRAS, 378, 910, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11817.x Le Gouellec, V

    Lazarian, A., & Hoang, T. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 910, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11817.x Le Gouellec, V. J. M., Maury, A. J., Guillet, V., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038404

    2007

  29. [37]

    2020, ApJ, 896, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8e33 26

    Lee, H., Hoang, T., Le, N., & Cho, J. 2020, ApJ, 896, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8e33 26

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    S., Rumpl, W., & Nordsieck, K

    Mathis, J. S., Rumpl, W., & Nordsieck, K. H. 1977, ApJ, 217, 425, doi: 10.1086/155591

    1977 doi

  31. [39]

    Molinari, S., Brand, J., Cesaroni, R., Palla, F., & Palumbo, G. G. C. 1998, A&A, 336, 339

    1998

  32. [40]

    B., Hoang, T., Diep, P

    Ngoc, N. B., Hoang, T., Diep, P. N., & Tram, L. N. 2024, ApJ, 974, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a5e

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    B., Diep, P

    Ngoc, N. B., Diep, P. N., Parsons, H., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd0fc

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    B., Diep, P

    Ngoc, N. B., Diep, P. N., Hoang, T., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdb6e

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    1994, A&A, 291, 943

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

    1994

  36. [44]

    2024, ApJ, 960, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad10ac

    Pan, S., Liu, H.-L., & Qin, S.-L. 2024, ApJ, 960, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad10ac

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    V., Clark, S

    Panopoulou, G. V., Clark, S. E., Hacar, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, L13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142281

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    2019, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 15, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2019.00015

    Pattle, K., & Fissel, L. 2019, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 15, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2019.00015

    2019

  39. [47]

    2019, ApJ, 880, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab286f Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al

    Pattle, K., Lai, S.-P., Hasegawa, T., et al. 2019, ApJ, 880, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab286f Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833885

    2019 doi

  40. [48]

    M., Garay, G., Jackson, J

    Rathborne, J. M., Garay, G., Jackson, J. M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 741, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/120

    2011 doi

  41. [49]

    M., Jackson, J

    Rathborne, J. M., Jackson, J. M., Chambers, E. T., et al. 2010, ApJ, 715, 310, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/1/310

    2010 doi

  42. [50]

    M., Jackson, J

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

    2006 doi

  43. [51]

    M., Jackson, J

    Rathborne, J. M., Jackson, J. M., Zhang, Q., & Simon, R. 2008, ApJ, 689, 1141, doi: 10.1086/592733

    2008 doi

  44. [52]

    2015, ApJ, 803, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/2/70

    Sakai, T., Sakai, N., Furuya, K., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/2/70

    2015 doi

  45. [53]

    2018, ApJ, 857, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaadfd

    Sakai, T., Yanagida, T., Furuya, K., et al. 2018, ApJ, 857, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaadfd

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    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

    2012 doi

  47. [55]

    P., Chuss, D

    Santos, F. P., Chuss, D. T., Dowell, C. D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3407

    2019 doi

  48. [56]

    S., N¨ urnberger, D

    Shepherd, D. S., N¨ urnberger, D. E. A., & Bronfman, L. 2004, ApJ, 602, 850, doi: 10.1086/381050

    2004 doi

  49. [57]

    S., Povich, M

    Shepherd, D. S., Povich, M. S., Whitney, B. A., et al. 2007, ApJ, 669, 464, doi: 10.1086/521331

    2007 doi

  50. [58]

    2018, ApJ, 861, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac4a6

    Soam, A., Pattle, K., Ward-Thompson, D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac4a6

    2018 doi

  51. [59]

    G., et al

    Soam, A., Liu, T., Andersson, B. G., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab39dd

    2019 doi

  52. [60]

    2019, ApJ, 874, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab09f7

    Tatsuuma, M., Kataoka, A., & Tanaka, H. 2019, ApJ, 874, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab09f7

    2019 doi

  53. [61]

    N., & Hoang, T

    Tram, L. N., & Hoang, T. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 923927, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.923927

    2022

  54. [62]

    N., Hoang, T., Lee, H., et al

    Tram, L. N., Hoang, T., Lee, H., et al. 2021a, ApJ, 906, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc6fe

    doi

  55. [63]

    N., Hoang, T., Wiesemeyer, H., et al

    Tram, L. N., Hoang, T., Wiesemeyer, H., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.17088, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.17088

    2024 doi arXiv

  56. [64]

    N., Lee, H., Hoang, T., et al

    Tram, L. N., Lee, H., Hoang, T., et al. 2021b, ApJ, 908, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abccbe

    doi

  57. [65]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.14896, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.14896

    Truong, B., & Hoang, T. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.14896, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.14896

    2024 doi arXiv

  58. [66]

    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

  59. [67]

    2019, ApJ, 876, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab13a2

    Wang, J.-W., Lai, S.-P., Eswaraiah, C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab13a2

    2019 doi

  60. [68]

    Wootten, A., & Thompson, A. R. 2009, IEEE Proceedings, 97, 1463, doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2009.2020572

    2009

  61. [69]

    2014, ApJL, 794, L10, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/794/1/L10

    Yanagida, T., Sakai, T., Hirota, T., et al. 2014, ApJL, 794, L10, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/794/1/L10

    2014 doi

  62. [70]

    M., et al

    Zhang, Q., Qiu, K., Girart, J. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 116, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/116

    2014 doi

  63. [71]

    Zucker, C., & Chen, H. H.-H. 2018, ApJ, 864, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad3b5

    2018 doi

Pith tools

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