Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 78 references

JCMT POL-2 observations of magnetic fields potentially shaped by outflows in the pre-planetary nebulae CRL 618 and OH231.8+4.2

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 Outflows appear to shape magnetic fields in two pre-planetary nebulae, according to the first POL-2 observations of these objects.

desk verdict First POL-2 look at two PPNe, well done and honest, but the outflow-shaped field story stays tentative at 14-arcsec resolution. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21829 v1 pith:7UQEFEFF submitted 2025-07-29 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Kate Pattle , Giorgio Savini This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords pre-planetarynebulaeCRL618OH231.8+4.2magneticfieldsdustpolarizationsubmillimetrepolarimetrystellaroutflowsPOL-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

Using the POL-2 polarimeter on the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope, this paper reports the first 850-micron polarized-light observations of the pre-planetary nebulae CRL 618 and OH231.8+4.2, and the first detection of ordered magnetic fields in their extended circumstellar envelopes at roughly $10^4$ au scales. The authors argue that the fields trace dusty material swept up by the central post-AGB outflows: in CRL 618 the field runs along one edge of the bullet-ejection cone, while in OH231.8 it lies perpendicular to the collimated jet and appears to arise from an infrared-bright clump near the outflow base. They also find that the two sources have statistically indistinguishable polarization fractions despite their different carbon- and oxygen-rich chemistries, which they interpret as evidence that sub-beam magnetic-field complexity, not grain composition, sets the observed polarization fraction at these scales. A sympathetic reader would take this as an initial demonstration that single-dish submillimetre polarimetry can probe magnetic fields in PPN envelopes on scales inaccessible to interferometers.

What carries the argument

The central object is the magnetic-field morphology traced by 850-micron polarized dust emission, measured with the POL-2 polarimeter on SCUBA-2/JCMT using DAISY scan patterns and standard pol2map reduction with an instrumental-polarisation correction. The field direction is inferred by rotating the measured polarization angle by 90°, under the radiative-torques assumption that dust grains are aligned with the magnetic field. Because neither source is resolved at the 14.1-arcsecond beam, the analysis compares the binned 8-arcsecond polarization vectors with HST F658N [NII] images of the bullets and outflows, with SMA, CARMA and ALMA magnetic-field vectors on small scales, and with Planck 353-GHz fields on 5-arcminute scales; the polarization-fraction analysis uses both a power-law fit to debiased data and a Ricean-mean fit to non-debiased data to estimate the index α relating polarization fraction to total intensity.

What would settle it

A polarization map of CRL 618 with roughly 3-4 arcsecond resolution that shows the field direction does not follow the 70° outflow-cavity wall, or a resolved map of OH231.8 showing the southern-lobe polarization does not originate from the clump 2MASS J07421687-1442521, would falsify the paper's interpretation; so would evidence that the 850-micron polarized intensity is contaminated by an unrelated interstellar cloud along the line of sight.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that 850-micron polarized dust emission from CRL 618 and OH231.8 traces ordered magnetic fields that have been reordered by the interaction between the circumstellar envelope and the outflows from the central post-AGB star. For CRL 618, the ten central POL-2 vectors give a mean magnetic-field position angle of 66° ± 12° east of north, matching the 70° northeast/southwest opening angle of the bullet ejections rather than the average bullet direction or the large-scale Planck field; the authors hypothesize that the polarized emission preferentially comes from material in the wall of the dust cavity opened by the bullets. For OH231.8, the five central vectors give 108° ± 18°, approximately perpendicular to the 21° outflow, in agreement with earlier CARMA measurements at about 109°, and the authors suggest the polarization preferentially arises from the dense, infrared-bright clump 2MASS J07421687-1442521 near the base of the outflow. The paper also reports that the polarization fractions of the two chemically different sources are statistically consistent, with power-law indices in the ranges 0.65-0.9 for CRL 618 and 0.6-1.0 for OH231.8, and concludes that at $10^4$ au resolution the complexity of the magnetic-field geometry on sub-beam scales, rather than grain composition, sets the measured polarization fraction.

Load-bearing premise

The measured polarization comes from the target nebulae's own dusty envelopes and the dust grains are aligned with the magnetic field, so rotating the polarization angle by 90 degrees gives the field direction; because neither object is resolved, the exact location of the polarized emission within the source cannot be directly verified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Single-dish submillimetre polarimetry at roughly $10^4$ au scales can recover ordered magnetic fields in pre-planetary nebulae even when interferometers only see the inner few arcseconds.
  • The magnetic-field/outflow relation in PPNe is not universal: CRL 618 shows a field aligned with one outflow-cone edge, while OH231.8 shows a field perpendicular to the outflow, so geometry and resolution matter.
  • The similarity of polarization fractions in a carbon-rich and an oxygen-rich source implies that at these scales sub-beam magnetic-field complexity, not grain composition, controls depolarization.
  • The disagreement with the large-scale Planck field directions shows that the PPN fields are locally reordered rather than inherited unchanged from the ambient interstellar medium.
  • Future higher-resolution single-dish instruments could test whether the polarized emission indeed comes from outflow cavity walls and dense clumps, as the paper hypothesizes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the cavity-wall interpretation is correct, magnetic fields in PPNe are actively reshaped by outflow-CSE interaction, meaning the fossil AGB field direction may be preserved only in the unperturbed outer envelope; this predicts that polarization vectors in CRL 618's outer envelope should match the peripheral vectors rather than the central 66° field.
  • The OH231.8 result suggests that single-dish polarization of a PPN can be dominated by a single dense clump rather than the whole envelope, so future surveys of PPN magnetic fields should check resolved clump positions before interpreting field-outflow alignment statistics.
  • A testable extension would be to observe young planetary nebulae with known jets to see whether the field-outflow alignments seen here persist after the PPN phase, connecting these results to the magnetic shaping of planetary nebulae.
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. The paper reports new JCMT POL-2 850 micron polarimetric observations of two pre-planetary nebulae, CRL 618 and OH231.8+4.2. Using 8-arcsec pixels within a 14.1-arcsec beam, the authors detect ordered polarization vectors in both sources, rotate them by 90 degrees to infer magnetic field directions, and interpret the resulting field morphologies as tracing dusty circumstellar material swept up by the central outflows. In CRL 618 the central field angle (66 +/- 12 deg) is close to an extreme bullet ejection angle (70 deg), while in OH231.8 the southern-lobe field (108 +/- 18 deg) is roughly perpendicular to the outflow and is compared with SMA/CARMA data. The paper also measures the power-law index alpha of the polarization fraction versus intensity relation using two methods, finds they disagree (0.90 +/- 0.05 vs 0.64 +/- 0.03 for CRL 618; 1.02 +/- 0.04 vs 0.60 +/- 0.09 for OH231.8), and uses the lack of a polarization-fraction difference between the carbon-rich and oxygen-rich sources to argue that sub-beam magnetic field complexity, rather than grain composition, sets the measured polarization fractions. The analysis is presented as a first detection of ordered magnetic fields in PPNe at ~10^4 AU scales.

Significance. If the inferences hold, this would be the first single-dish submillimetre polarimetric study of magnetic fields in pre-planetary nebulae at large angular scales, complementing existing interferometric studies that are restricted to the central few arcseconds. The paper is careful in its data reduction: standard POL-2 procedures are used, the IP correction and debiasing steps are explicitly documented, the noise properties are described in detail, and the reduced data are made available. The comparison of POL-2 vectors with SMA, CARMA, and Planck vectors is a clear strength, as is the explicit discussion of the two hypotheses for the origin of the polarized emission in CRL 618. The main significance lies in opening a new observational window on magnetic fields in the extended envelopes of evolved stars. However, the scientific conclusions about outflow-shaped magnetic fields rest on attribution of the detected polarization to specific circumstellar structures, and this attribution is not directly testable at the present angular resolution; the paper itself concedes this limitation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1 and 4.1.3]
  2. [Section 3.2.2 and 3.2.3]
  3. [Section 4.2.3 and Figure 13]
  4. [Section 4.4]
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.2.1]
  2. [Section 3.2.1]
  3. [Section 3.2.3]
  4. [Figure 2 caption]
  5. [Section 4.4]
  6. [Throughout]

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the observations, power-law fitting, and outflow comparisons are self-contained, and the self-citations are methodological rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper reports measured polarization angles and fractions and fits a power-law index to the data; it does not derive a prediction from a fitted model. The central comparisons use independent external data: the CRL 618 field angle of 66 degrees is compared with the bullet position-angle spread of 70-108 degrees from Huang et al. (2016), and the OH231.8 field angle of 108 degrees is compared with the outflow angle of 21 degrees from Alcolea et al. (2001). The 90-degree rotation from polarization angle to magnetic field direction is a standard radiative-torques assumption cited to Andersson et al. (2015), not to the authors' own prior work. Self-citations to Pattle et al. (2019) for the Ricean-mean fitting method and to Pattle et al. (2021) for POL-2 data reduction are methodological references; the alpha index is presented as a measured quantity with explicit caveats about debiasing, and the paper's conclusions about field geometry do not reduce to those fitting assumptions. No equation defines a target quantity in terms of itself, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The unresolved-beam and possible interstellar-dust-contamination issues are observational limitations, not circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's conclusions rest on standard dust-grain alignment physics, on the assumption that the 850 micron polarized light comes from the target CSEs, and on published outflow geometries. Two power-law slope parameters and one amplitude parameter are fitted to the polarization data; these are descriptive measurements rather than predictions, so they do not by themselves validate the outflow-shaping interpretation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha_CRL618 = 0.90 +/- 0.05 (debiased power-law); 0.64 +/- 0.03 (Ricean mean)
    Power-law slope of polarization fraction versus intensity in equation 6, fitted to CRL 618 data in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. Used to infer the degree of grain alignment or field tangling.
  • alpha_OH231.8 = 1.02 +/- 0.04 (debiased power-law); 0.60 +/- 0.09 (Ricean mean)
    Power-law slope of polarization fraction versus intensity for OH231.8, fitted in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. Compared with CRL 618 to assess polarization-hole behaviour.
  • p_sigmaQU = not quoted in text
    Amplitude parameter in the Ricean-mean model, equation 7, representing the polarization fraction at the RMS noise level. Fitted jointly with alpha in Section 3.2.2 but not reported numerically.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Magnetic field direction is inferred by rotating the polarization angle by 90 degrees, assuming radiative-torques grain alignment.
    Stated in Section 2. Standard for dust polarimetry but not independently verified for these sources; self-scattering or other alignment mechanisms are not ruled out.
  • domain assumption The 850 micron polarized emission is dominated by the target PPN's circumstellar envelope, not by unrelated interstellar dust along the line of sight.
    Assumed throughout Section 3.1. The Planck comparison in Figures 1 to 4 is used to discuss the ambient field, but no spectral separation or foreground subtraction is performed.
  • domain assumption Total intensity is a proxy for column density in optically thin, isothermal material.
    Invoked in Section 3.2 after equation 6 to interpret the power-law slope alpha as a grain-alignment or field-tangling indicator.
  • standard math The Ricean noise model for polarized intensity, equation 8, is valid when Stokes Q and U have independent Gaussian uncertainties.
    Used in Section 3.2.2, following Wardle & Kronberg 1974 and Simmons & Stewart 1985. Standard statistical treatment for polarized intensity.
  • domain assumption The bullet outflow geometry of CRL 618, with cone angles 70 to 108 degrees, is correct as published by Huang et al. 2016.
    The alignment claim in Section 4.1.3 depends on this external geometric model of the explosive bullets.
  • domain assumption Planck 353 GHz polarization at 5 arcmin resolution traces the large-scale ambient magnetic field along the same line of sight.
    Used as the unperturbed reference field in Section 4.1 and Figures 1 to 4. The Planck beam is much larger than the PPN and may include unrelated foreground or background ISM.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of JCMT POL-2 observations of magnetic fields potentially shaped by outflows in the pre-planetary nebulae CRL 618 and OH231.8+4.2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7UQEFEFF

@misc{pith2026250721829,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: JCMT POL-2 observations of magnetic fields potentially shaped by outflows in the pre-planetary nebulae CRL 618 and OH231.8+4.2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7UQEFEFF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21829}
}
abstract

We present the first observations of magnetic fields in pre-planetary nebulae (PPNe) made with the POL-2 polarimeter on the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope (JCMT). We observed the PPNe CRL 618 and OH231.8+4.2 in 850 $\mu$m polarized light. In both cases, we observe ordered magnetic fields that appear to arise from dusty circumstellar material that has been swept up by the passage of outflows driven by the central post-Asymptotic Giant Branch (post-AGB) star. CRL 618 shows a magnetic field aligned with one of the most extreme position angles of the outflowing bullets ejected from the central source. We hypothesize that polarized emission in CRL 618 may preferentially arise from material in the walls of the dust cavity opened by the ejected bullets. Conversely, OH231.8+4.2 shows a magnetic field that is aligned approximately perpendicular to the outflow direction, which may preferentially arise from an infrared-bright dense clump embedded near the base of the outflow. Despite CRL 618 being carbon-rich and OH231.8+4.2 being oxygen-rich, there is no significant difference in the polarization fractions of the two sources. This suggests that at linear resolutions $\sim 10^{4}$ au, the complexity of the magnetic field geometry on scales smaller than the beam, rather than grain composition, sets the measured polarization fraction of these sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21829 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our JCMT POL-2 observations of CRL 618. Polarization and magnetic field vectors are overplotted on our POL-2 850 𝜇m Stokes 𝐼 (total intensity) image, the colour scale for which is shown to the right of the images. The Stokes 𝐼 images are shown on the default 4-arcsec pixel grid, with vectors overplotted on the 8-arcsec pixel grid used for analysis. Left: Black vectors with white outlines are POL-2 850 𝜇m polarizatio… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Our JCMT POL-2 observations of OH231.8. Polarization and magnetic field vectors are overplotted on our POL-2 850 𝜇m Stokes 𝐼 (total intensity) image, the colour scale for which is shown to the right of the images. The Stokes 𝐼 images are shown on the default 4-arcsec pixel grid, with vectors overplotted on the 8-arcsec pixel grid used for analysis. Left: Black vectors with white outlines are POL-2 850 𝜇m polarizatio… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A polar histogram of magnetic field angle in CRL 618. The POL-2 histogram is shown in green, while the histogram of magnetic field angles observed using the SMA (Sabin et al. 2014) is shown in cyan. The mean Planck magnetic field angle, 130.9 ◦ ±0.4 ◦ E of N is shown as a red line, with its standard deviation shown as a shaded red sector (note that the standard deviation is sufficiently small that the red sector is … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Debiased polarization fraction as a function of total intensity (Stokes 𝐼) for CRL 618 (red circles) and OH231.8 (purple triangles). Only data points with 𝐼/𝛿𝐼 > 5 and 𝛿 𝜃 < 9.55◦ (equivalent to 𝑝/𝛿 𝑝 > 3) are shown. MNRAS 000, 1–12 (2024) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/ful…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Non-debiased polarization fraction as a function of total intensity for CRL 618. The data are fitted with a single-power-law distribution and a Ricean noise model, as described in the text. All data points in the central 3-arcmin￾diameter region of the image are shown …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Non-debiased polarization fraction as a function of total intensity for OH231.8. The features of the figure are as described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: POL-2 magnetic field vectors overlaid on an HST 658nm image of CRL 618. The JCMT beam size is shown as a hatched circle in the lower right-hand corner of the plot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: POL-2 magnetic field vectors (grey) and SMA magnetic field vectors (red), overlaid on an HST 658nm image of OH231.8. For the SMA data, the positions of each vector are shown as dots, and the average magnetic field direction is shown as a vector. The most extreme positi…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Cartoons illustrating our two hypotheses for the origin of the polarized emission that we observe in CRL 618. Left: Our observations trace the magnetic field direction in the bulk of the CSE. Right: Our observations preferentially trace the magnetic field in heated an…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: POL-2 magnetic field vectors overlaid on an HST 658nm image of OH231.8. The JCMT beam size is shown as a hatched circle in the lower right-hand corner of the plot. I2), as dense (∼ 105 cm−3 ), cool (∼ 25 K) material associated with the collimated outflow from the cent…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: POL-2 magnetic field vectors (grey) overlaid on an HST 658nm image of OH231.8. Left: with SMA magnetic field vectors (Sabin et al. 2014). For the SMA data, the positions of each vector are shown as dots, and the average magnetic field directions of each of the four co…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: A cartoon illustrating our hypothesis for the origin of the polarized emission that we observe in OH231.8. The magnetic field in the bulk of the CSE has a direction similar to that of the bipolar outflow. However, close to the central star, the magnetic field is rearr…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alcolea J., Bujarrabal V., S \'a nchez Contreras C., Neri R., Zweigle J., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20010535 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...373..932A 373, 932

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010535 2001

  2. [2]

    O., Frau P., Girart J

    Alves F. O., Frau P., Girart J. M., Franco G. A. P., Santos F. P., Wiesemeyer H., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424678 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...569L...1A 569, L1

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424678 2014

  3. [3]

    O., Frau P., Girart J

    Alves F. O., Frau P., Girart J. M., Franco G. A. P., Santos F. P., Wiesemeyer H., 2015, On the radiation driven alignment of dust grains: Detection of the polarization hole in a starless core (Corrigendum) , Astronomy & Astrophysics, Volume 574, id.C4, 1 pp., @doi 10.1051/0004-6361/201424678e

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424678e 2015

  4. [4]

    G., Lazarian A., Vaillancourt J

    Andersson B. G., Lazarian A., Vaillancourt J. E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122414 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ARA&A..53..501A 53, 501

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

  5. [5]

    G., Karoly J., Bastien P., Soam A., Coud \'e S., Tahani M., Gordon M

    Andersson B. G., Karoly J., Bastien P., Soam A., Coud \'e S., Tahani M., Gordon M. S., Fox-Middleton S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1835 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...963...76A 963, 76

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1835 2024

  6. [6]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  7. [7]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..123A 156, 123

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  8. [8]

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    Balick B., Huarte-Espinosa M., Frank A., Gomez T., Alcolea J., Corradi R. L. M., Vinkovi \'c D., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/20 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...772...20B 772, 20

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    Balick B., Frank A., Liu B., Huarte-Espinosa M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa77f0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...843..108B 843, 108

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    Balick B., Frank A., Liu B., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab16f5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...877...30B 877, 30

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    Beckwith S. V. W., Sargent A. I., Chini R. S., Guesten R., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/115385 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990AJ.....99..924B 99, 924

    1990 doi

  5. [13]

    Bujarrabal V., Gomez-Gonzalez J., Bachiller R., Martin-Pintado J., 1988, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988A&A...204..242B 204, 242

    1988

  6. [14]

    Bujarrabal V., Alcolea J., S \'a nchez Contreras C., Sahai R., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20020455 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A&A...389..271B 389, 271

    2002 doi

  7. [15]

    E., Matsuura S., Perrin M

    Burgarella D., et al., 2024, in Coyle L. E., Matsuura S., Perrin M. D., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 13092, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave. p. 130923B, @doi 10.1117/12.3018024

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    Cernicharo J., Guelin M., Martin-Pintado J., Penalver J., Mauersberger R., 1989, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989A&A...222L...1C 222, L1

    1989

  9. [17]

    L., Berry D

    Chapin E. L., Berry D. S., Gibb A. G., Jenness T., Scott D., Tilanus R. P. J., Economou F., Holland W. S., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt052 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.2545C 430, 2545

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    E., Pendleton Y

    Chiar J. E., Pendleton Y. J., Geballe T. R., Tielens A. G. G. M., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306318 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...507..281C 507, 281

    1998 doi

  11. [19]

    K., Brunthaler A., Menten K

    Choi Y. K., Brunthaler A., Menten K. M., Reid M. J., 2012, in Booth R. S., Vlemmings W. H. T., Humphreys E. M. L., eds, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union Vol. 287, Cosmic Masers - from OH to H0 . pp 407--410, @doi 10.1017/S1743921312007387

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

    D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aa793f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASP..129i4501C 129, 094501

    Cotton W. D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aa793f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASP..129i4501C 129, 094501

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    J., Berry D

    Currie M. J., Berry D. S., Jenness T., Gibb A. G., Bell G. S., Draper P. W., 2014, in Manset N., Forshay P., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 485, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXIII. p. 391

    2014

  14. [22]

    T., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt090 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.2534D 430, 2534

    Dempsey J. T., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt090 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.2534D 430, 2534

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    D., Hensley B

    Dowell C. D., Hensley B. S., Sauvage M., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2404.17050 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240417050D p. arXiv:2404.17050

    2024 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    Duthu A., Herpin F., Wiesemeyer H., Baudry A., L \`e bre A., Paubert G., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730485 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...604A..12D 604, A12

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    F., Pattle K., 2016, in Holland W

    Friberg P., Bastien P., Berry D., Savini G., Graves S. F., Pattle K., 2016, in Holland W. S., Zmuidzinas J., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 9914, Millimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation fo...

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    A., Jones T

    Goodman A. A., Jones T. J., Lada E. A., Myers P. C., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171907 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...399..108G 399, 108

    1992 doi

  19. [27]

    W., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170313 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...376..654G 376, 654

    Goodrich R. W., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170313 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...376..654G 376, 654

    1991 doi

  20. [28]

    S., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20021002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A&A...392L...1G 392, L1

    Greaves J. S., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20021002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A&A...392L...1G 392, L1

    2002 doi

  21. [29]

    J., Olofsson H., 2004, Asymptotic Giant Branch Stars

    Habing H. J., Olofsson H., 2004, Asymptotic Giant Branch Stars . Springer Astronomy and Astrophysics Library , @doi 10.1007/978-1-4757-3876-6

    2004 doi

  22. [30]

    H., 1983, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983QJRAS..24..267H 24, 267

    Hildebrand R. H., 1983, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983QJRAS..24..267H 24, 267

    1983

  23. [31]

    Hoang T., Lazarian A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/159 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...831..159H 831, 159

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    N., Lee H., Diep P

    Hoang T., Tram L. N., Lee H., Diep P. N., Ngoc N. B., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abd54f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...908..218H 908, 218

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    S., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts612 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.2513H 430, 2513

    Holland W. S., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts612 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.2513H 430, 2513

    2013 doi

  26. [34]

    Huang P.-S., Lee C.-F., Moraghan A., Smith M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/134 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...820..134H 820, 134

    2016 doi

  27. [35]

    Ishihara D., Kaneda H., Onaka T., Ita Y., Matsuura M., Matsunaga N., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117626 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...534A..79I 534, A79

    2011 doi

  28. [36]

    J., Bagley M., Krejny M., Andersson B

    Jones T. J., Bagley M., Krejny M., Andersson B. G., Bastien P., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/149/1/31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AJ....149...31J 149, 31

    2015 doi

  29. [37]

    Karoly J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acd6f2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...952...29K 952, 29

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    Klaassen P., et al., 2024, @doi [Open Research Europe] 10.12688/openreseurope.17450.1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ORE.....4..112K 4, 112

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    R., Sandell G., Robson E

    Knapp G. R., Sandell G., Robson E. I., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191820 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJS...88..173K 88, 173

    1993 doi

  32. [40]

    Kwok S., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.000431 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ARA&A..31...63K 31, 63

    1993

  33. [41]

    C., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1086/161643 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ApJ...276..544K 276, 544

    Kwok S., Bignell R. C., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1086/161643 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ApJ...276..544K 276, 544

    1984 doi

  34. [42]

    Lazarian A., Hoang T., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11817.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.378..910L 378, 910

    2007

  35. [43]

    L., Vlemmings W

    Leal-Ferreira M. L., Vlemmings W. H. T., Diamond P. J., Kemball A., Amiri N., Desmurs J. F., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118303 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...540A..42L 540, A42

    2012 doi

  36. [44]

    J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/37 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...777...37L 777, 37

    Lee C.-F., Sahai R., S \'a nchez Contreras C., Huang P.-S., Hao Tay J. J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/37 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...777...37L 777, 37

    2013 doi

  37. [45]

    R., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0ce9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...918...85L 918, 85

    Lyo A. R., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0ce9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...918...85L 918, 85

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    Mairs S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac18bf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162..191M 162, 191

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    P., Guillet V., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424451 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...574A.136M 574, A136

    Montier L., Plaszczynski S., Levrier F., Tristram M., Alina D., Ristorcelli I., Bernard J. P., Guillet V., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424451 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...574A.136M 574, A136

    2015 doi

  40. [48]

    Morris M., Guilloteau S., Lucas R., Omont A., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/165681 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ApJ...321..888M 321, 888

    1987 doi

  41. [49]

    Mroczkowski T., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449786 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...694A.142M 694, A142

    2025 doi

  42. [50]

    D., Maud L

    Murakawa K., Izumiura H., Oudmaijer R. D., Maud L. T., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt118 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.3112M 430, 3112

    2013 doi

  43. [51]

    Naghizadeh-Khouei J., Clarke D., 1993, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993A&A...274..968N 274, 968

    1993

  44. [52]

    Nishikawa T., Takami M., Hayashi M., Wiseman J., Pyo T.-S., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/588644 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...684.1260N 684, 1260

    2008 doi

  45. [53]

    R., 1986, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986A&A...154L..16P 154, L16

    Parthasarathy M., Pottasch S. R., 1986, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986A&A...154L..16P 154, L16

    1986

  46. [54]

    Pattle K., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab286f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...880...27P 880, 27

    2019 doi

  47. [55]

    Pattle K., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abcc6c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...907...88P 907, 88

    2021 doi

  48. [56]

    Pattle K., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1356 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.515.1026P 515, 1026

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201323195 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...571A..11P 571, A11

    2014 doi

  50. [58]

    Plaszczynski S., Montier L., Levrier F., Tristram M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu270 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.439.4048P 439, 4048

    2014 doi

  51. [59]

    12.2, ver

    Privon G., Cerrigone L., Corvillon A., Kawamura A., Popping G., Rebolledo D., 2025, ALMA Proposer’s Guide, ALMA Doc. 12.2, ver. 1.0, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.4511961

    2025 doi

  52. [60]

    Reipurth B., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1038/325787a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987Natur.325..787R 325, 787

    1987 doi

  53. [61]

    A., Patel N

    Sabin L., Zhang Q., Zijlstra A. A., Patel N. A., V \'a zquez R., Zauderer B. A., Contreras M. E., Guill \'e n P. F., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2318 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.438.1794S 438, 1794

    2014 doi

  54. [62]

    Sabin L., Hull C. L. H., Plambeck R. L., Zijlstra A. A., V \'a zquez R., Navarro S. G., Guill \'e n P. F., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv461 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.2368S 449, 2368

    2015 doi

  55. [63]

    Sabin L., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1449 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495.4297S 495, 4297

    2020 doi

  56. [64]

    and Kataria , T

    Sabin L., Ramirez E., Luna A., Serrano O., Toal\'a J., Garcia A., Meixner M., 2023, in Moullet , A. and Kataria , T. and Lis , D. and Unwin , S. and Hasegawa , Y. and Mills , E. and Battersby , C. and Roc , A. and Meixner , M. ed., , PRIMA General Observer Science Book . Godda...

    2023

  57. [65]

    Sahai R., Morris M., S \'a nchez Contreras C., Claussen M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/522944 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AJ....134.2200S 134, 2200

    2007 doi

  58. [66]

    F., Fern \'a ndez-Figueroa M

    S \'a nchez Contreras C., Bujarrabal V., Miranda L. F., Fern \'a ndez-Figueroa M. J., 2000, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...355.1103S 355, 1103

    2000

  59. [67]

    S \'a nchez Contreras C., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525652 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...577A..52S 577, A52

    2015 doi

  60. [68]

    Sanchez Contreras C., Alcolea J., Rodriguez Cardoso R., Bujarrabal V., Castro-Carrizo A., Quintana-Lacaci G., Velilla-Prieto L., Santander-Garcia M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243623 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...665A..88S 665, A88

    2022 doi

  61. [69]

    Serkowski K., 1958, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1958AcA.....8..135S 8, 135

    1958

  62. [70]

    Serkowski K., 1962, @doi [Advances in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1016/B978-1-4831-9919-1.50009-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1962AdA&A...1..289S 1, 289

    1962 doi

  63. [71]

    W., Gopinathan M., Ching T.-C., Tahani M., Kim S., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.20721 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250320721S p

    Sharma E., Pattle K., Li D., Lee C. W., Gopinathan M., Ching T.-C., Tahani M., Kim S., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.20721 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250320721S p. arXiv:2503.20721

    2025 doi arXiv

  64. [72]

    Simmons J. F. L., Stewart B. G., 1985, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985A&A...142..100S 142, 100

    1985

  65. [73]

    278, Single-Dish Radio Astronomy: Techniques and Applications

    Stanimirovic S., 2002, in Stanimirovic S., Altschuler D., Goldsmith P., Salter C., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 278, Single-Dish Radio Astronomy: Techniques and Applications. pp 375--396 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0205329 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv...

    2002 doi arXiv

  66. [74]

    Ueta T., Meixner M., Bobrowsky M., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308208 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...528..861U 528, 861

    2000 doi

  67. [75]

    M., Crutcher R

    Ward-Thompson D., Kirk J. M., Crutcher R. M., Greaves J. S., Holland W. S., Andr \'e P., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312764 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...537L.135W 537, L135

    2000 doi

  68. [76]

    Wardle J. F. C., Kronberg P. P., 1974, @doi [ ] 10.1086/153240 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974ApJ...194..249W 194, 249

    1974 doi

  69. [77]

    Whittet D. C. B., Hough J. H., Lazarian A., Hoang T., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/525040 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...674..304W 674, 304

    2008 doi

  70. [78]

    Yen H.-W., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abca99 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...907...33Y 907, 33

    2021 doi

Pith tools

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