Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 62 references

A map of the outer gas disk of the Galaxy with direct distances from young stars

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 Pattern matching distances from young stars produce an outer galaxy gas map 24% more accurate than kinematic distances.

desk verdict A useful new H I map with a plausible method, but the headline accuracy claim is internally inconsistent and the simulation validation largely assumes what it should prove. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05575 v1 pith:352GWWNE submitted 2025-06-05 astro-ph.GA

Peter Craig , Sukanya Chakrabarti , Alexander R. Pettitt , Robyn Sanderson , Erik Rosolowsky This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords GalacticHImappingpatternmatchingdistanceskinematicyoungstellartracersouterGalaxystructureCepheidmaserparallaxesspiralarms
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

For over half a century, maps of neutral hydrogen in the Milky Way have placed gas along the line of sight by assuming a rotation curve and converting Doppler velocities into kinematic distances. This paper proposes instead to match each gas measurement to the nearest young stars in longitude-latitude-velocity space and give the gas the stars' directly measured distances. In simulated spiral galaxies the pattern matching distances are 24% more accurate than kinematic distances for gas within 15 kpc of the Sun, and the method shows no systematic offset against maser parallaxes. Applying it to LAB and HI4PI surveys produces a model-independent surface density map of the outer disk that reproduces several spiral arms but not the extended Outer Arm, which the authors argue may be an artifact of kinematic distance assumptions. The payoff is a gas map that does not depend on the assumed gravitational potential and can only improve as stellar catalogs grow.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the pattern matching prescription: a distance metric $s_{\rm LBV}$ in longitude-latitude-velocity space (Equation 1) that treats one degree of angle as equivalent to one km/s, a nearest-neighbor search over a grid in $\ell$ versus $V_{\rm LSR}$, and a weighted average (inverse $s_{\rm LBV}$) over the nearest $N_{\rm star}=3$ young stars to assign a distance to each gas measurement. This is carried by a stellar sample of 37,598 stars with median age 377 Myr and Galactocentric distances spanning 7 to 35.5 kpc, and by gas data from the LAB and HI4PI surveys converted to mass density assuming a spin temperature of 255 K. The paper validates the mechanism on the SP2 hydrodynamical simulation, in which star particles form from gas, so the same positional-kinematic cohesion is built into the test.

What would settle it

Measure VLBI parallaxes for a sample of outer-disk masers in regions with strong spiral-arm streaming, using an independent Cepheid sample for pattern matching; if pattern matching distance errors grow with streaming velocity, or if they disagree with maser parallaxes in a distance-dependent way, the co-location assumption is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that outer Galaxy H I gas can be mapped without any kinematic distance assumption by exploiting the shared formation site of gas and young stars. Each 21 cm emission measurement is assigned the distance of the closest young stars (mostly Cepheids, masers, and selected Gaia sources) in the space of Galactic longitude, latitude, and LSR velocity, using the $s_{\rm LBV}$ metric of Equation 1. On SP2 simulated galaxies with measurement uncertainties added, the median distance error is 14.9% for pattern matching versus 23.6% for kinematics within 15 kpc of the Sun (20.0% versus 16.2% over the full simulated disk), and the pattern matching surface density is closer to the true map. Against 53 outer-disk maser parallaxes, pattern matching and kinematic distances agree comparably, but the kinematic distances carry a small systematic offset that pattern matching does not. The resulting LAB and HI4PI maps reproduce the Local, Perseus, and Sagittarius-Carina arms, are more flocculent ($f_3 = 0.38$ versus $0.24$), and lack the long-extended Outer Arm, leading the authors to suggest that this arm, at least in its full extent, may be spuriously identified in earlier H I maps.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a young star and a gas packet seen at almost the same longitude, latitude, and line-of-sight velocity are physically near each other, so the star's distance can be given to the gas; streaming motions or radial flows that decouple gas and stellar velocities would break this identification.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Future stellar catalogs, including later Gaia releases and Roman data, should improve pattern matching accuracy and coverage, eventually outperforming kinematic maps across the disk.
  • Model-independent gas distances can extend 3-D dust maps beyond the solar neighborhood and, combined with direct acceleration measurements, help construct an improved Galactic potential.
  • If the extended Outer Arm is indeed an artifact, outer-disk gas maps built from kinematic distances need revisiting, with consequences for studies of disk warps and satellite interactions.
  • The map's flocculent arms and the anti-correlation between disk thickness and surface density support a picture in which the outer gas disk is shaped by gravitational stability rather than a smooth large-scale spiral.
  • The kinematic method's small systematic offset relative to maser parallaxes, absent in pattern matching, implies that rotation-curve-based distances carry a coherent bias in the outer disk.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because star particles in the SP2 simulation are formed from gas, the simulation test assumes the co-location it is meant to prove; an independent test would compare pattern matching distances to VLBI parallaxes for outer-disk masers not used in building the stellar sample.
  • If the missing Outer Arm survives with deeper young-star samples, it suggests that the kinematic map's coherent distance errors in that sector are systematic rather than random, potentially biasing earlier estimates of outer-disk gas mass.
  • The same pattern matching principle could be applied to molecular line surveys or to external galaxies with resolved young stellar populations, turning every precisely measured star-forming tracer into a distance ruler for gas along the same sight line.
  • The choice of equivalence between angle and velocity in the metric is a free parameter; a principled way to set it, using local velocity dispersion and cloud size, could improve matches in sparse regions beyond what the paper's alternate metrics tested.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a 'pattern matching' method for assigning distances to Galactic H I gas without using a rotation curve: gas pixels in longitude-latitude-LSR-velocity space are matched to nearby young stars (Cepheids, masers, and Gaia-selected sources) with known distances, and the stars' distances are transferred to the gas. The authors build outer-disk H I surface-density maps from LAB and HI4PI data and compare them with kinematic-distance maps. They claim, on the basis of SP2 hydrodynamical simulations, that pattern-matching distances are 24% more accurate than kinematic distances within 15 kpc, report a maser-parallax comparison showing comparable accuracy with a small kinematic bias, and suggest that the extended Outer Arm seen in earlier H I maps may be spurious.

Significance. If the central accuracy claim holds, the method is a genuinely useful, model-independent way to map outer-disk gas, with implications for spiral structure, disk warps, 3-D dust maps, and Galactic dynamics. The paper contains several constructive checks: SP2 and SGR simulations, a maser-parallax comparison, and a Cepheid self-test, and it releases maps that the community can use. However, the advertised 24% improvement is not cleanly reproduced by the numbers in the text, the main simulation test builds in the core co-location assumption by forming star particles from the same gas particles, and the external maser check shows comparable rather than superior accuracy for pattern matching. These issues are load-bearing because the paper's headline is a quantitative accuracy claim, so the manuscript needs substantive revision before the claim can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract vs. Section 3.1] The abstract states that pattern matching distances are 24% more accurate than kinematic distances for gas within 15 kpc, but no number in Section 3.1 yields 24% for that subsample. The within-15-kpc median errors are 23.6% (kinematic) and 14.9% (pattern matching), which is about a 37% reduction relative to the kinematic error (or 58% relative to the pattern-matching error). The full-disk values 20.0% versus 16.2% give about a 23.5% relative reduction, which matches the 24% figure only if the 'within 15 kpc' qualifier is dropped. Please specify the exact definition of 'more accurate' and reconcile the abstract with the body so the headline statistic is reproducible.
  2. [Section 3.1 and Eq. (1)] The SP2 simulation validation does not independently test the core co-location assumption behind Eq. (1). Star particles in the simulation are formed from gas particles in the same SPH run, so the l-b-v correlation between young stars and gas is built in by construction. The simulation therefore mainly validates the interpolation/weighting algorithm conditional on that correlation, not the applicability of the assumption to the real Milky Way. The paper should state this distinction explicitly and frame the simulation-based accuracy gain as conditional on the co-location premise. The external maser test is the only check that does not share this circularity, and as reported it shows only comparable or slightly worse pattern-matching residuals.
  3. [Section 3.1, maser comparison] The maser-parallax comparison is reported too tersely to support the accuracy claim. The text says the median and average residuals are comparable within 0.3 kpc and 'slightly larger for the pattern matching', but gives no actual values, sample scatter, or significance test for the 53 selected outer-disk masers. The sentence 'The kinematic method has a tendency to systematically overestimate the maser distance compared to the kinematics' is internally contradictory and presumably should read 'compared to the pattern matching.' Please provide the measured median/mean residuals and their uncertainties, and quantify the kinematic offset so the reader can see whether the two methods differ at a meaningful level.
  4. [Section 3, Outer Arm paragraph] The suggestion that the extended Outer Arm of Levine et al. (2006) may be spuriously identified is not strongly supported by the pattern-matching map, because the map is incomplete in the outer disk where the stellar sample tapers off. The paper itself notes that gas beyond the stellar-sample edge is assigned distances at the edge and that edge bins have a systematic density bias. An absence of an extended arm in an incomplete and biased map cannot distinguish a spurious feature in the kinematic map from a coverage artifact in the pattern-matching map. Please either add an explicit completeness/selection-function analysis or present this conclusion as a much weaker speculation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 2 caption and Section 3 text] The text says the bottom-left panel of Figure 2 displays the stellar distribution, while the caption says the bottom-left panel shows the disk thickness and the bottom-right panel shows the stellar sample; please correct the mismatch.
  2. [Equation numbering] The displayed definition of f3 is numbered Eq. (2) in the text but is referred to as 'equation 3' in the paragraph preceding it; renumber or fix the cross-reference.
  3. [Section 3.1, residual metric] The map-quality metric described as 'sum of the square residuals ... divided by the average surface density' is reported as 56.5 and 62.0 'in units of M_sun pc^-2'; after dividing by a surface density the quantity should be dimensionless, so please clarify the units and definition.
  4. [Abstract vs. Section 3] The abstract states that the analysis is restricted to sources with a reasonably good match to a Cepheid, but the main map construction and the accuracy statistics in Section 3.1 are not restricted in that way; please clarify which parts of the analysis carry this restriction.
  5. [Section 3.1, no-uncertainty case] The text reports that with no measurement uncertainties the within-15-kpc pattern-matching accuracy is 13.2%, and that increasing the stellar sample to the full population also gives 13.2% within 15 kpc; please state whether these are coincidentally equal or whether one of the numbers is a typo.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Simulation validation builds the star–gas co-location premise into the test; the headline 24% accuracy advantage is therefore partly by construction, while the only external maser check shows comparable, not superior, performance.

  1. self definitional [Section 2 (simulation description) and Section 3.1 (Simulated Hi Maps); abstract headline claim]
    "These simulations were conducted with the Gasoline2 (Wadsley et al. 2017) smoothed particle hydrodynamics code and include gas self-gravity, cooling, star formation, and supernova feedback. ... The simulated stellar samples are chosen to only contain star particles that formed during the simulations, approximating our real stellar sample."

    The method's core premise is that gas and young stars sharing l, b, V_LSR are physically co-located (Eq. 1). In the SP2 validation, star particles are literally formed from the gas particles in the same simulation, so that premise is imposed by the star-formation recipe rather than tested. The quoted accuracy numbers (23.6% vs 14.9% within 15 kpc, abstract's '24% more accurate') are obtained by matching gas to stars born from that same gas: an in-sample interpolation test. The only external check, 53 masers, gives 'comparable (within 0.3 kpc of each other, but slightly larger for the pattern matching)' agreement, so the claimed superiority is not independently reproduced.

full rationale

The distance assignment itself is not circular: real Cepheid/Gaia/maser distances are weighted by s_LBV (Eq. 1) with no parameter fitted to the target H I map, and the paper explicitly excludes masers from the stellar sample when testing masers. However, the central quantitative claim that pattern matching is 24% more accurate than kinematics rests primarily on the SP2 simulation, where young stars are generated from the gas. That validation therefore reduces, by construction, to an interpolation test of the co-location assumption rather than an independent confirmation. The external maser comparison is limited (53 preferentially filtered outer-disk sources) and shows only comparable accuracy, with pattern-matching residuals 'slightly larger'; it does not substantiate the 24% figure. Separately, the abstract's '24% more accurate for gas within 15 kpc' is not reproduced by Section 3.1's 23.6% versus 14.9% median errors, which imply a roughly 37% relative reduction; the ~24% figure matches the full-disk 20.0% versus 16.2% numbers, an internal consistency issue rather than a circularity. The paper honestly flags edge-systematic biases (Section 3: gas beyond the stellar sample is assigned edge distances, creating artificial density enhancements), which also bears on the claim that the extended Outer Arm is spurious, but that is a completeness concern. Self-citations appear (Chakrabarti et al. 2003; Quillen et al. 2020; Chakrabarti & Blitz 2009), but the co-location premise is additionally supported by external references and by the paper's own likelihood test, so no load-bearing self-citation is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the physical premise that young stars and H I gas at the same (l,b,V_LSR) are co-located; the simulation validates a built-in version of this premise. The accuracy claim depends on SP2 (two-armed, rescaled 2.5x) being representative of the MW. Parameters Nstar, bin widths, metric scalings, spin temperature, latitude cut, and sample construction thresholds are chosen by hand and varied in appendices.

free parameters (8)
  • Nstar (number of nearest stars used in distance interpolation) = 3 (LAB data; varied 1-10)
    Chosen after testing Nstar=1..10; maps are similar for Nstar>1, but Nstar=1 deemed unreliable. This is a hand-picked smoothing parameter.
  • sLBV metric component scalings = Unit normalization: 1 deg for l,b and 1 km/s for v (Eq. 1); alternatives in Appendix B
    The relative weighting of angular and velocity separation is set by unit choice; alternate metrics B1-B3 produce similar maps, so sensitivity is low, but the choice is arbitrary.
  • Grid bin width for nearest-neighbor search = 3 deg in longitude and 3 km/s in V_LSR for ~1e4 stars; 2 for ~1e5
    Set based on stellar sample size to ensure nearby stars are included; explored in Appendix B.
  • Spin temperature Ts for HI column density conversion = 255 K
    Adopted from Kerr (1968) to convert brightness temperature to gas density; standard but a fixed assumption.
  • Minimum stars per bin in stellar sample construction = 5
    Used in Appendix A to decide when to relax age/uncertainty cuts; affects sample composition and map coverage.
  • Age cuts for supplementary Gaia sources = 400 Myr, 500 Myr, 1 Gyr tiers
    Relaxed in Appendix A to fill sparse bins; older stars trace gas less well.
  • Latitude cut |b| < 30 deg = 30 degrees
    Removal of high-latitude gas; alternative cuts 20/40/50 deg tested in Appendix B.
  • Simulation rescaling factor for SP2 = 2.5
    SP2 simulation is rescaled by 2.5 so the stellar population traces a region similar to the MW's outer disk; the accuracy claim depends on this representative model.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Young stars trace the gas from which they formed, so proximity in l-b-v implies co-location
    Stated in Section 1 and used throughout; the method's validity depends on this correlation.
  • domain assumption In the outer disk (R>7 kpc), V_LSR is a monotonic function of distance so a single distance can be assigned per (l,b,v) position
    The paper restricts to the outer disk to avoid the inner-Galaxy distance ambiguity (Section 1) and implicitly assumes no severe streaming motions.
  • ad hoc to paper SP2 simulation (two-armed, rescaled 2.5x, with cooling/star formation/feedback) is representative of the Milky Way's outer disk for validating distance accuracy
    The 24% accuracy improvement is measured on this simulation; Section 2 describes it, and Appendix D lists other simulations with similar results.
  • standard math Stellar distances and radial velocities in the combined Gaia/Cepheid/maser catalog are accurate enough to serve as ground truth
    The method uses these measurements directly; Appendix A applies uncertainty cuts but does not model their effect on final distances.
  • domain assumption H I gas at |b|>30 degrees is not part of the Milky Way disk and can be excised
    Section 2 removes high-latitude gas; Appendix B tests alternate cuts and sees minor changes, but the map is defined under this cut.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A map of the outer gas disk of the Galaxy with direct distances from young stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/352GWWNE

@misc{pith2026250605575,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A map of the outer gas disk of the Galaxy with direct distances from young stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/352GWWNE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05575}
}
read the original abstract

For more than fifty years, astronomers have mapped the neutral hydrogen gas in the Galaxy assuming kinematically derived distances. We employ the distances of nearby young stars, which trace the gas from which they formed, in longitude-latitude-velocity space to map this gas without using kinematic distances. We denote this new method "pattern matching". Analysis of simulated spiral galaxies indicates that our pattern matching distances are 24% more accurate than kinematic distances for gas within 15 kpc of the Sun. The two methods provide similar agreement with parallaxes towards these masers, although the kinematic method shows a small systematic offset in the distance that is not present in the pattern matching distance. Using parallaxes and velocities for masers, we show that this novel method, when matched with nearby Cepheids, performs well compared to kinematics. This analysis is restricted to sources that have a reasonably good match with a member of our Cepheid sample. The distances derived here, and the associated map, have broad utility - from improving our understanding of star formation and the dynamical structure of the Galaxy, to informing 3-D dust maps.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05575 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. H i brightness temperatures in the ℓ vs. VLSR plane. In each bin, the brightness temperature has been averaged over Galactic latitude. The red points display the positions of the stars in our stellar sample. Our sample of young stars samples all the major features in the gas in this plane and contains valuable distance information that can be applied to the underlying gas. Given that our algorithm matches sky positi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The top left panel shows the surface density map derived using our pattern matching technique. In the top right panel, we display the Maser locations, color-coded by spiral arm, plotted along with the spiral arms from Reid et al. (2019) on top of the pattern matching surface density. The arms shown are, in order of increasing radius, the Local arm (orange), the Perseus arm (cyan), the Outer arm (red), and the Sagitt… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Average surface density profiles for our pattern matching and kinematic maps. Here we see some disagreement at small radii, followed by a somewhat lower average density from pattern matching at larger radii [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The top panel shows the surface density map for the HI4PI data set, derived using our pattern matching technique. The bottom panel displays the same map, but with the Maser locations, color-coded by spiral arm, plotted along with the spiral arms from Reid et al. (2019)…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Residuals between the kinematic and pattern matching techniques (specifically pattern matching - kinematics) for the HI4PI data. The residuals in some places are fairly significant, though variability on small scales is likely unreliable. The larger scale differences a…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Surface density maps from the SP2 simulation, including both the derived maps from kinematics and pattern matching as well as the exact gas distribution. Dashed red lines overplotted on these maps display the positions of the two spiral arms. The bottom left and middle…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The top panel displays the Fourier amplitudes for the kinematic map of the LAB H i data, with modes 1 through 4 shown normalized against the m=0 mode. The bottom panel shows the same amplitudes for the pattern matching case. The following three panels show the Fourier …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Histograms displaying the age, RV uncertainty, and the parallax over error across our stellar sample. The histogram of stellar ages, on the left, includes the age distribution for our entire sample. In the middle panel, displaying the rv uncertainties, the tail of the …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The four panels in this figure display surface density maps generated with the pattern matching algorithm. Each map assumes a different value for Nstar, ranging from 1 to 10. The map labelled 3 is identical the the surface density map presented in the main paper, for c…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Surface density maps generated using different distance metrics. The top left panel is the same map presented in the main paper. The top right panel was generated using Equation B1. The bottom left and bottom right panels were generated form Equations B2 and B2, respe…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Maps of the derived disk thickness for the LAB data with four different selections for the Galactic latitude cut on our data. The upper right panel selects a limit of 30 degrees off of the plane, which is the selection made across our main results. We can see in the b…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Maps of the derived surface density for the LAB data with four different selections for the Galactic latitude cut on our data. The upper right panel selects a limit of 30 degrees off of the plane, which is the selection made across our main results. The differences th…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The top panel displays the likelihood ratio between random samples of different sizes and the true stellar sample. The solid blue line displays the main results, comparing the real stellar sample against randomly drawn samples. Large ratios indicate that the true samp…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Face on gas distributions from a snapshot of the Sagittarius simulation. Colorbars in each panel display the number of particles in each bin. The left column shows results from kinematic estimates, with the resulting HI distribution in the top panel and the residual s…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    A., et al

    Alves , J., Zucker , C., Goodman , A. A., et al. 2020, , 578, 237, 10.1038/s41586-019-1874-z

    doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1874-z 2020

  5. [5]

    2008, , 136, 2846, 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2846

    Bigiel , F., Leroy , A., Walter , F., et al. 2008, , 136, 2846, 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2846

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

  6. [6]

    Blitz , L., & Shu , F. H. 1980, , 238, 148, 10.1086/157968

    doi:10.1086/157968 1980

  7. [7]

    2009, , 399, L118, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00735.x

    Chakrabarti , S., & Blitz , L. 2009, , 399, L118, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00735.x

    arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    2011, , 731, 40, 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/40

    ---. 2011, , 731, 40, 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/40

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/731/1/40 2011

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    T., Vigeland , S

    Chakrabarti , S., Chang , P., Lam , M. T., Vigeland , S. J., & Quillen , A. C. 2021, , 907, L26, 10.3847/2041-8213/abd635

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    M., et al

    Chakrabarti , S., Chang , P., Price-Whelan , A. M., et al. 2019, , 886, 67, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4659

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    Chakrabarti , S., Laughlin , G., & Shu , F. H. 2003, , 596, 220, 10.1086/377578

    2003 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Wright , J., et al

    Chakrabarti , S., Stevens , D. J., Wright , J., et al. 2022, , 928, L17, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c43

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    2020, , 902, L28, 10.3847/2041-8213/abb9b5

    Chakrabarti , S., Wright , J., Chang , P., et al. 2020, , 902, L28, 10.3847/2041-8213/abb9b5

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    K., & Catelan , M

    D \'e k \'a ny , I., Hajdu , G., Grebel , E. K., & Catelan , M. 2019, , 883, 58, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3b60

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Gaia Collaboration , Prusti , T., de Bruijne , J. H. J., et al. 2016, , 595, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    2023 a , , 674, A37, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243797

    Gaia Collaboration , Drimmel , R., Romero-G \'o mez , M., et al. 2023 a , , 674, A37, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243797

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023 b , , 674, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    2019, , 483, 4707, 10.1093/mnras/sty3424

    Grasha , K., Calzetti , D., Adamo , A., et al. 2019, , 483, 4707, 10.1093/mnras/sty3424

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Schlafly , E., Zucker , C., Speagle , J

    Green , G. M., Schlafly , E., Zucker , C., Speagle , J. S., & Finkbeiner , D. 2019, , 887, 93, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    2019, , 879, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab25f3

    Haines , T., D'Onghia , E., Famaey , B., Laporte , C., & Hernquist , L. 2019, , 879, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab25f3

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    P., Jackson , P

    Henderson , A. P., Jackson , P. D., & Kerr , F. J. 1982, , 263, 116, 10.1086/160486

    1982 doi

  14. [22]

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

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    2016, , 594, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178

    HI4PI Collaboration , Ben Bekhti , N., Fl \"o er , L., et al. 2016, , 594, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    H., Sormani , M

    Hunter , G. H., Sormani , M. C., Beckmann , J. P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.18000. 2403.18000

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Kalberla , P. M. W., Burton , W. B., Hartmann , D., et al. 2005, , 440, 775, 10.1051/0004-6361:20041864

    2005 doi

  18. [26]

    Kalberla , P. M. W., & Dedes , L. 2008, , 487, 951, 10.1051/0004-6361:20079240

    2008 doi

  19. [27]

    Kerr , F. J. 1962, , 123, 327, 10.1093/mnras/123.4.327

    1962 doi

  20. [28]

    1968, in Nebulae and Interstellar Matter, ed

    ---. 1968, in Nebulae and Interstellar Matter, ed. B. M. Middlehurst & L. H. Aller , 575

    1968

  21. [29]

    J., Hindman , J

    Kerr , F. J., Hindman , J. V., & Carpenter , M. S. 1957, , 180, 677, 10.1038/180677a0

    1957 doi

  22. [30]

    2017, , 129, 094102, 10.1088/1538-3873/aa7c08

    Koo , B.-C., Park , G., Kim , W.-T., et al. 2017, , 129, 094102, 10.1088/1538-3873/aa7c08

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    Krumholz , M. R. 2012, , 759, 9, 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/9

    2012 doi

  24. [32]

    R., McKee , C

    Krumholz , M. R., McKee , C. F., & Tumlinson , J. 2009, , 699, 850, 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/850

    2009 doi

  25. [33]

    S., Blitz , L., & Heiles , C

    Levine , E. S., Blitz , L., & Heiles , C. 2006, Science, 312, 1773, 10.1126/science.1128455

    2006 doi

  26. [34]

    M., Dickey , J

    McClure-Griffiths , N. M., Dickey , J. M., Gaensler , B. M., & Green , A. J. 2004, , 607, L127, 10.1086/422031

    2004 doi

  27. [35]

    Mertsch , P., & Phan , V. H. M. 2023, , 671, A54, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243326

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    E., Peek , J

    Murray , C. E., Peek , J. E. G., Di Teodoro , E. M., et al. 2019, , 887, 267, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab510f

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    H., Kerr , F

    Oort , J. H., Kerr , F. J., & Westerhout , G. 1958, , 118, 379, 10.1093/mnras/118.4.379

    1958 doi

  30. [38]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.07642, 10.48550/arXiv.2307.07642

    Paladini , R., Zucker , C., Benjamin , R., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.07642, 10.48550/arXiv.2307.07642

    2023 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    C., et al

    Peltonen , J., Rosolowsky , E., Johnson , L. C., et al. 2023, , 522, 6137, 10.1093/mnras/stad1430

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    R., Ragan , S

    Pettitt , A. R., Ragan , S. E., & Smith , M. C. 2020, , 491, 2162, 10.1093/mnras/stz3155

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    2021, , 656, A133, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140695

    Querejeta , M., Schinnerer , E., Meidt , S., et al. 2021, , 656, A133, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140695

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    C., Pettitt , A

    Quillen , A. C., Pettitt , A. R., Chakrabarti , S., et al. 2020, , 499, 5623, 10.1093/mnras/staa3189

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    J., Menten , K

    Reid , M. J., Menten , K. M., Brunthaler , A., et al. 2019, , 885, 131, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a11

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    2003, , 397, 133, 10.1051/0004-6361:20021504

    Russeil , D. 2003, , 397, 133, 10.1051/0004-6361:20021504

    2003 doi

  37. [45]

    E., Colombo , D., et al

    Schinnerer , E., Meidt , S. E., Colombo , D., et al. 2017, , 836, 62, 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/62

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    M., Skowron , J., Mr \'o z , P., et al

    Skowron , D. M., Skowron , J., Mr \'o z , P., et al. 2019, Science, 365, 478, 10.1126/science.aau3181

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    A., et al

    S \"o ding , L., Edenhofer , G., En lin , T. A., et al. 2025, , 693, A139, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451361

    2025 doi

  40. [48]

    D., Miville-Desch \^e nes , M

    Soler , J. D., Miville-Desch \^e nes , M. A., Molinari , S., et al. 2022, , 662, A96, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243334

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    K., Rosolowsky , E., et al

    Sun , J., Leroy , A. K., Rosolowsky , E., et al. 2022, , 164, 43, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac74bd

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    Tchernyshyov , K., & Peek , J. E. G. 2017, , 153, 8, 10.3847/1538-3881/153/1/8

    2017 doi

  43. [51]

    Tchernyshyov , K., Peek , J. E. G., & Zasowski , G. 2018, , 156, 248, 10.3847/1538-3881/aae68d

    2018 doi

  44. [52]

    2021, Universe, 7, 141, 10.3390/universe7050141

    Tibaldo , L., Gaggero , D., & Martin , P. 2021, Universe, 7, 141, 10.3390/universe7050141

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    A., Dale , D

    Turner , J. A., Dale , D. A., Lilly , J., et al. 2022, , 516, 4612, 10.1093/mnras/stac2559

    2022 doi

  46. [54]

    2023, , 673, A99, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244548

    Uppal , N., Ganesh , S., & Schultheis , M. 2023, , 673, A99, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244548

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    C., Muller , C

    van de Hulst , H. C., Muller , C. A., & Oort , J. H. 1954, , 12, 117

    1954

  48. [56]

    W., Keller , B

    Wadsley , J. W., Keller , B. W., & Quinn , T. R. 2017, , 471, 2357, 10.1093/mnras/stx1643

    2017 doi

  49. [57]

    A., Bozzo , E., & Tsygankov , S

    Walter , R., Lutovinov , A. A., Bozzo , E., & Tsygankov , S. S. 2015, , 23, 2, 10.1007/s00159-015-0082-6

    2015 doi

  50. [58]

    D., & Blitz , L

    Weinberg , M. D., & Blitz , L. 2006, , 641, L33, 10.1086/503607

    2006 doi

  51. [59]

    1957, , 13, 201

    Westerhout , G. 1957, , 13, 201

    1957

  52. [60]

    C., & Wang , J

    Yu , N., Ho , L. C., & Wang , J. 2022, , 930, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5f07

    2022 doi

  53. [61]

    Yu , S.-Y., & Ho , L. C. 2020, , 900, 150, 10.3847/1538-4357/abac5b

    2020 doi

  54. [62]

    2023, , 957, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf842

    Zhang , R., Huang , X., Xu , Z.-H., Zhao , S., & Yuan , Q. 2023, , 957, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf842

    2023 doi

Pith tools

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