Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 61 references

Dense gas tracers in and between spiral arms: from Giant Molecular Filaments to star-forming clumps

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Across two giant molecular filaments, N2H+ emission is uniform between a spiral arm and an interarm region, while CO, HCN, and HCO+ brighten in the arm, implying dense-gas ratio differences are set by moderate-density gas.

desk verdict Valuable new maps and a thorough statistical analysis of dense gas tracers, but the central arm-interarm comparison is probably confounded by a factor-of-1.55 distance mismatch that is never corrected for in the analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24711 v2 pith:5HICYHEF submitted 2025-05-30 astro-ph.GA

O. Feher , S. E. Ragan , F. D. Priestley , P. C. Clark This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords densegastracersgiantmolecularfilamentsspiralarmsinterarmN2H+HCNHCO+MilkyWaystarformation
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 maps HCN(1−0), HCO+(1−0), and N2H+(1−0) across two Giant Molecular Filaments in the Milky Way, one in the Sagittarius spiral arm and one in an interarm region, and compares them with 12CO(3−2), 13CO(3−2), and far-infrared dust-based column density maps. The authors find that N2H+ has the smallest filling factor of all tracers but covers the highest column-density structures best, and its emission level is nearly the same in the arm and the interarm, whereas 13CO, HCN, and HCO+ are brighter in the arm. Consequently, variations in ratios such as N2H+/HCN and N2H+/13CO are driven by the moderate-density gas tracers, not by the dense star-forming gas that N2H+ reports. The paper argues that because variations within a single filament often exceed differences between the arm and interarm, the choice of dense-gas tracer and of spatial resolution strongly affects how star formation activity is inferred, particularly in unresolved extragalactic observations.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a multi-tracer, multi-scale comparison built on 30-m single-dish maps of HCN(1−0), HCO+(1−0), and N2H+(1−0) together with the COHRS 12CO(3−2), CHIMPS 13CO(3−2), and PPMAP N(H2)dust maps. Filling factors, cumulative emission fractions, characteristic column densities N(H2)char, line-to-mass ratios h_Q, and six integrated-intensity ratios are computed per observing region, per filament, and inside dendrogram-defined N2H+ clumps; two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests compare arm versus interarm and filament versus clump distributions. The load-bearing identity is that N2H+ behaves unlike the other tracers: its emission is concentrated in a tiny fraction of the area, appears only above high column density, and is uniform across environments, while 13CO, HCN, and HCO+ respond to the arm/interarm difference.

What would settle it

Observe the same five tracers toward a distance- and mass-matched sample of several Sagittarius-arm and interarm GMFs; the claim predicts N2H+ integrated-intensity distributions remain statistically indistinguishable (as in the KS test p=0.39 here) while 13CO, HCN, and HCO+ distributions shift brighter in the arm. If N2H+ turns out to brighten or change filling factor systematically with environment in that sample, the uniform-N2H+ claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the two GMFs studied here, N2H+(1−0) is the best tracer of truly dense gas: it has the lowest global filling factor (1.5% in the arm, 7.1% in the interarm), yet its cumulative emission rises latest with column density and its characteristic column density N(H2)char is the highest among the five species (2.4×$10^{22}$ $cm^{-2}$ in the arm, 1.5×$10^{22}$ $cm^{-2}$ in the interarm). While 13CO(3−2), HCN(1−0), and HCO+(1−0) are significantly brighter in the arm filament than in the interarm filament, N2H+ emission is statistically consistent between the two environments (KS test p = 0.39 on filament scale). The arm–interarm differences in the N2H+/13CO and N2H+/HCN ratios therefore come from the 13CO and HCN denominators, not from N2H+. Inside the N2H+-clumps, HCO+ is the only tracer whose emission distribution differs between the two environments; the clumps show the same line-ratio distributions. A consequence is that estimating the global star formation rate of these GMFs from Hi-GAL dust clumps yields more than four times the rate obtained when only N2H+-traced structures are used, even though the arm still contributes about 65% of the total in either case.

Load-bearing premise

The arm-versus-interarm conclusions rest on two filaments, one per environment; if these particular clouds are not representative of their environment, the uniform N2H+ result and the brightening of the other tracers could be coincidences of cloud identity rather than environment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In extragalactic observations, an unresolved increase in N2H+/HCN or N2H+/13CO should be read as a change in the moderate-density gas (CO, HCN, HCO+) rather than as a change in the dense, star-forming gas.
  • Star formation rates estimated from dust-based clump catalogs alone may overestimate the true rate by more than a factor of four relative to N2H+-based estimates.
  • Observed line-ratio variation within a single filament can be larger than the arm–interarm difference, so single-beam ratio measurements are poor environment indicators.
  • The uniformity of N2H+ between arm and interarm supports the view that once dense clumps form, their internal properties become largely independent of the large-scale environment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's two-cloud sample cannot separate environment from cloud identity; a natural testable extension is to map the same tracer set over a distance-matched sample of several arm and interarm GMFs, predicting N2H+ filling factor and brightness remain low and uniform while HCN and 13CO follow the arm.
  • The arm's lower clump fraction (2.8% versus 7.0% at the 3σ boundary) might partly reflect beam dilution of the more distant interarm filament; the authors note the interarm cloud is more distant, and the larger apparent clump sizes there are consistent with this bias.
  • The near-constant HCO+/HCN ratio across environments, alongside individually varying HCN and HCO+, suggests these two molecules respond to the same moderate-density gas and radiation conditions, so their ratio may be a more robust environment-independent scale than either line alone.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents IRAM 30m maps of HCN(1-0), HCO+(1-0), and N2H+(1-0) toward two Giant Molecular Filaments, one in the Sagittarius spiral arm and one in an interarm region, combined with COHRS 12CO(3-2), CHIMPS 13CO(3-2), and Herschel/PPMAP dust column density maps. The authors compute filling factors, cumulative coverage and cumulative emission fractions as functions of column density, molecular line ratios, line-to-mass ratios, clump-averaged correlations, and two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests. The central claim is that N2H+ has the lowest filling factor but traces the highest-column-density gas best, that its emission is similar in the arm and the interarm, and that the observed variations in ratios such as N2H+/HCN and N2H+/13CO are driven by the moderate-density tracers 13CO, HCN, and HCO+, not by the dense star-forming gas traced by N2H+.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, this is a useful multi-tracer, multi-scale measurement from parsec-sized clumps to tens-of-parsec filaments, directly relevant to interpreting unresolved extragalactic dense-gas observations. The paper's strengths are its direct, checkable observational quantities; the data availability statement; the use of several independent statistical descriptions (cumulative distributions, box plots, Spearman correlations, KS tests); and the explicit acknowledgment of its own limitations in Sections 4.1.2 and 4.2. The main novelty is the contrast between N2H+ and the other tracers across two environments. However, the environmental interpretation is currently underdetermined by the one-arm/one-interarm sample and by the lack of physical-resolution matching, so the significance as a general statement about environments is not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections 2.3, 3.2, 3.3, 4.2, Table 5] The arm/interarm comparison is made at matched angular resolution but not at matched physical resolution. From the physical areas quoted in Section 4.2 (interarm 13CO 2-sigma contour area 316.6 pc^2 versus arm 132.2 pc^2 over nearly equal angular areas), the interarm GMF appears to be about 1.55 times more distant. The IRAM 27-arcsec and JCMT 15-arcsec beams therefore subtend about 1.55 times larger linear scales in the interarm. Since Table 2 shows filling factors of 1-30%, the emission is clumpy and partially resolved, so beam dilution will act more strongly on the interarm maps. This affects the filling factors, the cumulative fractions in Figs 9-11, the line ratios in Table 3, and the KS tests in Table 5, yet the only mention of beam dilution in Section 4.2 concerns clump sizes. The central claim that 13CO, HCN, and HCO+ are brighter in the arm while N2H+ is similar could be a distance-dependent resolution effect. I ask the authors to either convolve all maps to a common physical resolution, or model the beam-dilution effect quantitatively and show that the conclusions survive, or explicitly restate the conclusions as angular-resolution-dependent statements.
  2. [Sections 4.1.2, 4.2, Conclusions] The environmental conclusions rest on one spiral-arm GMF and one interarm GMF. The paper itself states in Section 4.1.2 that the data 'does not allow for conclusions as a function of Galactic radius' and in Section 4.2 that 'to speculate on the underlying effects requires more observational examples.' Despite these caveats, the abstract and conclusions (iii) present as general findings that the dense-gas tracer behaviour is similar across environments and that ratio differences are driven by moderate-density gas. I recommend either enlarging the sample, or consistently framing the results as a two-object case study and removing the generalizing statements, so that the limitations stated in the text are reflected in the abstract and conclusions.
  3. [Section 4.2] The clump fraction comparison is sensitive to partly subjective choices and to the distance difference. The arm values are 1.5% at the 2-sigma 13CO contour and 2.8% at the 3-sigma contour, while the interarm values are 2.6% and 7.0%, so the arm/interarm ratio changes from about 1.7 to 2.5 depending on the contour threshold. In addition, because the interarm GMF is more distant, the same angular clump size corresponds to a larger physical area, and the authors themselves note that beam dilution 'might make the detected clumps appear larger there.' A quantitative demonstration that the arm/interarm difference in clump fraction survives both the contour choice and the distance-dependent resolution is needed before this result can support the star-formation discussion in Section 4.2.
  4. [Section 3.4 and Table 5] The statistical presentation needs clarification. In Section 3.4 the text reads 'fairly tight correlations (p-value>0.5)'; a p-value above 0.5 would indicate no significant correlation, so this should read 'correlation coefficient > 0.5' or similar. The description of the KS tests in Section 4.1.2 says the data are binned into 30 bins before the tests, which would invalidate the use of ks_2samp on continuous distributions; if the binning is only for the histograms in Figs 16-17, this should be stated explicitly. The caption of Table 5 also misnumbers its columns, referring to repeated '(3)' and four entries while the text refers to the second, third, fourth, and fifth columns.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2/2.3] Please state explicitly that the maps are resampled to a common pixel size but not convolved to a common angular resolution before the point-by-point comparisons, and note the expected effect on ratio maps such as N2H+/13CO where the two transitions have different beam sizes.
  2. [Section 4.2] The distances to the two GMFs are not given explicitly in this paper; providing them, together with the physical beam sizes at each distance, would make the beam-dilution discussion reproducible without requiring the reader to reconstruct the distances from the quoted physical areas.
  3. [Table 5] A closing parenthesis is missing in the HCO+ row for the KS2 arm column ('1.3×10−6' should be '1.3×10−6)'), and the column headings should be renumbered to match the text.
  4. [Section 3.1 and Table 1] The velocity integration windows in Table 1 vary by region and by species, especially for HCO+. A short justification of why the windows for HCO+ differ from those of the other species at the same v_LSR would help the reader assess how much of the measured ratio differences could come from the integration choices.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's conclusions are direct statistics on observed maps, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction and no load-bearing self-citation chain.

full rationale

I find no circular step that meets the bar of Eq X = Eq Y by construction or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The integrated intensities, filling factors, cumulative fractions, characteristic column densities, line ratios, and KS-test results are all direct statistics computed from observed maps (IRAM 30m, CHIMPS, COHRS, and Herschel/PPMAP). The quantity N(H2)char is explicitly defined as the column density below which 50% of a line's emission originates, so stating that N2H+ has the highest N(H2)char is a restatement of the measured cumulative fraction, not a derived physical prediction; this is descriptive quantile reporting, not circular derivation. The N2H+-clump catalog is inherited from the same authors' Fehér et al. (2024), and the paper cites Priestley et al. (2023b) for the chemical reliability of N2H+, but the central arm-versus-interarm comparisons are computed from the newly presented HCN and HCO+ maps together with published CO and dust data; the conclusions do not reduce to accepting those self-citations. The paper also flags its own limitations: Section 4.1.2 states the data 'does not allow for conclusions as a function of Galactic radius,' and Section 4.2 notes 'to speculate on the underlying effects requires more observational examples' and acknowledges that 'beam dilution towards the more distant cloud, the interarm GMF, might make the detected clumps appear larger there.' These caveats weaken generalizability and raise a possible resolution-matching concern, but they are honesty about confounds and sample size, not circularity. The derivation chain is self-contained as observational analysis.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central claims rest on standard astronomical calibrations (dust column density, distance estimates, SFR relation) and on the assumption that N2H+ selects the dense star-forming gas; the latter is supported by prior work including the authors' own models. Several detection and integration thresholds are chosen by hand and affect the exact numbers.

free parameters (5)
  • 3-sigma detection threshold for filling factors and cumulative fractions = 3 (multiple of sigma_int)
    Used to define detected emission in Sections 3.2 and 3.3; changing this threshold shifts absolute filling factors but the relative ordering of species is likely stable.
  • 2-sigma threshold for molecular ratio maps and averages = 2 (multiple of sigma_int)
    Used for ratios (Section 3.3) and clump averages (Table B1); excludes low-S/N pixels, affecting average ratios.
  • Per-region velocity integration windows = values in Table 1, e.g., 60-105 km/s for interarm, 31-64 km/s for arm 13CO
    Chosen by visual inspection of spectral cubes (Section 3.1) to encompass the velocity component while minimizing noise; different windows for HCO+ could affect measured integrated intensities.
  • Column density bin percentages for line-to-mass ratio = [5-10% by 0.5%, 10-30% by 5%, 50, 80, 100% of N(H2)_dust max]
    Defined in Section 3.3 to balance sampling across regions; affects the shape of the hQ curves.
  • Clump fraction contour level = 2 sigma_int (2.4 K km/s) and 3 sigma_int of W(13CO)
    Used in Section 4.2 to define the 'moderate-density gas' area for the clump fraction; contours are partly subjective ('largely closed-contour areas').
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption PPMAP dust column density maps accurately trace total H2 column density
    The analysis compares molecular line emission to N(H2)_dust from Herschel PPMAP (Marsh et al. 2017) assuming optically thin dust and a fixed opacity law; errors in the opacity law propagate into all column-density-based results (Sections 2.3, 3.2).
  • domain assumption N2H+(1-0) emission traces dense star-forming gas
    The paper uses N2H+-selected clumps as the dense, potentially star-forming population; support comes from the authors' previous modeling (Priestley et al. 2023a,b) and Kauffmann et al. 2017, not from a measurement of volume density in this work (Sections 1, 4.2).
  • domain assumption The two GMFs are representative of arm and interarm environments
    All environment comparisons treat the six regions as two classes, arm vs interarm; with one cloud per class, unmeasured cloud-to-cloud scatter could mimic or mask environmental effects (Sections 4.1, 5).
  • domain assumption Elia et al. (2022) SFR formula applies to these clumps
    The SFR comparison in Section 4.2 uses a literature mass-to-SFR relation without re-calibration; the resulting factor-of-4 difference is illustrative, not a precise measurement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dense gas tracers in and between spiral arms: from Giant Molecular Filaments to star-forming clumps." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5HICYHEF

@misc{pith2026250524711,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dense gas tracers in and between spiral arms: from Giant Molecular Filaments to star-forming clumps},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5HICYHEF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24711}
}
abstract

Giant Molecular Filaments are opportune locations in our Galaxy to study the star-forming interstellar matter and its accumulation on spatial scales comparable to those now becoming available for external galaxies. We mapped the emission of HCN(1$-$0), HCO$^+$(1$-$0), and N$_2$H$^+$(1$-$0) towards two of these filaments, one associated with the Sagittarius arm and one with an interarm area. Using the data alongside the COHRS $^{12}$CO(3$-$2), the CHIMPS $^{13}$CO(3$-$2), and $\textit{Herschel}$-based column density maps, we evaluate the dense gas tracer emission characteristics and find that although its filling factor is the smallest among the studied species, N$_2$H$^+$ is the best at tracing the truly dense gas. Significant differences can be seen between the $^{13}$CO, HCN, and $N$(H$_2$)$_{\mathrm{dust}}$ levels of the arm and interarm, while the N$_2$H$^+$ emission is more uniform regardless of location, meaning that the observed variations in line ratios like N$_2$H$^+$/HCN or N$_2$H$^+$/$^{13}$CO are driven by species tracing moderate-density gas and not the star-forming gas. In many cases, greater variation in molecular emission and ratios exist between regions inside a filament than between the arm and interarm environments. The choice of measure of the dense gas and the available spatial resolution have deep impact on the multi-scale view of different environments inside a galaxy regarding molecular emissions, ratios, and thus the estimated star formation activity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24711 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the two targeted filaments. The top and middle maps show the 12CO(3−2) integrated intensity maps from COHRS, first integrated in the 60−105 km s−1 then in the 25−61 km s−1 velocity interval. The bottom map shows the 13CO(3−2) integrated intensity map from CHIMPS integrated over all the velocity channels of the survey. Orange and blue rectangular areas mark the observing regions of the interarm and arm fi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example spectra of the studied species and transitions. The spectra are averaged in one IRAM 30 m beam at the positions of the N2H + (1−0) integrated intensity maxima in the interarm and arm filament, in observing regions Region 3 and Region 6, respectively. the contaminated off-positions, conversion from 𝑇A to 𝑇MB main beam brightness temperature, baseline subtraction, extraction of tar￾get lines, then processing o… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The a) 12CO(3−2), b) 13CO(3−2), c) HCN(1−0), d) HCO+ (1−0), e) N2H + (1−0) integrated intensity maps and f) the 𝑇dust map of Region 1. The white contours mark the 𝑁(H2)dust H2 column densities at 1, 1.3...2.5 × 1022 cm−2 . The primary beam size of the IRAM 30m telescope and the spatial scale are both indicated on the maps. MNRAS 000, 1–21 (2025) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (17 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The same maps for Region 2 as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The same maps for Region 3 as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The same maps for Region 4 as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The same maps for Region 5 as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The same maps for Region 6 as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Relative cumulative coverage of the emission from the studied species in the two GMFs and the observed regions within. The thick blue and orange lines show the average curves for the arm and the interarm, respectively, computed by summing up the values in their respect…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Cumulative fraction of the emission from the studied species in the two GMFs and the observing regions within. The legend of the image is the same as for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Cumulative fraction of the emission from the studied species in the two GMFs and the observing regions within. Thick lines with different colours and linestyles mark the average curves of the different species in the arm (top) and the interarm (bottom). Fainter lines …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The detected molecular emission levels in the two GMFs and the observing regions within. Each box extends from the first quartile to the third quartile with a vertical line at the median value and a notch representing the confidence interval of the median. The whisker…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The detected molecular ratios in the two GMFs and the observing regions within. The boxes are similarly plotted as on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The line-to-mass ratio of the studied molecular species in the two GMFs expressed as ℎQ/ℎQ,max as a function of H2 column density. the derived values. This again suggests that on the scales of parsecs to tens of parsecs, the gas traced by these transitions is not stro…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Correlations between the integrated intensities of the studied species in the two GMFs. Small circles mark the beam-averaged values and large circles mark the average values for the N2H + -clumps. Orange colour marks values measured in the interarm regions, and blue c…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Comparison of the detected integrated intensity ranges of the different studied molecular species in the two GMFs. In each panel, the top sub-panel shows the distributions drawn from all pixels and the bottom sub-panel the distributions drawn from pixels of the N2H + …
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Comparison of the detected line ratios of the different studied molecular species in the two GMFs. The figure uses the same colors and markers as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Comparison of the distributions of clumps detected and undetected by our N2H + observations in the Hi-GAL and the ATLASGAL compact source catalogues. regions, while the ATLASGAL list of dense clumps on the whole correspond better with our N2H + -detected clumps. The d…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The variation of the N2H + /HCN and HCO+ /HCN ratios inside the N2H + -clumps along the two GMFs. The underlying color map is the same as in the bottom panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Correlations of the N2H + /HCN and HCO+ /HCN ratio with HCN, HCO+ , and N2H + emission, and with 𝑁(H2)dust in the N2H + -clumps. The ratios are marked the same way and in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_20.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abreu-Vicente J., Ragan S., Kainulainen J., Henning T., Beuther H., Johnston K., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527674 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...590A.131A 590, A131

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527674 2016

  2. [2]

    I., Pudritz R

    Andr \'e P., Di Francesco J., Ward-Thompson D., Inutsuka S. I., Pudritz R. E., Pineda J. E., 2014, @doi [Protostars and Planets VI] 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014prpl.conf...27A p. 27

    doi:10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch002 2014

  3. [3]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935..167A 935, 167

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  4. [4]

    J., Muller E., Indermuehle B., O'Dougherty S

    Barnes P. J., Muller E., Indermuehle B., O'Dougherty S. N., Lowe V., Cunningham M., Hernandez A. K., Fuller G. A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...812....6B 812, 6

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/812/1/6 2015

  5. [5]

    T., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1814 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497.1972B 497, 1972

    Barnes A. T., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1814 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497.1972B 497, 1972

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1814 2020

  6. [6]

    J., Heyer M

    Battisti A. J., Heyer M. H., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/780/2/173 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...780..173B 780, 173

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/780/2/173 2014

  7. [7]

    A., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/376696 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PASP..115..953B 115, 953

    Benjamin R. A., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/376696 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PASP..115..953B 115, 953

    doi:10.1086/376696 2003

  8. [8]

    Bigiel F., Leroy A., Walter F., Brinks E., de Blok W. J. G., Madore B., Thornley M. D., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2846 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....136.2846B 136, 2846

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2846 2008

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    C., Glover S

    Clark P. C., Glover S. C. O., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1369 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.2057C 452, 2057

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    Contreras Y., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220155 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...549A..45C 549, A45

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    T., Thomas H

    Dempsey J. T., Thomas H. S., Currie M. J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..209....8D 209, 8

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Moore T

    Eden D. J., Moore T. J. T., Morgan L. K., Thompson M. A., Urquhart J. S., 2013, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stt279 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.431.1587E 431, 1587

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    Elia D., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1038 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.2742E 504, 2742

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    Elia D., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aca27d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...941..162E 941, 162

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    Evans II N. J., Kim K.-T., Wu J., Chao Z., Heyer M., Liu T., Nguyen-Lu'o'ng Q., Kauffmann J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8938 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...894..103E 894, 103

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    E., Priestley F

    Feh \'e r O., Ragan S. E., Priestley F. D., Clark P. C., Moore T. J. T., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae918 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.1311F 530, 1311

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    M., 2004, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/382999 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...606..271G 606, 271

    Gao Y., Solomon P. M., 2004, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/382999 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...606..271G 606, 271

    2004 doi

  10. [18]

    E., Heitsch F., Kainulainen J., Panopoulou G

    Hacar A., Clark S. E., Heitsch F., Kainulainen J., Panopoulou G. V., Seifried D., Smith R., 2023, in Inutsuka S., Aikawa Y., Muto T., Tomida K., Tamura M., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII. p. 153 ( @eprint arXiv 2...

    2023 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    2007 doi

  13. [21]

    M., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500091 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJS..163..145J 163, 145

    Jackson J. M., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500091 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJS..163..145J 163, 145

    2006 doi

  14. [22]

    M., Finn S

    Jackson J. M., Finn S. C., Chambers E. T., Rathborne J. M., Simon R., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/719/2/L185 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...719L.185J 719, L185

    2010 doi

  15. [23]

    J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347050 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...676L..11J 676, L11

    Jim \'e nez-Donaire M. J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347050 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...676L..11J 676, L11

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    H., Clark P

    Jones G. H., Clark P. C., Glover S. C. O., Hacar A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad202 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.1005J 520, 1005

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    A., Mandel E., 2003, in Payne H

    Joye W. A., Mandel E., 2003, in Payne H. E., Jedrzejewski R. I., Hook R. N., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 295, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XII. p. 489

    2003

  18. [26]

    F., Melnick G., Tolls V., Guzman A., Menten K

    Kauffmann J., Goldsmith P. F., Melnick G., Tolls V., Guzman A., Menten K. M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731123 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...605L...5K 605, L5

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    J., 1998, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/305588 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...498..541K 498, 541

    Kennicutt Robert C. J., 1998, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/305588 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...498..541K 498, 541

    1998 doi

  20. [28]

    J., Lombardi M., Alves J

    Lada C. J., Lombardi M., Alves J. F., 2010, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/687 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...724..687L 724, 687

    2010 doi

  21. [29]

    A., Whitworth A

    Marsh K. A., Whitworth A. P., Lomax O., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2248 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.4282M 454, 4282

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1723 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471.2730M 471, 2730

    Marsh K. A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1723 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471.2730M 471, 2730

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    Molinari S., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1086/651314 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PASP..122..314M 122, 314

    2010 doi

  24. [32]

    Moore T. J. T., Urquhart J. S., Morgan L. K., Thompson M. A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21740.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.426..701M 426, 701

    2012

  25. [33]

    T., Bigiel F., Neumann L., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1741 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.6138P 523, 6138

    Panessa M., Seifried D., Walch S., Gaches B., Barnes A. T., Bigiel F., Neumann L., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1741 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.6138P 523, 6138

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    Park G., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9b59 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..264...16P 264, 16

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    I., Kim K.-T., Heyer M., Kauffmann J., Jose J., Samal M

    Patra S., Evans Neal J. I., Kim K.-T., Heyer M., Kauffmann J., Jose J., Samal M. R., Das S. R., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac83af , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....164..129P 164, 129

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    Pety J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629862 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...599A..98P 599, A98

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    D., Clark P

    Priestley F. D., Clark P. C., Glover S. C. O., Ragan S. E., Feh \'e r O., Prole L. R., Klessen R. S., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2278 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.5971P 524, 5971

    doi

  30. [38]

    D., Clark P

    Priestley F. D., Clark P. C., Glover S. C. O., Ragan S. E., Feh \'e r O., Prole L. R., Klessen R. S., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3089 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.4952P 526, 4952

    doi

  31. [39]

    D., Clark P

    Priestley F. D., Clark P. C., Glover S. C. O., Ragan S. E., Feh \'e r O., Prole L. R., Klessen R. S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1442 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.4408P 531, 4408

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    E., Henning T., Tackenberg J., Beuther H., Johnston K

    Ragan S. E., Henning T., Tackenberg J., Beuther H., Johnston K. G., Kainulainen J., Linz H., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423401 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...568A..73R 568, A73

    2014 doi

  33. [41]

    E., Moore T

    Ragan S. E., Moore T. J. T., Eden D. J., Hoare M. G., Elia D., Molinari S., 2016, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stw1870 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462.3123R 462, 3123

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    J., et al., 2016, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv2808 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.2885R 456, 2885

    Rigby A. J., et al., 2016, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv2808 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.2885R 456, 2885

    2016 doi

  35. [43]

    J., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.01255 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240901255R p

    Rigby A. J., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.01255 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240901255R p. arXiv:2409.01255

    2024 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    M., Heyer M., Rathborne J., Simon R., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/492 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...723..492R 723, 492

    Roman-Duval J., Jackson J. M., Heyer M., Rathborne J., Simon R., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/492 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...723..492R 723, 492

    2010 doi

  37. [45]

    M., Clark P., Klessen R., Shetty R., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/144 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...818..144R 818, 144

    Roman-Duval J., Heyer M., Brunt C. M., Clark P., Klessen R., Shetty R., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/144 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...818..144R 818, 144

    2016 doi

  38. [46]

    K., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-052651 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ARA&A..62..369S 62, 369

    Schinnerer E., Leroy A. K., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-052651 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ARA&A..62..369S 62, 369

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    Schinnerer E., et al., 2017, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/62 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...836...62S 836, 62

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    Schmidt M., 1959, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/146614 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1959ApJ...129..243S 129, 243

    1959 doi

  41. [49]

    C., Klessen R

    Shetty R., Clark P. C., Klessen R. S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu919 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.442.2208S 442, 2208

    2014 doi

  42. [50]

    K., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348205 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...680L..20S 680, L20

    Stuber S. K., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348205 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...680L..20S 680, L20

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    Tafalla M., Usero A., Hacar A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038727 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...646A..97T 646, A97

    2021 doi

  44. [52]

    Tafalla M., Usero A., Hacar A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...679A.112T 679, A112

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    Veneziani M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423474 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...599A...7V 599, A7

    2017 doi

  46. [54]

    Virtanen P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , https://rdcu.be/b08Wh 17, 261

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    M., Molinari S., Schisano E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv735 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.4043W 450, 4043

    Wang K., Testi L., Ginsburg A., Walmsley C. M., Molinari S., Schisano E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv735 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.4043W 450, 4043

    2015 doi

  48. [56]

    M., Beuther H., Henning T., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/226/1/9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..226....9W 226, 9

    Wang K., Testi L., Burkert A., Walmsley C. M., Beuther H., Henning T., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/226/1/9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..226....9W 226, 9

    2016 doi

  49. [57]

    Wang Y., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202037928 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...641A..53W 641, A53

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    I., Shirley Y

    Wu J., Evans Neal J. I., Shirley Y. L., Knez C., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/188/2/313 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJS..188..313W 188, 313

    2010 doi

  51. [59]

    Zucker C., Battersby C., Goodman A., 2015, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/23 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...815...23Z 815, 23

    2015 doi

  52. [60]

    Zucker C., Battersby C., Goodman A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aacc66 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...864..153Z 864, 153

    2018 doi

  53. [61]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.