Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 48 references

The Star Formation in Radio Survey: Adding 90 GHz Data to 3-33 GHz Observations of Star-forming Regions in Nearby Galaxies

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 This paper claims that free-free emission, not thermal dust, dominates 33 GHz radio continuum in star-forming regions on ~0.8 kpc scales, so a 3-33 GHz power-law fit reliably estimates the 33 GHz free-free emission and star formation…

desk verdict New 90 GHz data make a useful reference sample, but the 5-10% bias claim rests on a shared spectral-index prior and needs a robustness check. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12136 v1 pith:G4UAOAME submitted 2025-06-13 astro-ph.GA

Anna Dignan , Eric J. Murphy , Brian Mason , Cosima Eibensteiner , Brandon S. Hensley , Eric F. Jiménez-Andrade , Sean T. Linden , Simon R. Dicker
show 5 more authors
Dillon Z. Dong Emmanuel Momjian Charles E. Romero Eva Schinnerer Jean L. Turner
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords radiocontinuumemissionstarformationrateindicatorsfree-freethermaldustsynchrotronspectraldecompositionnearbygalaxiesMUSTANG-2
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 adds new 90 GHz continuum images of 119 star-forming regions in 30 nearby galaxies to existing 3, 15, and 33 GHz Very Large Array data, then decomposes each radio spectrum into synchrotron, free-free, and thermal dust emission on roughly 0.8 kpc scales. It is trying to establish that free-free emission, not thermal dust, still dominates at 33 GHz in typical star-forming regions, and that a simple power-law fit from 3 to 33 GHz gives a reliable free-free estimate at 33 GHz. If true, 33 GHz continuum can serve as a robust, extinction-free star formation rate indicator without requiring 90 GHz observations, with only a mild upward bias of about 5 to 10 percent in derived star formation rates.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the spectral decomposition of radio continuum into three components: synchrotron ($S_\nu \propto \nu^{\alpha_{\rm NT}}$), free-free with a Gaunt factor ($S^{\rm ff}_\nu = A_{\rm ff}\, g_{\rm ff}(\nu,T_e)$), and thermal dust modeled as a modified blackbody ($S^d_\nu = A_d (\nu/353\,{\rm GHz})^\beta B_\nu(T_d)$ with $T_d=20$ K and $\beta=1.5$). The argument rests on a Gaussian prior on the non-thermal spectral index centered at $-0.83$ with scatter $0.13$, used in MCMC fits because without it the fits return unphysical indices; the power-law method fixes $\alpha_{\rm NT}=-0.83$. Comparing a four-parameter MCMC fit that includes 90 GHz data and dust with a three-parameter fit that excludes both is what isolates the dust contribution at 33 GHz.

What would settle it

Compare the 33 GHz free-free flux predicted by the 3-33 GHz power-law method with radio recombination line fluxes for a subset of the 46 regions whose 90 GHz emission exceeds 33 GHz by more than 2 sigma; if the bias there exceeds the claimed ~10%, the synchrotron-index prior is driving the result. Alternatively, measure alpha_NT directly with sub-GHz observations in a few galaxies and redo the decomposition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Across 119 regions, the median thermal (free-free) fraction at 33 GHz is 88% for a 3-33 GHz power-law fit, 84% for MCMC fitting without a dust component, and 76% for MCMC fitting that includes a thermal dust component and the 90 GHz data. The paper interprets the overlap between these distributions as evidence that thermal dust does not contribute significantly at 33 GHz on these scales, and that the free-free emission traced by 33 GHz remains a usable star formation rate measure. After removing AGN-contaminated regions, the difference between dust-included and dust-free thermal fractions falls to about 5%, so star formation rates derived without 90 GHz data are mildly biased high rather than seriously contaminated.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the non-thermal synchrotron spectral index is close to -0.83 in every region; if the true index varies with environment, radius, or AGN presence, the derived 33 GHz thermal fractions and the 5-10% bias estimate would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • 33 GHz continuum can be used as an extinction-free star formation rate tracer on ~0.8 kpc scales without adding 90 GHz data.
  • Star formation rates derived from 3-33 GHz power-law fits carry only a ~5% upward bias after AGN are removed, and ~10% if AGN are included.
  • The 90 GHz data do not reveal a dominant thermal dust component at 33 GHz; for most regions the dust contribution lies within the scatter of the fits.
  • Larger apertures and nuclear regions contain more non-thermal emission, so thermal fractions drop toward galaxy centers; this resolution dependence must be folded into SFR calibration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If 33 GHz free-free fractions stay high in fainter, more distant regions, 33 GHz observations could replace H-alpha for star formation rate work in dust-obscured galaxies, avoiding extinction corrections entirely.
  • The 12 likely anomalous microwave emission candidates were not fit with an AME component; if AME contributes at 33 GHz in those regions, the thermal fractions there may be overestimated.
  • The stated 5-10% bias is conditional on the synchrotron index prior; a direct measurement of $\alpha_{\rm NT}$ at sub-GHz frequencies in a subset of these galaxies would test whether the correction is universal.
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. This paper presents new 90 GHz MUSTANG-2 continuum imaging of 119 star-forming regions in 30 nearby galaxies and combines it with existing VLA 3, 15, and 33 GHz data at matched ~10 arcsecond resolution. The authors decompose the 3–90 GHz spectra into synchrotron, free-free, and thermal dust components using three approaches: a two-component power-law fit over 3–33 GHz, an MCMC fit including dust and the 90 GHz data, and an MCMC fit without dust and without the 90 GHz data. They report median thermal (free-free) fractions at 33 GHz of 88%, 76%, and 84% for the three scenarios, respectively, and conclude that free-free emission dominates at 33 GHz on ~0.8 kpc scales, that a 3–33 GHz power-law fit reliably estimates the 33 GHz free-free fraction, and that star formation rates derived without 90 GHz data are only mildly biased high, by roughly 5–10% after accounting for AGN.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this paper provides substantial practical value: it validates 33 GHz continuum as an extinction-free star formation rate indicator on ~0.8 kpc scales without requiring 90 GHz observations, and it contributes a large, uniformly processed multi-frequency dataset for nearby star-forming regions. The paper is commendably transparent about the role of the non-thermal spectral index prior and about its decision not to model anomalous microwave emission. The main robustness point, agreement among three fitting methods, is real but weaker than presented because two of the methods share the same imposed alpha_NT prior; the genuinely independent 90 GHz+dust scenario gives a median fraction about 10% lower. The paper ships useful photometric tables and auxiliary fitted amplitudes, and the local-background test is a positive feature, although one of its outcomes deserves more careful interpretation.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, Table 5, §5.1.3] The independence of the three fitting scenarios is overstated. Scenario (i) fixes alpha_NT = -0.83 and scenario (iii) imposes a Gaussian prior centered at -0.83 with scatter 0.13, so their agreement (88% vs 84%) is partly built into the model. Scenario (ii), which alone uses the new 90 GHz data and a dust component, gives 76%, about 10% lower. The paper itself reports that without the prior the MCMC fits become unphysical, including a median alpha_NT of 1.95 for the VLA-only case, confirming that the 3–33 GHz data do not independently constrain alpha_NT. The headline claim that star formation rates are biased by only 5–10% therefore rests on a parameter that is imposed rather than measured from the new data. Please quantify this sensitivity: rerun the MCMC with alternative priors (e.g., scatter 0.3, or a bounded flat prior such as alpha_NT in [-1.5, -0.3]) and report how the median f_T at 33 GHz and the with/without-dust difference change.
  2. [§4.2, Eq. (5)] The thermal dust component is modeled with T_d fixed to 20 K and beta fixed to 1.5, and AME is not modeled even though 12 regions in the sample are flagged as likely AME candidates. Since the 90 GHz point lies on the Rayleigh-Jeans tail, the extrapolated dust contribution at 33 GHz depends directly on the assumed T_d and beta, and any AME contribution at 33 GHz would be absorbed into either the free-free or synchrotron terms. This is load-bearing for the claim that dust does not dominate at 33 GHz. Please add sensitivity tests varying T_d (e.g., 15–30 K) and beta (e.g., 1.0–2.0), and either exclude the 12 AME candidates from the main comparison or include an AME component in at least one test. The discussion should state how much the median f_T at 33 GHz changes under these variations.
  3. [§4.3] The local background subtraction test as presented does not fully support the statement that the results are insensitive to background treatment. For the MCMC fit with dust and 90 GHz, subtracting the local background only from the 90 GHz band changes the median f_T from 76 ± 3% (default) to 85 ± 2%. That is a 9 percentage point shift, comparable in size to the 10% bias that is a central conclusion of the paper, and it is large compared with the quoted median uncertainty of 2–3%. The conclusion that these values are 'similar' because they are within the distribution scatter is not sufficient; the shift itself needs to be explained and propagated into the claimed bias on star formation rates.
  4. [§2.2, §2.3] The absolute flux calibration uncertainties are not propagated into the derived thermal fractions. The text states that the MUSTANG-2 flux calibration uncertainty is typically 10% and the VLA uncertainty is about 3%, and that these are not included in the analysis. Because the key comparison is between the 3–33 GHz data and the 90 GHz data, a relative calibration error of 10% can shift the dust/free-free decomposition and therefore the median f_T by an amount comparable to the 5–10% bias claim. Please propagate the calibration uncertainties into the MCMC analysis, for example by repeating the fits after scaling the 90 GHz fluxes by ±10% and the VLA fluxes by ±3%, and quote the resulting ranges on the median thermal fractions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3 and §6] The sample size is inconsistent: Section 3 states 106 star-forming regions, one supernova remnant, and 12 AME candidates (total 119), while Section 6 states 107 star-forming regions, one supernova remnant, and 12 AME candidates. Please correct the count.
  2. [Figure 2 caption] The caption says the 3–33 GHz distribution 'peaks at −0.028', but the text reports a median spectral index of −0.28 ± 0.04; this appears to be a typo and should be fixed.
  3. [Table 5 note] The note defining alpha is confusing: it says alpha = alpha_NT for the power-law method, but the listed median alpha for that row is -0.28, which is the observed 3–33 GHz spectral index, not the fixed alpha_NT of -0.83. Please clarify the notation.
  4. [§4.2] The MCMC description would benefit from standard convergence details: number of walkers, chain length, burn-in, and acceptance fraction. The text mentions 300,000 realizations 'twice per source' but does not state how the quoted parameter uncertainties are derived from the posterior samples.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Reliability claim rests on agreement between two methods that share the same α_NT prior; the one independent method (90 GHz + dust) lowers the median f_T by ~10%, so the 5–10% bias estimate is not yet robust.

  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Section 4.2, MCMC Fitting]
    "We also implemented a Gaussian prior on αNT with an expected value of −0.83 and a scatter of 0.13, based on results from previous investigations (Niklas & Beck 1997; Murphy et al. 2011; Linden et al. 2020). Without this Gaussian prior, we find a median non-thermal spectral index of −0.33 ± 0.06 with a scatter of 0.55 for fitting with a dust component and 90 GHz data, and 1.95 ± 0.45 with a scatter of 3.90 for fitting without a dust component and with only VLA data."

    The decomposition imports α_NT = −0.83 ± 0.13 from prior work that includes the present authors' own papers, and the paper concedes that the 3–33 GHz data alone cannot constrain this parameter (unphysical median 1.95 without the prior). Since all three scenarios share this prior, the derived thermal fractions are conditional on the imported ansatz; the MCMC posteriors 'are almost certainly due to the prior imposed' on α_NT. This is not a tautology, but it makes the MCMC scenarios a partially self-referential check rather than an independent measurement of the free-free fraction.

  2. self definitional [Abstract; Section 4.1, Eq. (4); Section 4.2]
    "a power law fit of data from 3 to 33 GHz still provides a reliable estimate of the free-free emission at 33 GHz. ... the value of αNT was fixed to −0.83 ... We also implemented a Gaussian prior on αNT with an expected value of −0.83 and a scatter of 0.13"

    The 'reliable estimate' is validated by comparing scenario (i), where Eq. (4) is evaluated with α_NT fixed to −0.83, with scenario (iii), where α_NT is assigned a Gaussian prior centered on −0.83. The resulting medians, 88% and 84%, agree largely because both use the same input value; this agreement is by construction rather than a genuine test. The only scenario that adds truly new information, (ii), uses 90 GHz plus a dust component and yields 76%, about 10% lower (about 5% after AGN removal), yet it too is conditioned on the same α_NT prior. The central qualitative conclusion is not circular, but the quantitative 'reliable estimate' and 'mildly biased high' claims are partially forced by the shared assumption.

full rationale

The paper is not globally circular: the new 90 GHz data and the dust-component MCMC scenario (ii) provide independent signal, and free-free dominance at 33 GHz is consistent with external Milky Way results (Adam et al. 2016) and with the earlier independent 7-arcsecond analysis of Linden et al. (2020). However, the specific validation of the headline claim is partially circular. The 3–33 GHz power-law thermal fraction is computed from Eq. (4) with α_NT fixed to −0.83, and the MCMC no-dust scenario (iii) is run with a Gaussian prior centered at exactly −0.83. The paper itself states that the posteriors track this prior and that without it the fits become unphysical (median α_NT = 1.95 for the VLA-only case). Therefore the agreement between (i) 88% and (iii) 84% is substantially built into the shared α_NT input, not a test of the free-free fraction. The only scenario that adds genuinely new information, (ii), gives 76%, i.e., roughly 10% lower (5% after removing AGN); this is an empirical offset, but it too is conditioned on the same α_NT prior. Consequently, the quantitative 'mildly biased high' and 'reliable estimate' statements are not fully independent of the imported synchrotron-index ansatz. This is a model-dependence/partial-circularity issue, not a tautology: the central qualitative conclusion that free-free dominates at 33 GHz survives even in scenario (ii). Score 4 reflects that the central claim still has independent content, but one key quantitative validation reduces, in part, to a shared prior assumption.

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

The quantitative thermal fractions rest on externally supplied inputs: the non-thermal spectral index prior, the fixed dust SED parameters, the electron temperature, and the neglect of AME. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • non-thermal spectral index alpha_NT = -0.78 median, near the imposed prior of -0.83 +/- 0.13
    Fitted in MCMC under a Gaussian prior; the posterior essentially reflects the prior. Also fixed to -0.83 in the power-law thermal fraction calculation.
  • synchrotron amplitude A_s = per-source values in Table A1
    MCMC amplitude parameter for the synchrotron component.
  • free-free amplitude A_ff = per-source values in Table A1
    MCMC amplitude parameter; directly sets the thermal fraction at 33 GHz.
  • thermal dust amplitude A_d = per-source values in Table A1
    MCMC amplitude at 353 GHz; constrained by a single 90 GHz data point and the assumed dust SED.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Gaussian prior on alpha_NT with mean -0.83 and sigma 0.13
    Taken from Niklas and Beck 1997, Murphy et al. 2011, and Linden et al. 2020. The paper states fits without this prior give unphysical positive indices, so the thermal fractions inherit this prior.
  • domain assumption Thermal dust emission is a modified blackbody with Td = 20 K and beta = 1.5
    Fixed following Murphy et al. (2020). If the dust SED differs from this assumption, the inferred dust contribution at 33 to 90 GHz and hence the thermal fraction changes.
  • domain assumption Electron temperature Te = 10^4 K for the free-free Gaunt factor
    Fixed following Murphy et al. (2020); typical for H II regions but not measured per source here.
  • domain assumption Anomalous microwave emission is negligible in the fitting
    The paper explicitly does not fit AME despite identifying 12 candidate regions. Any AME at 33 GHz would bias the thermal fractions.
  • domain assumption Synchrotron and free-free spectra are single power laws across 3 to 90 GHz
    Standard radio SED assumption, but it omits possible spectral curvature or multiple electron populations within the apertures.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Star Formation in Radio Survey: Adding 90 GHz Data to 3-33 GHz Observations of Star-forming Regions in Nearby Galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G4UAOAME

@misc{pith2026250612136,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Star Formation in Radio Survey: Adding 90 GHz Data to 3-33 GHz Observations of Star-forming Regions in Nearby Galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G4UAOAME}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12136}
}
abstract

We present 90 GHz continuum imaging of 119 star-forming regions in 30 nearby galaxies observed with MUSTANG-2 on the Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope as part of the Star Formation in Radio Survey. The 90 GHz data were combined with 3, 15, and 33 GHz data taken previously by the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array to decompose radio spectra on $\approx$0.8 kpc scales into their synchrotron, free-free, and thermal dust emission components. This was done using three scenarios: (i) a power law fit from 3 to 33 GHz, (ii) Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) fitting from 3 to 90 GHz with a thermal dust component, and (iii) MCMC fitting from 3 to 33 GHz without a thermal dust component. For these cases, we find a median thermal (free-free) emission fraction at 33 GHz of (i) $88 \pm 2$% with a scatter of 17%, (ii) $76\pm 3$% with a scatter of 25%, and (iii) $84\pm 2$% with a scatter of 18%. From this we conclude that, on average, free-free, not thermal dust, remains the dominant emission component at 33 GHz. While scenario (ii) yields a thermal fraction that is $\approx$10% larger than scenario (iii), this difference decreases to $\approx$5% after AGN are removed. Consequently, star formation rates measured with thermal fractions at 33 GHz are only mildly biased high without 90 GHz data for the spectral decomposition. Furthermore, a power law fit of data from 3 to 33 GHz still provides a reliable estimate of the free-free emission at 33 GHz.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.12136 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Images at each frequency for the extranuclear region NGC 5194 Enuc. 3. The white circles correspond to the apertures used to perform photometry, while the cyan circles represent the annuli used to determine the local background. A corresponding version of this figure for all other sources is available in the online journal as a figure set (120 images) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spectral index distributions for two-component power law fitting for 3 to 33 and 33 to 90 GHz. There are clear differences in the peaks and distribution widths; the dis￾tribution of the spectral indices measured from 3 to 33 GHz is narrower and peaks at −0.028, while the distribution of the spectral indices measured from 33 to 90 GHz is more ex￾tended and peaks at 0.06. This demonstrates the need for at least one ad… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of MCMC fitting performed for NGC 3184. Left: fitting with power laws. Middle: fitting with VLA and GBT data and four parameters. Right: fitting with only VLA data and three parameters, excluding fitting for the thermal dust component. The blue dashed lines, green dotted lines, and orange dashed line represent the contributions from synchrotron, free-free, and thermal dust emission. The gray lines represent … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top panels: distributions of the thermal (free-free) fractions found using the four-parameter model that included 90 GHz data and thermal dust versus galactocentric radius and photometric aperture diameter. Bottom panels: distributions of the thermal fraction ratios fo…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt \@twocolumntrue 12pt -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 o...

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all :=...

  3. [3]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = ...

  4. [4]

    Adam, R., Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 594, A10, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525967

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525967 2016

  5. [5]

    2023, astropy/photutils: 1.8.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.7946442

    Bradley, L. 2023, astropy/photutils: 1.8.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.7946442

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.7946442 2023

  6. [6]

    J., Fuller, G

    Chen, G., Bendo, G. J., Fuller, G. A., Henkel, C., & Kong, X. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 3645, 10.1093/mnras/stad2450

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2450 2023

  7. [7]

    J., Jacoby, G

    Ciardullo, R., Feldmeier, J. J., Jacoby, G. H., et al. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 577, 31, 10.1086/342180

    doi:10.1086/342180 2002

  8. [8]

    J., Condon, & J., J

    Condon, J. J., Condon, & J., J. 1992, ARA&A, 30, 575, 10.1146/ANNUREV.AA.30.090192.003043

    arXiv 1992

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    G., et al

    de Vaucouleurs, G., de Vaucouleurs, A., Corwin, H. G., et al. 1995, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Third Reference Cat. of Bright Galaxies (RC3) (de Vaucouleurs+ 1991)

    1995

  2. [10]

    E., Hall , P

    Dewdney , P. E., Hall , P. J., Schilizzi , R. T., & Lazio , T. J. L. W. 2009, IEEE Proceedings, 97, 1482, 10.1109/JPROC.2009.2021005

    2009

  3. [11]

    R., Ade, P

    Dicker, S. R., Ade, P. A. R., Aguirre, J., et al. 2014, in Proceedings Volume 9153, Millimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed. W. S. Holland & J. Zmuidzinas, 91530J, 10.1117/12.2056455

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    L., Bolatto, A

    Emig, K. L., Bolatto, A. D., Leroy, A. K., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 903, 50, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb67d

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    2014, The Messenger, 155, 19

    Fomalont, E., van Kempen, T., Kneissl, R., et al. 2014, The Messenger, 155, 19

    2014

  6. [14]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306, 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449, 809, 10.1093/mnras/stv287

    Hensley, B., Murphy, E., & Staguhn, J. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449, 809, 10.1093/mnras/stv287

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    R., Roellig, T

    Houck, J. R., Roellig, T. L., van Cleve, J., et al. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 154, 18, 10.1086/423134

    2004 doi

  9. [17]

    H., Chester, T., Cutri, R., Schneider, S

    Jarrett, T. H., Chester, T., Cutri, R., Schneider, S. E., & Huchra, J. P. 2003, The Astronomical Journal, 125, 525, 10.1086/345794

    2003 doi

  10. [18]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 730, 61, 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/61

    Karim, A., Schinnerer, E., Martínez-Sansigre, A., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 730, 61, 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/61

    2011 doi

  11. [19]

    C., & Evans, N

    Kennicutt, R. C., & Evans, N. J. 2012, 14, 3, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

    C., Armus, L., Bendo, G., et al

    Kennicutt, R. C., Armus, L., Bendo, G., et al. 2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 928, 10.1086/376941

    2003 doi

  13. [21]

    C., Calzetti, D., Aniano, G., et al

    Kennicutt, R. C., Calzetti, D., Aniano, G., et al. 2011, 10.1086/663818

    2011 doi

  14. [22]

    1984, 135, 213

    Klein, U., Wielebinski, R., & Beck, R. 1984, 135, 213

    1984

  15. [23]

    S., & Glover, S

    Klessen, R. S., & Glover, S. C. O. 2016, Physical Processes in the Interstellar Medium, 85--249, 10.1007/978-3-662-47890-5_2

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    V., et al

    Koyama, K., Petre, R., Gotthelf, E. V., et al. 1995, Nature, 378, 255, 10.1038/378255a0

    1995 doi

  17. [25]

    T., Murphy, E

    Linden, S. T., Murphy, E. J., Dong, D., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 248, 25, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab8a4d

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    Longair , M. S. 1994, High energy astrophysics. Vol.2: Stars, the galaxy and the interstellar medium , Vol. 2 (Cambridge University Press)

    1994

  19. [27]

    F., & Ostriker, E

    McKee, C. F., & Ostriker, E. C. 2007, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 45, 565, 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110602

    2007 arXiv

  20. [28]

    P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap, K

    McMullin, J. P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap, K. 2007, 376. http://casa.nrao.edu

    2007

  21. [29]

    Mills, E. A. C., Gorski, M., Emig, K. L., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 919, 105, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0fe8

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    C., Tremonti, C

    Moustakas, J., Kennicutt, R. C., Tremonti, C. A., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 190, 233, 10.1088/0067-0049/190/2/233

    2010 doi

  23. [31]

    J., Dong, D., Momjian, E., et al

    Murphy, E. J., Dong, D., Momjian, E., et al. 2018 a , The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 234, 24, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa99d7

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    J., Hensley, B

    Murphy, E. J., Hensley, B. S., Linden, S. T., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 905, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/abc7c8

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    J., Linden, S

    Murphy, E. J., Linden, S. T., Dong, D., et al. 2018 b , The Astrophysical Journal, 862, 20, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac5f5

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    J., Condon, J

    Murphy, E. J., Condon, J. J., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 737, 67, 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/67

    2011 doi

  27. [35]

    J., Bremseth, J., Mason, B

    Murphy, E. J., Bremseth, J., Mason, B. S., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 761, 97, 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/97

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    J., Dong, D., Leroy, A

    Murphy, E. J., Dong, D., Leroy, A. K., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 813, 118, 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/118

    2015 doi

  29. [37]

    J., Bolatto , A., Chatterjee , S., et al

    Murphy , E. J., Bolatto , A., Chatterjee , S., et al. 2018, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 517, Science with a Next Generation Very Large Array, ed. E. Murphy , 3, 10.48550/arXiv.1810.07524

    2018 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    Muxlow, T. W. B., Thomson, A. P., Radcliffe, J. F., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 495, 1188, 10.1093/mnras/staa1279

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    1997, 320, 54

    Niklas, S., & Beck, R. 1997, 320, 54

    1997

  32. [40]

    Nikolic, B., & Bolton, R. C. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 425, 1257, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21517.x

    2012

  33. [41]

    A., & Butler, B

    Perley, R. A., & Butler, B. J. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 204, 19, 10.1088/0067-0049/204/2/19

    2013 doi

  34. [42]

    Persson, C. J. L., & Helou, G. 1987, The Astrophysical Journal, 314, 513, 10.1086/165082

    1987 doi

  35. [43]

    2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 518, L2, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014535

    Poglitsch, A., Waelkens, C., Geis, N., et al. 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 518, L2, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014535

    2010 doi

  36. [44]

    E., Mason, B

    Romero, C. E., Mason, B. S., Sayers, J., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 838, 86, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa643f

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    E., Sievers, J., Ghirardini, V., et al

    Romero, C. E., Sievers, J., Ghirardini, V., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 891, 90, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6d70

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 227, 25, 10.3847/1538-4365/227/2/25

    Rosero, V., Hofner, P., Claussen, M., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 227, 25, 10.3847/1538-4365/227/2/25

    2016 doi

  39. [47]

    S., Krause, M., & Beck, R

    Tabatabaei, F. S., Krause, M., & Beck, R. 2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 472, 785, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077461

    2007 doi

  40. [48]

    S., Schinnerer, E., Krause, M., et al

    Tabatabaei, F. S., Schinnerer, E., Krause, M., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 836, 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/185

    2017 doi

Pith tools

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