Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The Role of Pressure in the Structure and Stability of GMCs in the Andromeda Galaxy

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 M31's giant molecular clouds are confined by galactic disk pressure, not gravity alone.

desk verdict The resolved pressure profiles are a genuine new diagnostic for extragalactic GMCs, and the pressure-confinement reading of the M31 data is plausible, but the turbulence assumption carries more weight than the paper fully acknowledges. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16447 v2 pith:SK3UP47E submitted 2025-01-27 astro-ph.GA

C.J. Lada (1) , J. Forbrich (2) , M.R. Krumholz (3) , E. Keto (1) ((1) Center for Astrophysics-- Harvard & Smithsonian , (2) Centre for Astrophysics Research , University of Hertfordshire , (3) Research School of Astronomy , Astrophysics
show 1 more author
Australian National University)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords giantmolecularcloudsAndromedagalaxyinternalpressureprofilesvirialequilibriumhydrostaticconfinementCOobservationssurfacedensity
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

Giant molecular clouds (GMCs) in the Andromeda galaxy look, at first pass, as though most of them should be flying apart: for 57 percent, kinetic energy exceeds gravitational binding energy. The paper argues the apparent imbalance disappears when pressure is included. For clouds traced to their true outer edges, the external pressure needed for confinement matches the estimated mid-plane pressure of Andromeda's disk. For the best-resolved clouds, the paper measures internal pressure profiles and finds $p_{\rm int}\sim\Sigma^2$, with upward bends at high surface density, matching hydrostatic equilibrium at every radius. If correct, the result reframes GMC lifetimes and star-formation inefficiency.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the resolved pressure profile $p_{\rm int}=\Sigma\,\sigma^2/R$, which turns the virial theorem into a depth-by-depth diagnostic. For each GMC, the authors lay down a nested set of surface-density contours from the cloud edge inward, measuring average $\Sigma$, velocity dispersion $\sigma$, and equivalent radius $R$ of the enclosed area at each contour. Because $p_{\rm int}/\Sigma=\sigma^2/R$ has units of acceleration, plotting $p_{\rm int}$ against $\Sigma$ lets them compare every layer of a cloud with the virial-equilibrium and bound/unbound lines. A hydrostatic cloud should trace a $p_{\rm int}\sim\Sigma^2$ power law, and the outermost measured point reads off the external pressure needed for confinement. The method is areal, so it does not depend on assuming a particular cloud shape.

What would settle it

Resolve the CO emission in M31 GMCs with higher sensitivity and smaller beams to test whether the 3-$\sigma$ boundary is the true molecular edge and whether the line widths are dominated by turbulent eddies smaller than about 10 pc; if the widths instead trace large-scale collapse, the $p_{\rm int}\sim\Sigma^2$ profiles would lose their hydrostatic meaning.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that giant molecular clouds in M31 are not mostly unbound systems drifting apart. When a cloud is traced to its true outer molecular boundary, the external pressure required to hold it together matches the independently estimated mid-plane pressure of Andromeda's disk. For the 48 best-resolved clouds, the paper measures internal pressure profiles and finds the pressure rises with surface density as $p_{\rm int}\sim\Sigma^2$, with many profiles bending upward at the highest surface densities. Both features are exactly what hydrostatic equilibrium predicts at every radial surface of a cloud, including its outer edge. The paper concludes that M31 GMCs are probably in, or close to, pressurized virial equilibrium across their entire structure.

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation assumes the CO line widths come from small-scale turbulent motions rather than bulk collapse or rotation, and that the 3-sigma noise contour marks the true outer edge of the molecular gas; if either fails, the pressure-equilibrium reading is not unique.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 57 percent of M31 GMCs that appear unbound by kinetic-to-gravitational energy can still be confined by external pressure; apparent unboundness is not evidence of rapid dispersal.
  • The $p_{\rm int}\sim\Sigma^2$ pressure profiles imply that individual GMCs are close to virial balance at every internal radius, not merely as whole objects.
  • For GMCs whose outer layers are undetected, the extra pressure needed for confinement scales with the adopted boundary surface density, indicating that the weight of undetected molecular gas supplies the pressure.
  • GMCs supported this way would live longer than a free-fall time, which helps explain why star formation is slower than simple collapse estimates predict.
  • The consistency between required external pressure and the estimated mid-plane pressure connects cloud-scale structure to the galactic environment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same depth-resolved pressure method could be applied to Milky Way clouds mapped in CO and to other nearby galaxies; if $p_{\rm int}\sim\Sigma^2$ holds there, it would give a single observational signature of GMC equilibrium.
  • One testable extension: clouds observed to smaller surface-density thresholds should show the upward curvature beginning at lower $\Sigma$, because the weight of the outer layers that drives the bend would be more fully included.
  • The paper leaves open whether the diffuse GMCs lacking $^{13}$CO emission obey the same equilibrium; measuring their pressure profiles would test whether pressure confinement extends to the entire GMC population.
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. The paper reanalyzes SMA CO observations of GMCs in M31 to argue that, when clouds are traced to near their outermost molecular boundaries, the external pressure required for confinement is consistent with the estimated mid-plane pressure of the galaxy, and that the internal pressure profiles of the best-resolved clouds follow pint ~ Sigma^2 with upward curvature at high surface density, matching hydrostatic-equilibrium expectations. The authors introduce a methodology for constructing radial internal-pressure profiles from thresholded surface-density maps and average CO line profiles, apply it to 48 well-resolved GMCs, and cross-check 12CO results against 13CO profiles for 31 clouds. They explicitly acknowledge that the interpretation assumes the CO line widths are dominated by small-scale turbulence rather than bulk motions.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper materially advances the case that GMCs in a large disk galaxy are pressurized, quasi-equilibrium structures rather than freely-expanding, short-lived objects, with implications for cloud lifetimes and star-formation efficiency. The paper's strengths include a novel and clearly described pressure-profile methodology, the use of both 12CO and 13CO traces as an internal consistency check, a machine-readable table of resolved cloud properties, and an unusually explicit statement of the main assumption and its limitation in Section 4.1. The comparison to mid-plane pressure, however, rests on a lower-limit estimate evaluated at a single galactocentric radius, and the pressure-profile sample is biased toward bound clouds. The load-bearing assumption that line widths are turbulent is stated but not independently verified, and part of the pint ~ Sigma^2 agreement is close to a restatement of the virial condition.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1 and Eq. (2)] The entire pressure and hydrostatic-equilibrium interpretation depends on the premise, stated in the Section 4.1 caveat, that the CO velocity dispersions are due to small-scale (l < 10 pc) turbulent motions. The methodology in Section 3.2.1 constructs sigma from the average CO line profile over the full area enclosed by each surface-density threshold, so a global velocity gradient across the cloud (rotation, shear, or infall) is folded directly into the inferred sigma and hence into pint in Eq. (2). No quantitative test is presented to show that motions on scales l < 10 pc dominate the measured line widths. Because the paper itself concedes that bulk-motion interpretations make the virial and pressure diagrams non-unique, this omitted test is load-bearing for the central claim; a quantitative test (for example, comparing the integrated line width with the magnitude of a resolved spatial velocity gradient, or a higher-resolution check for a subset of clouds) is needed before the hydrostatic-equilibrium conclusion can be accepted.
  2. [Section 3.2.2 and Figures 3-5] The observed relation pint ~ Sigma^2 is close to a restatement of the virial equilibrium condition: for a cloud in virial balance, sigma^2/R ~ G Sigma approximately, so pint = Sigma sigma^2/R ~ G Sigma^2 by construction. Thus the near power-law behavior of the pressure profiles for bound clouds is not independent evidence of hydrostatic equilibrium; the genuinely informative features are the upward curvature at high surface density, the scatter about the virial line, and the location of the profiles relative to the bound/unbound boundary. The paper should explicitly separate these diagnostics and state what fraction of the 48 profiles exhibit statistically significant upward curvature, since Section 4.1 concedes that clouds without such curvature are dynamically ambiguous. Without this, the claim that the power-law behavior is 'in agreement with theoretical expectations' overstates the evidential weight of the pint ~ Sigma^2 part of the relation.
  3. [Section 3.2.2 and Section 5] The pressure-profile analysis is restricted to 48 of 162 GMCs, and this subsample is heavily biased toward gravitationally bound clouds: only 11 of the globally unbound clouds (16%) have profiles, whereas 37 of the globally bound clouds (74%) do. The paper's broad concluding statements about 'GMCs in M31' being in or near pressurized virial equilibrium therefore rest largely on a bound-cloud subsample. The virial-diagram analysis of the full sample does include unbound clouds, but the pressure-profile evidence that is central to the hydrostatic-equilibrium claim does not. The authors should either extend the profile analysis to a representative set of unbound clouds (for example, by relaxing the five-point requirement or by stacking profiles) or explicitly limit the hydrostatic-equilibrium conclusion to the best-resolved, mostly bound subset, and state how the unbound majority constrains the population-level claim.
  4. [Section 3.1 and Eq. (1)] The comparison between required external pressures and the mid-plane pressure is made using a lower-limit estimate pmp >= 1.0 x 10^4 k_B evaluated at a single galactocentric radius of 10 kpc, adopting sigma_* = 90 km/s. While this is a legitimate lower limit, the required pressures for the Av <= 1 clouds span roughly an order of magnitude (5 x 10^3 to 5 x 10^4 k_B), so the consistency claim is tested only at the level of overlap with a lower bound. A stronger test would evaluate Eq. (1) as a function of galactocentric radius for each cloud's actual position and boundary depth, and would propagate the uncertainty in the adopted inputs (Sigma_g, sigma_g, Sigma_*, sigma_*). As written, the claim that mid-plane pressure is 'likely sufficient' is plausible but not as quantitatively robust as the text implies.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 5] The abstract states clouds are traced 'to their outermost boundaries,' while the body text repeatedly says 'near their outermost molecular boundaries'; the abstract should be harmonized with the more cautious formulation used in the discussion.
  2. [Figure 3] Figure 3 is extremely crowded with 48 overlapping tracks, making individual cloud behavior difficult to assess; the paper would benefit from either a montage of small multiples for a representative subset or an interactive figure, with the current version retained only as an overview.
  3. [Figure 4 caption] The caption contains a typo, 'equlibrium' for 'equilibrium', and the phrase 'virial equlibrium' should be corrected.
  4. [References] The reference list contains a typo: 'Betoldi & McKee 1992' in the Introduction should be 'Bertoldi & McKee 1992', matching the alphabetized entry in the reference list.
  5. [Section 3.2.1] The description of the areal-average method would benefit from a statement of how beam convolution affects the innermost radii and surface densities, since the inner points approach the synthesized beam size (~7 pc) and are explicitly oversampled in radius; a brief discussion of the resulting correlated errors would clarify the reliability of the upward curvature at the highest surface densities.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the pint~Sigma^2 'prediction' is the virial relation restated through the definition of pint, and the collapse-vs-equilibrium uniqueness argument leans on a same-author companion paper.

  1. self definitional [Eq. (2) in Sec. 3.2.1; Sec. 4.1]
    "pint(r) = Σ(r) σ²/r. (2) ... That the profiles are also generally parallel to the virial and bound/unbound boundary lines indicates that pint ∼ Σ² for these GMCs and therefore that they are likely in approximate virial balance at all depths."

    By Eq. (2), the measured 'internal pressure' is defined as Σσ²/r. The theoretical virial/hydrostatic relation used as the comparison line is σ²/r ∝ GΣ for a cloud in virial balance, so substituting yields pint ∝ GΣ². Thus the claimed agreement pint∼Σ² is not an independent consequence of hydrostatic equilibrium; it is the equilibrium condition rearranged through the definition of pint. The test reduces to checking whether the data satisfy σ²/r ∝ Σ, i.e., the virial relation itself. The slope agreement is therefore partly tautological, although the normalization, scatter, and the high-Σ upward break remain informative.

  2. self citation load bearing [Sec. 4.1, caveat paragraph]
    "However, such clouds would not be expected to simultaneously produce profiles with upward curvature at high surface densities (Krumholz et al. 2025). For those GMCs with cloud profiles absent of such upward curvature, their dynamical nature is somewhat ambiguous and would require additional information for a more definitive assessment of their dynamical state."

    The paper's caveat concedes that if velocity dispersions trace bulk motions rather than turbulence, the virial/pressure interpretation is not unique. The only stated way to distinguish hydrostatic equilibrium from global collapse is the upward-curvature expectation, and that expectation is supported solely by a citation to Krumholz et al. 2025, a submitted companion paper whose authors overlap with the present paper (Krumholz, Lada, Forbrich). No derivation or independent verification appears in this paper. The central interpretation therefore leans on a same-author, non-external result at the point where the alternative model is excluded.

full rationale

The paper's core data products—surface densities, velocity dispersions, and radii—are measured independently from CO observations and are not forced to lie on the theoretical virial/hydrostatic lines; the comparison has real falsifiable content. The external-pressure comparison uses literature values for M31's stellar and gas surface densities and velocity dispersions (Tamm et al., Johnson et al., Dorman et al.), independent of the present fits, so that aspect is not circular. The main definitional overlap is that Eq. (2) defines pint as Σσ²/r, so the 'prediction' pint∼Σ² is algebraically the same as the virial balance condition σ²/r ∝ Σ; the data matching that slope is a self-consistency check as much as a first-principles confirmation. The upward-curvature signature is empirical and not built into the definition, but its power to exclude global collapse is asserted by citation to an in-press companion paper by the same authors rather than demonstrated here. These issues make the interpretation partially circular, but not forced: the central claim does not reduce entirely to its inputs, and no fitted parameter is being renamed as a prediction.

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

The analysis rests on a small number of adopted inputs: the CO-to-H2 conversion factor from the authors' previous work, the assumed spherical rho ~ r^-1 density model for the virial lines, and the premise that CO velocity dispersions are turbulent. No new physical entities are introduced; the paper's contribution is an observational technique and its application.

free parameters (2)
  • alpha_CO (CO-to-H2 conversion factor) = 10 ± 4.5 Msun pc^-2 (K km s^-1)^-1
    Measured for the same SMA sample in Viaene et al. (2021) and used to convert 12CO luminosity to mass for every GMC. The 40% uncertainty in alpha_CO is quoted as the dominant source of scatter in the pressure profiles, so the central relations depend on it.
  • Mid-plane pressure inputs at 10 kpc (Sigma_g, sigma_g, Sigma_*, sigma_*) = 10 Msun pc^-2, 9 km/s, 210 Msun pc^-2, 90 km/s
    Taken from Johnson et al. (2016), Tamm et al. (2012), Rahmani et al. (2016), and Dorman et al. (2015) to evaluate Equation (1). The choice sigma_* = 90 km/s is explicitly made to obtain a lower limit to p_mp; the consistency claim depends on these adopted values.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Spherical cloud geometry with density profile rho(r) ~ r^-1 is used to place the virial equilibrium and bound/unbound lines on the virial diagram.
    Section 3.1 states the lines in Figure 1 were calculated assuming this density structure following Lada et al. (2024). The text acknowledges the line locations are sensitive to this assumption.
  • domain assumption CO velocity dispersions are dominated by small-scale turbulence rather than bulk systematic motions such as global collapse.
    Section 4.1 caveat: 'Our underlying premise is that the CO velocity dispersions are due to relatively small scale (l <10 pc) turbulent motions. If the dispersions were instead due to bulk systematic motions such as global collapse then our interpretation... would not necessarily be unique.' This premise is load-bearing for the pressure interpretation.
  • domain assumption For the deepest images, the 3-sigma noise boundary approximates the true molecular boundary of the GMC (Av ~ 0.5 mag).
    Section 3.1 argues this using the K029 field where CO contours match HST extinction features. The demonstration is limited to one field; the conclusion that mid-plane pressure suffices applies only to clouds whose measured boundary is near the true one.
  • standard math The virial theorem with an external surface pressure term (Bertoldi & McKee 1992) applies to the M31 GMCs.
    Used throughout Section 3.1 to derive the required confining pressure from measured Sigma, sigma, and R. This is a standard result but its applicability assumes the clouds are in or near equilibrium.
  • domain assumption Radius r = sqrt(A/pi) is an appropriate scale for computing turbulent pressure pint = Sigma sigma^2 / r.
    Section 3.2.1 defines r from the area enclosed by each surface density contour to make the analysis geometry-independent. The physical interpretation of r as the turbulent support scale is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Role of Pressure in the Structure and Stability of GMCs in the Andromeda Galaxy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SK3UP47E

@misc{pith2026250116447,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Role of Pressure in the Structure and Stability of GMCs in the Andromeda Galaxy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SK3UP47E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16447}
}
abstract

We revisit the role of pressure in the structure, stability and confinement of Giant Molecular Clouds (GMCs) in light of recently published observations and analysis of the GMCs in the Andromeda galaxy (M31). That analysis showed, that in the absence of any external pressure, most GMCs (57\% by number) in M31 would be gravitationally unbound. Here, after a more detailed examination of the global measurements of surface densities and velocity dispersions, we find that GMCs in M31, when they can be traced to their outermost boundaries, require external pressures for confinement that are consistent with estimates for the mid-plane pressure of this galaxy. We introduce and apply a novel methodology to measure the radial profile of internal pressure within any GMC that is spatially resolved by the CO observations. We show that for the best resolved examples in M31 the internal pressures increase steeply with surface density in a power-law fashion with $p_{int} \sim \Sigma^2$. At high surface densities many of these extragalactic GMCs break from the single power-law and exhibit upward curvature. Both these characteristics of the variation of internal pressure with surface density are in agreement with theoretical expectations for hydrostatic equilibrium at each radial surface of a GMC, including the outermost boundary.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16447 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The pressurized viral equilibrium diagram for GMCs in M 31. The solid lines are the theoretically predicted relations for GMCs in virial equilibrium with external surface pressure for different varies of the external pressure (i.e., p/k = 0, 104 , 105 , and 106 ). The dashed line divides unbound and bound clouds in the absence of any external pressure (i.e., p/k = 0). The data color-coded by the value of the outer b… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The surface density map derived from the J=2-1 12CO observations of the GMCs K029A and B superimposed on an optical (F475W) HST image of the corresponding region illustrating the close correspondence between the extents of the observed CO emission and extinction produced by the clouds. The lowest two dashed contours correspond to iso-density contours at the 1 and 2 σnoise levels of image noise. The lowest solid cont… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Internal pressure verses surface density profiles for the 48 best resolved GMCs in our M31 sample. Each track represents the locus of points for an individual GMC in this space. The individual points in each trace are separated by the 1 σ internal uncertainty in each coordinate. Only sources with five or more measurements and single component (unconfused) 12CO line profiles are included in this GMC sample. The solid… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Internal pressure–surface density (pint–Σ) relation for the GMC K001. The solid line is the virial relation with no external pressure term. The dashed line is the boundary between bound and unbound clouds in the absence of a confining pressure, that is, where the kinet…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Internal pressure–surface density (pint-Σ) relation for the GMCs K213A and K098A in M31. The shapes of the two profiles are very similar and coincident within the errors, consistent with virial equilibrium at every boundary surface density or radius for each cloud. Oth…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Internal pressure–surface density(pint–Σ) relations for 12CO (solid symbols) and 13CO (open symbols) for the GMCs K001A (squares) and K270A (circles) in M31. The 12CO and 13CO relations for both sources are very similar in shape and position and coincident within the i…

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. Differential virial analysis: a new technique to determine the dynamical state of molecular clouds

    astro-ph.GA 2025-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A cloud's virial ratio rising with surface density marks a supported cloud, while a flat or falling ratio marks collapse, and most Andromeda clouds show the supported signature.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J., Lada, E

    Alves, J., Lada, C. J., Lada, E. A., et al.\ 1998, , 506, 292. doi:10.1086/306243

    work page doi:10.1086/306243 1998

  2. [2]

    F., Lada, C

    Alves, J. F., Lada, C. J., & Lada, E. A.\ 2001, , 409, 159. doi:10.1038/35051509

    doi:10.1038/35051509 2001

  3. [3]

    F., Lombardi, M., & Lada, C

    Alves, J. F., Lombardi, M., & Lada, C. J.\ 2025, , in press

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    & McKee, C

    Bertoldi, F. & McKee, C. F.\ 1992, , 395, 140. doi:10.1086/171638

    doi:10.1086/171638 1992

  5. [5]

    & Rosolowsky, E.\ 2004, , 612, L29

    Blitz, L. & Rosolowsky, E.\ 2004, , 612, L29. doi:10.1086/424661

    doi:10.1086/424661 2004

  6. [6]

    & Rosolowsky, E.\ 2006, , 650, 933

    Blitz, L. & Rosolowsky, E.\ 2006, , 650, 933. doi:10.1086/505417

    doi:10.1086/505417 2006

  7. [7]

    L., Bournaud, F., Combes, F., et al.\ 2006, , 443, 832

    Block, D. L., Bournaud, F., Combes, F., et al.\ 2006, , 443, 832. doi:10.1038/nature05184

    doi:10.1038/nature05184 2006

  8. [8]

    J., et al.\ 2025, , 536, 3803

    Bosomworth, C., Forbrich, J., Lada, C. J., et al.\ 2025, , 536, 3803. doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2805

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2805 2025

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    J., Williams, B

    Dalcanton, J. J., Williams, B. F., Lang, D., et al.\ 2012, , 200, 18. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/200/2/18

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Bell, E

    Dalcanton, J. J., Bell, E. F., Choi, Y., et al.\ 2023, , 166, 80. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/accc83

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Koper, E., Israel, F

    Dame, T. M., Koper, E., Israel, F. P., et al.\ 1993, , 418, 730. doi:10.1086/173430

    1993 doi

  4. [12]

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/788/2/L38

    Dierickx, M., Blecha, L., & Loeb, A.\ 2014, , 788, L38. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/788/2/L38

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    E., Guhathakurta, P., Seth, A

    Dorman, C. E., Guhathakurta, P., Seth, A. C., et al.\ 2015, , 803, 24. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/24

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    & Bell, E

    D'Souza, R. & Bell, E. F.\ 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 737. doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0533-x

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    G.\ 1989, , 338, 178

    Elmegreen, B. G.\ 1989, , 338, 178. doi:10.1086/167192

    1989 doi

  8. [16]

    J.\ 1999, , 37, 311

    Evans, N. J.\ 1999, , 37, 311. doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.37.1.311

    1999 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Heyer, M., Miville-Desch \^e nes, M.-A., et al.\ 2021, , 920, 126

    Evans, N. J., Heyer, M., Miville-Desch \^e nes, M.-A., et al.\ 2021, , 920, 126. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1425

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    M., Lada, C

    Faesi, C. M., Lada, C. J., & Forbrich, J.\ 2018, , 857, 19. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaad60

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    B., Blackman, E

    Field, G. B., Blackman, E. G., & Keto, E. R.\ 2011, , 416, 710. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19091.x

    2011

  12. [20]

    J., Viaene, S., et al.\ 2020, , 890, 42

    Forbrich, J., Lada, C. J., Viaene, S., et al.\ 2020, , 890, 42. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab68de

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    doi:10.1093/pasj/51.6.745

    Fukui, Y., Mizuno, N., Yamaguchi, R., et al.\ 1999, , 51, 745. doi:10.1093/pasj/51.6.745

    1999 doi

  14. [22]

    & Kwan, J.\ 1974, , 189, 441

    Goldreich, P. & Kwan, J.\ 1974, , 189, 441. doi:10.1086/152821

    1974 doi

  15. [23]

    & Dame, T

    Heyer, M. & Dame, T. M.\ 2015, , 53, 583. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122324

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1092

    Heyer, M., Krawczyk, C., Duval, J., et al.\ 2009, , 699, 1092. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1092

    2009 doi

  17. [25]

    C., Seth, A

    Johnson, L. C., Seth, A. C., Dalcanton, J. J., et al.\ 2016, , 827, 33. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/33

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    Kasparova, A. V. & Zasov, A. V.\ 2008, Astronomy Letters, 34, 152. doi:10.1007/s11443-008-3003-4

    2008 doi

  19. [27]

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/184/1/1

    Kawamura, A., Mizuno, Y., Minamidani, T., et al.\ 2009, , 184, 1. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/184/1/1

    2009 doi

  20. [28]

    Keto, E. R. & Myers, P. C.\ 1986, , 304, 466. doi:10.1086/164181

    1986 doi

  21. [29]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2404.10979

    Keto, E.\ 2024, arXiv:2404.10979. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2404.10979

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    Keto, E., Lada, C. J. & Forbrich, J. 2025, , submitted

    2025

  23. [31]

    Krumholz, M. R. & McKee, C. F.\ 2005, , 630, 250. doi:10.1086/431734

    2005 doi

  24. [32]

    R., Dekel, A., & McKee, C

    Krumholz, M. R., Dekel, A., & McKee, C. F.\ 2012, , 745, 69. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/69

    2012 doi

  25. [33]

    R., Lada, C

    Krumholz, M. R., Lada, C. J. & Forbrich J.\ 2025, Open Journal of Astrophysics, submitted

    2025

  26. [34]

    N., & Thaddeus, P.\ 1989, , 70, 731

    Leisawitz, D., Bash, F. N., & Thaddeus, P.\ 1989, , 70, 731. doi:10.1086/191357

    1989 doi

  27. [35]

    J., Margulis, M., Sofue, Y., et al.\ 1988, , 328, 143

    Lada, C. J., Margulis, M., Sofue, Y., et al.\ 1988, , 328, 143. doi:10.1086/166275

    1988 doi

  28. [36]

    J., Lada, E

    Lada, C. J., Lada, E. A., Clemens, D. P., et al.\ 1994, , 429, 694. doi:10.1086/174354

    1994 doi

  29. [37]

    J., Bergin, E

    Lada, C. J., Bergin, E. A., Alves, J. F., et al.\ 2003, , 586, 286. doi:10.1086/367610

    2003 doi

  30. [38]

    J., Lombardi, M., & Alves, J

    Lada, C. J., Lombardi, M., & Alves, J. F.\ 2010, , 724, 687. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/687

    2010 doi

  31. [39]

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

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    J., Forbrich, J., Lombardi, M., et al.\ 2012, , 745, 190

    Lada, C. J., Forbrich, J., Lombardi, M., et al.\ 2012, , 745, 190. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/190

    2012 doi

  33. [41]

    J., Muench, A

    Lada, C. J., Muench, A. A., Rathborne, J., et al.\ 2008, , 672, 410. doi:10.1086/523837

    2008 doi

  34. [42]

    J., Forbrich, J., Petitpas, G., et al.\ 2024, , 966, 193

    Lada, C. J., Forbrich, J., Petitpas, G., et al.\ 2024, , 966, 193. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad38bf

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    B.\ 1981, , 194, 809

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

    1981 doi

  36. [44]

    K., Walter, F., Brinks, E., et al.\ 2008, , 136, 2782

    Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., Brinks, E., et al.\ 2008, , 136, 2782. doi:10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2782

    2008 doi

  37. [45]

    A., Lada, C

    Lewis, J. A., Lada, C. J., & Dame, T. M.\ 2022, , 931, 9. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5d58

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    M., Heyer, M

    Loinard, L., Dame, T. M., Heyer, M. H., et al.\ 1999, , 351, 1087

    1999

  39. [47]

    J.\ 2015, , 576, L1

    Lombardi, M., Alves, J., & Lada, C. J.\ 2015, , 576, L1. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525650

    2015 doi

  40. [48]

    J., & Alves, J.\ 2010, , 512, A67

    Lombardi, M., Lada, C. J., & Alves, J.\ 2010, , 512, A67. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912670

    2010 doi

  41. [49]

    doi:10.1086/185618

    Maloney, P.\ 1990, , 348, L9. doi:10.1086/185618

    1990 doi

  42. [50]

    doi:10.1086/166876

    Maloney, P.\ 1988, , 334, 761. doi:10.1086/166876

    1988 doi

  43. [51]

    W., Irwin, M

    McConnachie, A. W., Irwin, M. J., Ferguson, A. M. N., et al.\ 2005, , 356, 979. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08514.x

    2005

  44. [52]

    J.\ 2017, , 834, 57

    Miville-Desch \^e nes, M.-A., Murray, N., & Lee, E. J.\ 2017, , 834, 57

    2017

  45. [53]

    J., Bigiel, F., et al.\ 2023, , 521, 3348

    Neumann, L., Gallagher, M. J., Bigiel, F., et al.\ 2023, , 521, 3348. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad424

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    Padoan, P., Jones, B. J. T., & Nordlund, A . P.\ 1997, , 474, 730. doi:10.1086/303482

    1997 doi

  47. [55]

    Passot, T., Pouquet, A., & Woodward, P.\ 1988, , 197, 228

    1988

  48. [56]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2951

    Rahmani, S., Lianou, S., & Barmby, P.\ 2016, , 456, 4128. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2951

    2016 doi

  49. [57]

    S., Goodman, A

    Rice, T. S., Goodman, A. A., Bergin, E. A., et al.\ 2016, , 822, 52

    2016

  50. [58]

    M., et al.\ 2016, , 818, 144

    Roman-Duval, J., Heyer, M., Brunt, C. M., et al.\ 2016, , 818, 144. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/144

    2016 doi

  51. [59]

    M., Heyer, M., et al.\ 2010, , 723, 492

    Roman-Duval, J., Jackson, J. M., Heyer, M., et al.\ 2010, , 723, 492

    2010

  52. [60]

    doi:10.1086/509249

    Rosolowsky, E.\ 2007, , 654, 240. doi:10.1086/509249

    2007 doi

  53. [61]

    E., Caldwell, N., McDowell, J., et al.\ 2012, , 758, 133

    Sanders, N. E., Caldwell, N., McDowell, J., et al.\ 2012, , 758, 133. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/133

    2012 doi

  54. [62]

    & Leroy, A

    Schinnerer, E. & Leroy, A. K.\ 2024, , 62, 369. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-052651

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    M., Rivolo, A

    Solomon, P. M., Rivolo, A. R., Barrett, J., et al.\ 1987, , 319, 730. doi:10.1086/165493

    1987 doi

  56. [64]

    H.\ 1977, , 214, 488

    Shu, F. H.\ 1977, , 214, 488. doi:10.1086/155274

    1977 doi

  57. [65]

    & Dalgarno, A.\ 1995, , 99, 565

    Sternberg, A. & Dalgarno, A.\ 1995, , 99, 565. doi:10.1086/192198

    1995 doi

  58. [66]

    K., Ostriker, E

    Sun, J., Leroy, A. K., Ostriker, E. C., et al.\ 2020, , 892, 148. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab781c

    2020 doi

  59. [67]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220065

    Tamm, A., Tempel, E., Tenjes, P., et al.\ 2012, , 546, A4. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220065

    2012 doi

  60. [68]

    Tabatabaei, F. S. & Berkhuijsen, E. M.\ 2010, , 517, A77. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913593

    2010 doi

  61. [69]

    doi:10.1086/173847

    Vazquez-Semadeni, E.\ 1994, , 423, 681. doi:10.1086/173847

    1994 doi

  62. [70]

    F.\ 1997, , 474, 292

    V \'a zquez-Semadeni, E., Ballesteros-Paredes, J., & Rodr \' guez, L. F.\ 1997, , 474, 292. doi:10.1086/303432

    1997 doi

  63. [71]

    J., et al.\ 2021, , 912, 68

    Viaene, S., Forbrich, J., Lada, C. J., et al.\ 2021, , 912, 68. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe629

    2021 doi

  64. [72]

    N., Boulanger, F., & Ball, R.\ 1987, , 321, L145

    Vogel, S. N., Boulanger, F., & Ball, R.\ 1987, , 321, L145. doi:10.1086/185022

    1987 doi

  65. [73]

    L., Prantzos, N., et al.\ 2009, , 505, 497

    Yin, J., Hou, J. L., Prantzos, N., et al.\ 2009, , 505, 497

    2009

  66. [74]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2409.11588

    Zamora-Aviles, M., Camacho, V., Ballesteros-Paredes, J., et al.\ 2024, arXiv:2409.11588. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2409.11588

    2024 doi arXiv

  67. [75]

    & Evans, N

    Zuckerman, B. & Evans, N. J.\ 1974, , 192, L149. doi:10.1086/181613

    1974 doi

  68. [76]

    & Palmer, P.\ 1974, , 12, 279

    Zuckerman, B. & Palmer, P.\ 1974, , 12, 279. doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.12.090174.001431

    1974

Pith tools

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