Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

A three-step approach to reliably estimate magnetic field strengths in star-forming regions

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A three-step measurement recipe—radiative-transfer density, second-moment velocity dispersion, and Gaussian-deconvolved polarization angles—makes the ST estimator recover plane-of-sky magnetic field strength in star-forming clouds within…

desk verdict A well-executed single-simulation calibration study with a useful recipe, but the generality claim is in-sample; the paper deserves review but needs an out-of-sample test. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06297 v1 pith:ZVZPUM76 submitted 2025-07-08 astro-ph.GA

Aristeidis Polychronakis , Aris Tritsis , Raphael Skalidis , Konstantinos Tassis This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords magneticfieldstrengthstar-formingregionsDCFmethodSTpolarizationangledispersionradiativetransferMHDsimulationssyntheticobservations
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 asks whether the two standard polarization-based estimators of magnetic field strength—the classic DCF dispersion method and its newer ST variant that includes compressible motions—can be trusted inside self-gravitating, star-forming clouds, where gravity adds an ordered hourglass bend to the field and extra non-turbulent line broadening. Using one chemo-dynamical MHD simulation of a collapsing cloud and synthetic observations at seven viewing angles, the authors show that the choice of how to measure the three input parameters matters more than which estimator is used. They identify a three-step recipe—density from inverse radiative-transfer modelling, velocity dispersion from second-moment maps, and polarization-angle spread from Gaussian fits that strip out the hourglass contribution—under which the ST method recovers the plane-of-sky field strength to within 1σ of the molecular-species-weighted median and follows the expected cosine dependence on inclination angle. They also show that both methods return this species-weighted median, not a central or local value, which matters for how the results are interpreted.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the corrected parameter triple entering two energy-equipartition estimators: the classic DCF relation $B_{\rm POS}=f\sqrt{4\pi\rho}\,\delta v/\delta\theta$ and the ST relation $B_{\rm POS}=\sqrt{2\pi\rho}\,\delta v/\sqrt{\delta\theta}$. The argument's work is done by three measurement rules: inverting the CO J=1→0 and J=2→1 line intensities through radiative-transfer modelling to get ρ; taking the mean of the second-moment map to get δv; and fitting two Gaussians to the polarization-angle histogram and adding their variances in quadrature, $(A_1\sigma_1^2+A_2\sigma_2^2)^{1/2}$, to get δθ with the hourglass removed. The Gaussian deconvolution is what restores the cosine trend with inclination angle, and the radiative-transfer density is what anchors the absolute scale; the second-moment δv performs better than average-spectrum or first-moment estimates because it isolates localized turbulence from gravitational infall.

What would settle it

Run the same blind three-step analysis on a second, independently generated MHD simulation of a collapsing cloud with different initial conditions (for example, mass-to-flux ratio 5, warmer gas, or compressive driving) at the same and later snapshots: if the ST values fall outside 1σ of the tracer-weighted median plane-of-sky field or stop following the cosine trend across inclination angles, the recipe's generality fails. A cheaper observational check is to apply the recipe to a real core with a Zeeman-measured line-of-sight field and test whether the recovered plane-of-sky field, combined with the known inclination, reproduces the Zeeman value.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that in self-gravitating clouds the intrinsic parameters entering the DCF and ST estimators should be computed as: ρ from inverse radiative-transfer analysis of the CO line intensities, δv from the mean of the second-moment maps, and δθ from a two-Gaussian fit to the polarization-angle distribution, combining the two variances in quadrature so that the ordered hourglass morphology's contribution to the angle spread is removed. With this combination, the ST estimate of the plane-of-sky magnetic field strength tracks the true median of the CO-weighted POS field within 1σ across inclination angles and follows the expected $B_{\rm POS}\propto\cos\gamma$ trend, while DCF systematically overestimates, particularly at edge-on viewing. The authors further claim that what these methods actually probe is the molecular-species-weighted median of the true POS field over the observed region, so quoting the derived field at the dense core center would overstate the central field.

Load-bearing premise

The entire recipe is validated on one simulated collapsing cloud—a single ideal-MHD, 10 K realization analyzed at one moment, with initial mass-to-flux ratio 2.3 and a $10^{21}$ $cm^{-2}$ column threshold—so its transfer to real clouds rests on that simulation being representative.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Observers working on collapsing clouds can adopt the recipe and expect ST-based field strengths to be within 1σ of the species-weighted plane-of-sky median, with no ad hoc correction factor.
  • A measured plane-of-sky field from either method should be interpreted as a cloud-scale, tracer-weighted median, not a value for the core center; comparing it with central densities or column densities overstates the central field.
  • Parameter choices dominate the error budget: using geometric density estimates or velocity dispersions from average spectra can shift field estimates by factors of order five, so standardizing the measurement choices matters for comparing cloud-to-cloud statistics.
  • The same recipe applied at column densities above 10^22 cm^-2 loses accuracy for both methods, so the methods are best restricted to envelope material rather than the innermost dense core.
  • Because ST outperforms DCF and needs no correction factor tied to the Alfvén Mach number, studies that currently apply DCF with varied f factors could reduce systematic bias by switching to ST with the recipe.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The two-Gaussian removal assumes the ordered field contribution is well captured by a bimodal angle distribution; in clouds with non-hourglass large-scale morphologies, a dispersion-function subtraction may be more robust, a possibility the paper itself flags.
  • If the species-weighted-median interpretation holds generally, then observing the same region with tracers of different critical densities should yield different median fields, giving observers a way to map how field strength varies with density within a cloud.
  • A natural stress test is to apply the same blind recipe to a different collapsing-cloud simulation—different mass-to-flux ratio, temperature, or turbulence driving—and to a non-collapsing turbulent cloud; the recipe's transferability depends on the single realization studied here being representative.
  • The recipe could be paired with Zeeman measurements: in a real core with a measured line-of-sight field, the recipe's predicted plane-of-sky field combined with the inclination angle should reproduce the Zeeman value, offering an independent observational check.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper evaluates the Davis-Chandrasekhar-Fermi (DCF) and Skalidis-Tassis (ST) methods for estimating the plane-of-sky magnetic field strength in a self-gravitating, star-forming cloud. Using a 3D MHD chemo-dynamical simulation of a collapsing cloud, the authors generate synthetic observations at seven inclination angles and compare 18 combinations of estimators for the density (geometric approximations or RADEX inverse radiative transfer), the velocity dispersion (average spectrum, second-moment map, or first-moment map), and the polarization-angle dispersion (circular standard deviation, two-Gaussian fit, or Houde et al. dispersion function). They find that the choice of parameter estimator strongly affects the inferred field strength, that both methods probe the CO-weighted median of the true POS field component, and that the ST method follows the expected cosine trend with inclination while remaining within 1 sigma of the median field. On this basis they propose a three-step recipe: RADEX-based density, second-moment velocity dispersion, and Gaussian-fit angle dispersion.

Significance. If the proposed recipe were robustly validated, it would provide a practical, standardized procedure for observers estimating magnetic field strengths in self-gravitating clouds, and the demonstration that DCF/ST recover the species-weighted median field rather than a volume-weighted or central value is a useful interpretive result. The paper also makes a commendable effort to compare many estimator combinations and to quantify uncertainties. However, the central validation is in-sample: the recipe is chosen after the true field is disclosed (Section 5) and is then presented as a general prescription. The paper's own Appendix A shows the recipe loses accuracy at higher column-density thresholds, and the DCF recommendation contradicts the paper's own chi-squared ranking in Fig. 10. The single-simulation basis limits the generality of the title-level claim. These issues do not invalidate the comparison framework, but they do require substantial revision before the recipe can be accepted as reliable.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5, Eq. (13)] The recipe is selected by minimizing chi-squared computed against the true field values B_true,gamma (the CO-weighted median from the simulation), after the true field has been disclosed to the analysis team. The same data and the same B_true values are then used to validate the recipe and to claim that ST consistently remains within 1 sigma of the median field. This is an in-sample selection, not an independent test, and it undermines the blind-analysis claim made in Section 3. Please provide an out-of-sample test (e.g., a different snapshot, a different simulation with different initial conditions, or a leave-one-out inclination-angle analysis) or explicitly reframe the result as a calibration study.
  2. [Fig. 10 and Section 5] According to the chi-squared ranking in Fig. 10, the best DCF combination uses the circular standard deviation for delta-theta, while the best ST combination uses the two-Gaussian fit. The authors nevertheless adopt the two-Gaussian delta-theta for both methods because it applies every possible correction. This choice means the DCF variant recommended in the recipe is not the best DCF variant by the paper's own metric; consequently, the conclusion that ST outperforms DCF is not a comparison of each method's optimal configuration. Please either adopt per-method optimal delta-theta choices in the comparison or justify the common-recipe choice with a quantitative argument.
  3. [Appendix A and Section 5] When the column-density threshold is raised to 10^22 cm^-2, the recommended recipe (RADEX density, second-moment delta-v, Gaussian-fit delta-theta) no longer produces the expected monotonic decrease with inclination angle, and the paper states that both methods lose accuracy in the innermost regions. Since self-gravitating clouds include such dense regions, the paper's global claim that the recipe reliably estimates B_POS in star-forming regions is too strong without an explicit scope restriction. Please state the range of column densities or evolutionary stages over which the recipe is claimed to be valid, and ideally show that the failure is understood rather than merely reported.
  4. [Section 2.1] All conclusions are based on a single FLASH chemo-dynamical realization at a single snapshot (central density 10^5 cm^-3), with ideal MHD, isothermal 10 K gas, and mass-to-flux ratio 2.3. The within-1-sigma agreement of the ST method could be specific to this realization or to the particular turbulent seed. To support the general recommendation for observers, at least one additional simulation with different initial conditions (e.g., a different Alfvén Mach number, mass-to-flux ratio, or turbulent driving) is needed, or the claims must be scaled back to a case study.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.2.3 footnote] The footnote states that the HH09 implementation was performed after the revision process and that the team already knew the true field strength values; the agreement between HH09 and the Gaussian-fit delta-theta in Fig. 6 should be interpreted with this potential bias in mind, and the main text should acknowledge this explicitly.
  2. [Section 3.3.3] The RADEX grid construction and the tolerance of 0.5 in the antenna temperature ratio are described qualitatively; please specify the exact grid spacing and the selection criterion so that the analysis is reproducible.
  3. [Eq. (12)] For a two-component Gaussian mixture, the total variance includes the between-component term A1*A2*(mu1 - mu2)^2; as written, Eq. (12) omits this term. Please clarify whether delta-theta is meant to represent the total spread of the polarization-angle distribution or only the turbulence-dominated component widths after removing the hourglass.
  4. [Section 5] The choice to compute chi-squared only for inclination angles gamma >= 45 degrees is not justified; since the paper also reports an accurate ST value at gamma = 22.5 degrees, please motivate or vary this cut.
  5. [Fig. 8] The labels for the parameter combinations (e.g., rho3, delta-v2, delta-theta2) are difficult to read at the displayed size; please annotate the best-performing panels directly or enlarge the figure.
  6. [Throughout] There are minor typographical issues, including 'obsrevations' in Section 2.2 and 'asses' in Section 1, and the double reference to 'Tritsis et al. 2025' with different A&A volume numbers should be checked.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The central 'validation' of the three-step recipe is in-sample: the recipe is chosen by chi^2 against the true field of the same single simulation, and the claimed within-1sigma accuracy is then presented as a prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5 (Eq. 13, Fig. 10); recommendation repeated in Section 6 and Abstract]
    "At this stage of our study, the actual magnetic field values from the simulation were disclosed ... In order to find which one of the 18 different combinations of parameters better estimates the actual magnetic field values, we calculate the chi^2 ... We observe that the models that behave better, for both methods, are those where the density is estimated using RADEX, dv from the second moment maps ... We decide to take as the best combination for both the methods, the one where every possible correction is applied."

    The three-step recipe is not an independent prescription: it is the chi^2-best (for ST) among 18 combinations evaluated against the true B_POS of the same simulation after the truth was disclosed to the analysis team. The Abstract's claim that 'ST ... consistently remains within 1sigma from the true strength of the field' is therefore a report of the selected configuration's in-sample performance on the data used to select it, not an out-of-sample prediction. Appendix A, the only partially external check at a higher column-density threshold, explicitly fails to reproduce the monotonic cosine trend, so the central reliability claim rests on the same simulation that produced the selection.

full rationale

The ST and DCF formulas themselves are not circular: they are prior theoretical expressions (Skalidis & Tassis 2021; Davis 1951; Chandrasekhar & Fermi 1953), and the simulation's true magnetic field is an external ground truth, not an input to those formulas. The blind design also gives the intermediate estimates of rho, dv, and dtheta independent content, since those quantities were computed without knowing the true field. However, the paper's central deliverable is the specific three-step recipe (RADEX density, second-moment dv, Gaussian-fit dtheta) and the claim that this recipe 'reliably estimates' B_POS and remains within 1sigma. That deliverable is the output of a model-selection step: after the true field was disclosed, the authors computed chi^2 for all 18 parameter combinations and adopted the best (or, for DCF, a preferred) combination. The subsequent agreement is therefore partly fitted to the validation target rather than predicted from it. The only partially independent check, Appendix A with N_H2 >= 10^22 cm^-2, does not confirm the recipe; it shows the methods lose accuracy and no longer follow the expected monotonic trend. This in-sample selection constitutes a real but partial circularity: the physical comparison of ST versus DCF retains independent content, while the claimed reliability of the recommended recipe is not independently demonstrated. The DCF case also weakens the selection argument, since Fig. 10 shows the lowest chi^2 for DCF uses the circular standard deviation for dtheta, yet the paper adopts the Gaussian fit for both methods because it applies 'every possible correction'; thus the recipe is partly a prior choice, not purely a chi^2-forced optimum. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present: the ST method is tested against a new simulation rather than merely asserted by self-citation. Overall, the central accuracy claim is partially circular by construction of its validation, justifying a score of 6.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The central claim depends on one simulation, hand-chosen thresholds, the assumed DCF f-factor, RADEX grid bounds, and the definition of ground truth as the CO-weighted median POS field. These are choices, not derived quantities, and they set the regime in which the recipe is validated.

free parameters (4)
  • Column-density threshold (NH2 >= 1e21 cm^-2) = 1e21 cm^-2
    Hand-chosen in Section 3 to isolate self-gravitating gas; every estimated B value, the 'true' distributions, and the chi-squared ranking use this cutoff. Appendix A raises it to 1e22 and the recipe fails.
  • DCF correction factor f = 0.5
    Set to 0.5 after Ostriker et al. (2001) in Section 4.1; not fitted here, but all DCF estimates scale inversely with it.
  • RADEX grid bounds and CO abundance range = n_H2 = 1e2-1e4 cm^-3; X_CO = 5e-7 to 7e-5
    Section 3.3.3: grid limits come from the two geometric density estimates and literature abundances; the RADEX-derived density is confined by these arbitrary bounds.
  • Effective cloud depth Delta' for the HH09 dispersion function = POS cloud dimension
    Appendix B: adopted rather than measured; the authors call it 'somewhat arbitrary.' Not used for final B values, so limited impact.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Energy equipartition between turbulent kinetic energy and magnetic energy fluctuations (Eqs. 2 and 7)
    Foundation of both DCF and ST; the paper relies on it at the large scales traced by 12CO (Section 3, citing Beattie et al. 2025).
  • domain assumption Ideal MHD, flux freezing, and isothermal 10 K gas
    Simulation setup (Section 2.1); synthetic observations inherit these, so the validation cannot probe deviations from them.
  • ad hoc to paper A single collapsing-cloud realization represents real self-gravitating clouds
    One FLASH simulation, one snapshot at 1.2 free-fall times (Section 2.1); no ensemble or parameter sweep supports generality.
  • domain assumption 12CO traces the turbulence relevant for equipartition
    Section 3 argues 12CO captures large-scale motions while dense tracers would bias toward compact regions; this choice sets both the tracer and the weighting used to define the 'true' field.
  • ad hoc to paper The CO-weighted median POS field is the appropriate ground truth
    Section 5 defines B_true as the median of the CO-weighted POS distribution for the chi-squared ranking; the central core field is up to five times stronger, so this definition directly shapes the recommended recipe.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A three-step approach to reliably estimate magnetic field strengths in star-forming regions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZVZPUM76

@misc{pith2026250706297,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A three-step approach to reliably estimate magnetic field strengths in star-forming regions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZVZPUM76}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06297}
}
read the original abstract

The magnetic field is known to play a crucial role in star formation. Dust polarization is an effective tool for probing the morphology of the field, yet it does not directly trace its strength. Several methods have been developed, combining polarization and spectroscopic data, to estimate the strength of the magnetic field, including the DCF method, which relates these quantities to the magnetic-field strength under the assumption of Alfv\'enic turbulence. Skalidis & Tassis (2021) (ST), relaxed this assumption to account for the compressible modes, deriving more accurate estimates of the field strength. We evaluate the accuracy of these methods in star-forming regions and propose a systematic approach for calculating the key observational parameters involved: the velocity dispersion (dv), the dispersion of polarization angles (d\theta), and the cloud density (rho). We use a 3D MHD chemodynamical simulation of a turbulent molecular cloud and generate synthetic observations, for seven different inclination angles. We employ various approaches for estimating the parameters dv, d\theta, and rho and find that the approach used to calculate these parameters plays a crucial role in estimating the magnetic field strength. We show that the value probed by both the DCF and ST methods corresponds to the median of the molecular-species-weighted POS component of the magnetic field. The ST outperforms DCF, accurately following the expected cosine trend with respect to the inclination angle, and remains within 1\sigma from the true strength of the field. Based on our analysis, we proposed that, in self-gravitating clouds, the intrinsic parameters (rho, dv, d\theta) should be calculated as follows: rho using radiative transfer analysis, dv using the second moment maps, and d\theta by fitting Gaussians to the polarization angle distributions to remove the contribution of the hourglass morphology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.06297 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Column density (left column), first moment (middle column) and second moment maps (right column) for three inclination [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Average spectra and their FWHM as a function of the inclination angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. δv as a function of the inclination angle (γ = 90◦ de￾notes the edge-on case, with the mean magnetic field on the POS, while γ = 0 ◦ denotes the face-on case, with the mean magnetic field along the LOS). The black line represents the values ex￾tracted using the average spectra, with the blue line we show the derived δv using the second moment maps, and with the red line using the first moment maps. 3.1.2. Derivation… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 1D distributions of the second moment maps as a function of the inclination angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The black solid lines show the polarization angle distributions for every inclination angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: δθ as a function of the inclination angle γ. The pur￾ple dashed line represents the values extracted using the circu￾lar standard deviation of the polarization distributions, the green dashed line using the Gaussian fits, and the red dashed line using the HH09 method. …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Density as a function of the inclination angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The magnetic field strength in the POS calculated using the DCF (panels a) and ST (panels b) methods, as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distributions of BPOS from the simulation for different inclination angles γ. For each inclination angle we have only consid￾ered the locations where the column density exceeds the determined threshold (1021cm−2 ). Black distributions show the 3D values of the BPOS. Bl…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: to a logarithmic scale. The labels on the horizontal axes denote the approach used to calculate ρ and δv, and with the two colors we differentiate between the two approaches used to calculate δθ (always according to the notation described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Challenges in probing turbulent and magnetic support in cores: the W43-MM1 protocluster case study

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Simplified virial analyses of W43-MM1 cores overestimate non-thermal support because linewidths include organized motions of 1–3 km/s and surface terms are omitted, producing unexpectedly high stability fractions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint 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 := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    E.\ 2015, , 53, 501

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

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

  4. [4]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014666

    Andr \'e , P., Men'shchikov, A., Bontemps, S., et al.\ 2010, , 518, L102. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014666

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014666 2010

  5. [5]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116596

    Arzoumanian, D., Andr \'e , P., Didelon, P., et al.\ 2011, , 529, L6. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116596

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116596 2011

  6. [6]

    S., Hasegawa, T., et al.\ 2021, , 647, A78

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038624 2021

  7. [7]

    R., Federrath, C., Klessen, R

    Beattie, J. R., Federrath, C., Klessen, R. S., et al.\ 2025, Nature Astronomy. doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02551-5

    doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02551-5 2025

  8. [8]

    R., Federrath, C., & Seta, A.\ 2020, , 498, 2, 1593

    Beattie, J. R., Federrath, C., & Seta, A.\ 2020, , 498, 2, 1593. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2257

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2257 2020

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    R., Krumholz, M

    Beattie, J. R., Krumholz, M. R., Skalidis, R., et al.\ 2022, , 515, 4, 5267. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2099

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    T., Padovani, M., Girart, J

    Beltr \'a n, M. T., Padovani, M., Girart, J. M., et al.\ 2019, , 630, A54. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935701

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    C., et al.\ 2024, , 684, A212

    Be s li \'c , I., Coud \'e , S., Lis, D. C., et al.\ 2024, , 684, A212. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348376

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    & Hameiri, E.\ 1988, Physics of Fluids, 31, 5, 1153

    Bhattacharjee, A. & Hameiri, E.\ 1988, Physics of Fluids, 31, 5, 1153. doi:10.1063/1.866744

    1988 doi

  5. [13]

    S., & Spangler, S

    Bhattacharjee, A., Ng, C. S., & Spangler, S. R.\ 1998, , 494, 1, 409. doi:10.1086/305184

    1998 doi

  6. [14]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937104

    Bonne, L., Schneider, N., Bontemps, S., et al.\ 2020, , 641, A17. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937104

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    & Fermi, E.\ 1953, , 118, 113

    Chandrasekhar, S. & Fermi, E.\ 1953, , 118, 113. doi:10.1086/145731

    1953 doi

  8. [16]

    & Yoo, H.\ 2016, , 821, 1, 21

    Cho, J. & Yoo, H.\ 2016, , 821, 1, 21. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/21

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad88ed

    Choi, Y., Kwon, W., Pattle, K., et al.\ 2024, , 977, 1, 32. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad88ed

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b23

    Coud \'e , S., Bastien, P., Houde, M., et al.\ 2019, , 877, 2, 88. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b23

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    M.\ 2012, , 50, 29

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

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRev.81.890.2

    Davis, L.\ 1951, Physical Review, 81, 5, 890. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.81.890.2

    1951 doi

  13. [21]

    B., & Fisher, R.\ 2008, Physica Scripta Volume T, 132, 014046

    Dubey, A., Reid, L. B., & Fisher, R.\ 2008, Physica Scripta Volume T, 132, 014046. doi:10.1088/0031-8949/2008/T132/014046

    2008 doi

  14. [22]

    S., et al.\ 2021, , 912, 2, L27

    Eswaraiah, C., Li, D., Furuya, R. S., et al.\ 2021, , 912, 2, L27. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abeb1c

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    doi:10.1086/587479

    Falceta-Gon c alves, D., Lazarian, A., & Kowal, G.\ 2008, , 679, 1, 537. doi:10.1086/587479

    2008 doi

  16. [24]

    doi:10.1017/S0022377816001069

    Federrath, C.\ 2016, Journal of Plasma Physics, 82, 6, 535820601. doi:10.1017/S0022377816001069

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    S., et al.\ 2010, , 512, A81

    Federrath, C., Roman-Duval, J., Klessen, R. S., et al.\ 2010, , 512, A81. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912437

    2010 doi

  18. [26]

    S., et al.\ 2022, Astrophysics Source Code Library

    Federrath, C., Roman-Duval, J., Klessen, R. S., et al.\ 2022, Astrophysics Source Code Library. ascl:2204.001

    2022

  19. [27]

    M.\ 2011, , 535, A44

    Frau, P., Galli, D., & Girart, J. M.\ 2011, , 535, A44. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117813

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    doi:10.1086/317361

    Fryxell, B., Olson, K., Ricker, P., et al.\ 2000, , 131, 1, 273. doi:10.1086/317361

    2000 doi

  21. [29]

    M., Rao, R., & Marrone, D

    Girart, J. M., Rao, R., & Marrone, D. P.\ 2006, Science, 313, 5788, 812. doi:10.1126/science.1129093

    2006 doi

  22. [30]

    M., Beltr \'a n, M

    Girart, J. M., Beltr \'a n, M. T., Zhang, Q., et al.\ 2009, Science, 324, 5933, 1408. doi:10.1126/science.1171807

    2009 doi

  23. [31]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142713

    Gong, Y., Liu, S., Wang, J., et al.\ 2022, , 663, A82. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142713

    2022 doi

  24. [33]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al.\ 2020, , 585, 7825, 357. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  25. [34]

    G., Mac Low, M.-M., et al.\ 2001, , 561, 2, 800

    Heitsch, F., Zweibel, E. G., Mac Low, M.-M., et al.\ 2001, , 561, 2, 800. doi:10.1086/323489

    2001 doi

  26. [35]

    & Inutsuka, S.-

    Hennebelle, P. & Inutsuka, S.-. ichiro .\ 2019, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 5. doi:10.3389/fspas.2019.00005

    2019

  27. [36]

    H., Kirby, L., Dotson, J

    Hildebrand, R. H., Kirby, L., Dotson, J. L., et al.\ 2009, , 696, 1, 567. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/567

    2009 doi

  28. [37]

    E., Hildebrand, R

    Houde, M., Vaillancourt, J. E., Hildebrand, R. H., et al.\ 2009, , 706, 2, 1504. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/706/2/1504

    2009 doi

  29. [38]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac972

    Hu, Y., Federrath, C., Xu, S., et al.\ 2022, , 513, 2, 2100. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac972

    2022 doi

  30. [39]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3766

    Hu, Y., Lazarian, A., Wu, Y., et al.\ 2024, , 527, 4, 11240. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3766

    2024 doi

  31. [40]

    D.\ 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 3, 90

    Hunter, J. D.\ 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 3, 90. doi:10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  32. [41]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac99e0

    Hwang, J., Kim, J., Pattle, K., et al.\ 2022, , 941, 1, 51. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac99e0

    2022 doi

  33. [42]

    Kalberla, P. M. W. & Haud, U.\ 2023, , 673, A101. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245200

    2023 doi

  34. [43]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd6f2

    Karoly, J., Ward-Thompson, D., Pattle, K., et al.\ 2023, , 952, 1, 29. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd6f2

    2023 doi

  35. [44]

    K., Chen, C.-Y., Fissel, L

    King, P. K., Chen, C.-Y., Fissel, L. M., et al.\ 2019, , 490, 2, 2760. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2628

    2019 doi

  36. [45]

    & Basu, S.\ 2003, , 595, 2, 842

    Kudoh, T. & Basu, S.\ 2003, , 595, 2, 842. doi:10.1086/377495

    2003 doi

  37. [46]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4bbe

    Kwon, W., Pattle, K., Sadavoy, S., et al.\ 2022, , 926, 2, 163. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4bbe

    2022 doi

  38. [47]

    K., Pitrou, A., & Seibert, S.\ 2015, Proc

    Lam, S. K., Pitrou, A., & Seibert, S.\ 2015, Proc. Second Workshop on the LLVM Compiler Infrastructure in HPC, 1. doi:10.1145/2833157.2833162

    2015

  39. [48]

    W., Yuen, K

    Lazarian, A., Ho, K. W., Yuen, K. H., et al.\ 2025, , 978, 1, 88. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8d49

    2025 doi

  40. [49]

    I., Fern \'a ndez-L \'o pez, M., Storm, S., et al.\ 2014, , 797, 2, 76

    Lee, K. I., Fern \'a ndez-L \'o pez, M., Storm, S., et al.\ 2014, , 797, 2, 76. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/76

    2014 doi

  41. [50]

    S., Lopez-Rodriguez, E., Ajeddig, H., et al.\ 2022, , 510, 4, 6085

    Li, P. S., Lopez-Rodriguez, E., Ajeddig, H., et al.\ 2022, , 510, 4, 6085. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3448

    2022 doi

  42. [51]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0958

    Liu, J., Qiu, K., Berry, D., et al.\ 2019, , 877, 1, 43. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0958

    2019 doi

  43. [52]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0cec

    Liu, J., Zhang, Q., Commer c on, B., et al.\ 2021, , 919, 2, 79. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0cec

    2021 doi

  44. [53]

    & Goldreich, P.\ 2001, , 554, 2, 1175

    Maron, J. & Goldreich, P.\ 2001, , 554, 2, 1175. doi:10.1086/321413

    2001 doi

  45. [54]

    M.\ 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 949223

    Maury, A., Hennebelle, P., & Girart, J. M.\ 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 949223. doi:10.3389/fspas.2022.949223

    2022

  46. [55]

    Mouschovias, T. C. & Spitzer, L.\ 1976, , 210, 326. doi:10.1086/154835

    1976 doi

  47. [56]

    Myers, P. C. & Goodman, A. A.\ 1991, , 373, 509. doi:10.1086/170070

    1991 doi

  48. [57]

    C., Stone, J

    Ostriker, E. C., Stone, J. M., & Gammie, C. F.\ 2001, , 546, 2, 980. doi:10.1086/318290

    2001 doi

  49. [58]

    T., et al.\ 2001, , 559, 2, 1005

    Padoan, P., Goodman, A., Draine, B. T., et al.\ 2001, , 559, 2, 1005. doi:10.1086/322504

    2001 doi

  50. [59]

    doi:10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/11

    Padoan, P., Pan, L., Haugb lle, T., et al.\ 2016, , 822, 1, 11. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/11

    2016 doi

  51. [60]

    M., et al.\ 2021, , 912, 2, 159

    Palau, A., Zhang, Q., Girart, J. M., et al.\ 2021, , 912, 2, 159. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abee1e

    2021 doi

  52. [61]

    V., Psaradaki, I., & Tassis, K.\ 2016, , 462, 2, 1517

    Panopoulou, G. V., Psaradaki, I., & Tassis, K.\ 2016, , 462, 2, 1517. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1678

    2016 doi

  53. [62]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2203.11179

    Pattle, K., Fissel, L., Tahani, M., et al.\ 2023, Protostars and Planets VII, 534, 193. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2203.11179

    2023 doi arXiv

  54. [63]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abcc6c

    Pattle, K., Lai, S.-P., Di Francesco, J., et al.\ 2021, , 907, 2, 88. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abcc6c

    2021 doi

  55. [64]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa80e5

    Pattle, K., Ward-Thompson, D., Berry, D., et al.\ 2017, , 846, 2, 122. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa80e5

    2017 doi

  56. [65]

    M., et al.\ 2014, , 794, 1, L18

    Qiu, K., Zhang, Q., Menten, K. M., et al.\ 2014, , 794, 1, L18. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/794/1/L18

    2014 doi

  57. [66]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad660c

    Saha, P., Sanhueza, P., Padovani, M., et al.\ 2024, , 972, 1, L6. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad660c

    2024 doi

  58. [67]

    P., Busquet, G., Franco, G

    Santos, F. P., Busquet, G., Franco, G. A. P., et al.\ 2016, , 832, 2, 186. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/186

    2016 doi

  59. [68]

    W.\ 1979, On Optimal and Data-Based Histograms, Biometrika, 66(3), 605--610

    Scott, D. W.\ 1979, On Optimal and Data-Based Histograms, Biometrika, 66(3), 605--610

    1979

  60. [69]

    R., et al.\ 2008, , 687, 2, 1075

    Sheffer, Y., Rogers, M., Federman, S. R., et al.\ 2008, , 687, 2, 1075. doi:10.1086/591484

    2008 doi

  61. [70]

    L.\ 2015, , 127, 949, 299

    Shirley, Y. L.\ 2015, , 127, 949, 299. doi:10.1086/680342

    2015 doi

  62. [71]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202345880

    Skalidis, R., Gkimisi, K., Tassis, K., et al.\ 2023, , 673, A76. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202345880

    2023 doi

  63. [72]

    R., et al.\ 2021, , 656, A118

    Skalidis, R., Sternberg, J., Beattie, J. R., et al.\ 2021, , 656, A118. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142045

    2021 doi

  64. [73]

    & Tassis, K.\ 2021, , 647, A186

    Skalidis, R. & Tassis, K.\ 2021, , 647, A186. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039779

    2021 doi

  65. [74]

    V., et al.\ 2022, , 665, A77

    Skalidis, R., Tassis, K., Panopoulou, G. V., et al.\ 2022, , 665, A77. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142512

    2022 doi

  66. [75]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346072

    Skalidis, R., Tassis, K., & Pavlidou, V.\ 2023, , 672, L3. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346072

    2023 doi

  67. [76]

    D., Alves, F., Boulanger, F., et al.\ 2016, , 596, A93

    Soler, J. D., Alves, F., Boulanger, F., et al.\ 2016, , 596, A93. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628996

    2016 doi

  68. [77]

    W., Looney, L

    Stephens, I. W., Looney, L. W., Kwon, W., et al.\ 2013, , 769, 1, L15. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/769/1/L15

    2013 doi

  69. [78]

    & Federrath, C.\ 2022, , 509, 4, 5237

    Stewart, M. & Federrath, C.\ 2022, , 509, 4, 5237. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3313

    2022 doi

  70. [79]

    doi:10.1051/epjconf/202226500022

    Tafalla, M., Usero, A., & Hacar, \'A .\ 2022, European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, 265, 00022. doi:10.1051/epjconf/202226500022

    2022

  71. [80]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452013

    Tritsis, A., Basu, S., & Federrath, C.\ 2025, , 695, A18. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452013

    2025 doi

  72. [81]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453265

    Tritsis, A., Basu, S., & Federrath, C.\ 2025, , 696, A35. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453265

    2025 doi

  73. [82]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3740

    Tritsis, A., Federrath, C., Willacy, K., et al.\ 2022, , 510, 3, 4420. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3740

    2022 doi

  74. [83]

    & Kylafis, N

    Tritsis, A. & Kylafis, N. D.\ 2023, , arXiv:2310.15230. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2310.15230

    2023 doi arXiv

  75. [84]

    V., Mouschovias, T

    Tritsis, A., Panopoulou, G. V., Mouschovias, T. C., et al.\ 2015, , 451, 4, 4384. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1133

    2015 doi

  76. [85]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1152

    Tritsis, A., Yorke, H., & Tassis, K.\ 2018, , 478, 2, 2056. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1152

    2018 doi

  77. [86]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2209.13765

    Tsukamoto, Y., Maury, A., Commercon, B., et al.\ 2023, Protostars and Planets VII, 534, 317. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2209.13765

    2023 doi arXiv

  78. [87]

    J., Smith, B

    Turk, M. J., Smith, B. D., Oishi, J. S., et al.\ 2011, , 192, 1, 9. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9

    2011 doi

  79. [88]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243633

    Valdivia, V., Maury, A., & Hennebelle, P.\ 2022, , 668, A83. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243633

    2022 doi

  80. [89]

    van der Tak, F. F. S., Black, J. H., Sch \"o ier, F. L., et al.\ 2007, , 468, 2, 627. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066820

    2007 doi

  81. [90]

    E., et al.\ 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al.\ 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261. doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  82. [91]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbea4

    Ward-Thompson, D., Karoly, J., Pattle, K., et al.\ 2023, , 946, 2, 62. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbea4

    2023 doi

  83. [92]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada8a0

    Xu, D., Karcheski, J., Law, C.-Y., et al.\ 2025, , 980, 1, 52. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada8a0

    2025 doi

  84. [93]

    G.\ 1990, , 362, 545

    Zweibel, E. G.\ 1990, , 362, 545. doi:10.1086/169291

    1990 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.