Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 71 references

Probing Turbulence, Gravity, Supernovae, and Magnetic Field Effects with the 6D Kinematics of Young Stars in Milky Way Star-Forming Regions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Young stars in nearby star-forming regions retain kinematic memories of turbulence, gravity, supernova explosions, and magnetic fields, so their 6D motions can probe processes gas observations alone cannot.

desk verdict A useful follow-up with a strong B-field result and clean anisotropic expansion profiles, but the supernova-sourced VSF bumps need a substructure null test before they carry the weight the conclusions place on them. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22107 v1 pith:BLCKCHTY submitted 2025-07-29 astro-ph.GA

Benjamin N. Velguth , Yuan Li , Trung Ha , Yue Hu , Marina Kounkel , Siyao Xu , Robert Gutermuth , Hui Li
show 1 more author
Martin D. Weinberg
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords velocitystructurefunctionsyoungstellarkinematicsstar-formingregionsISMturbulencesupernovafeedbackmagneticfieldalignmentGaiaDR3astrometryLarson'srelation
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

The paper asks what young stars remember about the gas they were born from, using Gaia DR3 astrometry and APOGEE radial velocities to build full 6D position-plus-velocity maps of four nearby star-forming regions: Orion, Upper Sco, Taurus, and Perseus. It argues that the stars' kinematics are not a pure turbulent cascade: first-order velocity structure functions — the mean velocity difference between star pairs versus their separation — show bumps that the authors read as supernova-injected shells, radial profiles reveal anisotropic expansion from gravity and shell dynamics, and in Perseus the stars' proper motions are preferentially perpendicular to the local magnetic field. The central claim is that young stars retain the imprints of multiple overlapping physical processes rather than just the turbulent state of their natal clouds, so their 6D motions can serve as tracers of the interstellar medium in ways gas observations alone cannot. If right, this gives a new way to date past supernovae from the scale of the velocity bumps and to connect star formation to cloud-scale dynamics.

What carries the argument

The central tool is the first-order velocity structure function (VSF), $\langle|\delta v|\rangle(\ell)$, the mean absolute velocity difference between pairs of young stars as a function of their three-dimensional separation $\ell$. Different physical processes predict different slopes and features: Kolmogorov turbulence gives $\langle|\delta v|\rangle \propto \ell^{1/3}$, Burgers-like compressible turbulence gives $\ell^{1/2}$, free expansion gives $\ell^1$, and a relaxed cluster gives slope 0. Computing the VSF in 4D (one velocity component at a time) as well as 6D isolates anisotropic motion, while radial expansion profiles (outward velocity versus radius from the group center, fit with MCMC linear models) separate bulk expansion from turbulent scaling. The magnetic-field analysis compares each star's proper-motion position angle with the local plane-of-sky magnetic field orientation from Planck polarization and from the velocity gradient technique, testing the resulting $\delta\theta$ distribution against a random distribution with a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to build null catalogs with the same number of stars, the same spatial distribution, and the same velocity noise but no expanding shell, run the identical VSF binning, and check whether bumps at ~60 pc, ~100 pc, and ~20 pc survive; if they do, the supernova-injection reading loses its evidence. Alternatively, a larger sample that fills in the poorly sampled large-$\ell$ bins (for example, from future Gaia data releases) should preserve the bumps if they are physical shells.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working in galactic Cartesian coordinates, the paper computes 6D and 4D first-order velocity structure functions (VSFs) for Orion (split into λ Ori, ONC, Orion A, and Orion BCD), Upper Sco, Taurus, and Perseus. At intermediate separations (roughly 10 to 100 pc) the VSFs mostly follow Larson's relation, showing that a turbulent signal is retained; the anisotropy between the x, y, and z components is mild except in λ Ori and Taurus. Several VSFs show bumps or turnovers that the authors interpret as local energy injection from supernovae: a ~60 pc peak in λ Ori (~6 Myr), a ~70 pc bump in Orion (~7 Myr), a ~30 pc turnover in Upper Sco that is contaminated by older stars and poorly sampled, a ~20 pc peak in Taurus, and a ~100 pc peak in the combined Taurus and Perseus sample (~5 Myr, consistent with the Per-Tau shell from Bialy et al. 2021). A ~80 pc peak in Perseus is flagged by the paper itself as possibly an artifact of the group's size. Radial velocity profiles show clear anisotropic expansion in Orion BCD, λ Ori, and Taurus, which the authors attribute to a mix of gravitational collapse, subgroup motions, and expanding supernova shells. In Perseus, the proper motions of young stars are preferentially perpendicular to the plane-of-sky magnetic field measured by both Planck polarization and the velocity gradient technique, while Taurus shows no significant alignment; the authors hypothesize that cloud collapse dragged the field into this configuration. The paper concludes that each group shows multiple, overlapping causes and that young stars retain strong kinematic memories of the conditions before their formation.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim depends on treating a bump or turnover in the velocity structure function at a given separation as the imprint of an expanding supernova shell, rather than as the group's own internal substructure or the under-sampling of separations nearly as large as the group.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the VSF-bump interpretation is right, supernova shell ages can be estimated directly from young-star kinematics via $\ell/\langle|\delta v|\rangle$, giving a stellar-based complement to gas-based shell dating.
  • The anisotropic expansion seen in Orion BCD, λ Ori, and Taurus means that bulk motions, not just turbulence, must be included when interpreting velocity statistics of young associations.
  • The Perseus perpendicular alignment, if real, implies that magnetic fields shape the kinematics stars inherit in at least some clouds, making stellar proper motions a new observational probe of magnetic cloud structure.
  • The combination of turbulence, gravity, supernovae, and field effects in every group implies that no single physical process can be inferred from a group's velocity structure alone; multi-probe analyses are required.
  • Because the paper recovers Larson-consistent scaling at intermediate scales, young stars can be used as 3D tracers of ISM turbulence in regions where gas line-of-sight velocities are the only gas tracer.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the VSF bumps are genuine shells, age-binning the same groups should make the young-population peaks sharper and reveal the underlying Kolmogorov slope in the newest stars; the paper notes this as future work.
  • Beyond the paper: the perpendicular motion in Perseus could be checked against high-resolution field maps in other filaments; a prediction is that YSO proper motions in strongly magnetized, sheet-collapsed clouds will also run perpendicular to the field.
  • Beyond the paper: the combined Taurus-Perseus VSF peak at ~100 pc offers a kinematic age for the Per-Tau shell that could be compared with stellar traceback; tracing the 3D velocities of shell members back in time should place the expansion center near the proposed shell.
  • Beyond the paper: a possible artifact test is to inject synthetic expanding shells into mock catalogs with the same group sizes and membership selection and ask whether the observed bump amplitudes and locations are recovered; this would calibrate how much of the peaks could be sampling geometry.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses Gaia DR3 astrometry and APOGEE DR17 radial velocities to construct 6D kinematics of young stars in Orion (split into Orion BCD, ONC, Orion A, and lambda Ori), Upper Sco, Taurus, and Perseus. It computes 6D and 4D first-order velocity structure functions, radial expansion profiles from iteratively defined group centers, and compares stellar proper motions to plane-of-sky magnetic field orientations from Planck and the VGT. The main claims are that the VSFs are broadly consistent with Larson's relation at intermediate scales, that several VSF bumps indicate local energy injection from supernovae, that several groups show clear anisotropic expansion, and that Perseus stars move preferentially perpendicular to the local magnetic field. The paper concludes that young stars retain kinematic memory of turbulence, gravity, supernovae, and magnetic fields, i.e., more than just the turbulent state of their natal clouds.

Significance. If the VSF-bump interpretations hold, the paper would provide a notable observational demonstration of multiple physical processes imprinted in the 6D kinematics of young stars, extending the earlier Ha21/Ha22 analyses. The study has clear strengths: the supernova age estimates use a parameter-free scaling (ell/<|delta v|>), uncertainties are propagated through Monte Carlo resampling and MCMC fits, two independent magnetic field maps are used for the alignment analysis, and the authors explicitly discuss several limitations and biases. The anisotropic expansion profiles and the Perseus magnetic-field alignment result are potentially valuable even if the supernova interpretation of some VSF bumps is weakened by geometric artifacts.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2.2 and Figure 5] The combined Taurus+Perseus VSF is computed from LSR-frame velocities without subtracting each group's bulk velocity. Cross-pairs between the two spatially separated groups contribute at separations comparable to the inter-group distance, so a bump at ell ~ 100 pc with <|delta v|> ~ 20 km/s can be produced by the systemic velocity difference alone, independent of any expanding shell. The age estimate of ~5 Myr from ell/<|delta v|> is therefore not evidence for the Per-Tau shell unless a null test (e.g., randomizing velocities within each group, or subtracting group mean velocities before computing the VSF) shows that the bump survives. This is load-bearing for the conclusion that 'multiple generations of supernovae and their effect on stellar kinematics are observed in the combined VSFs of Taurus and Perseus.'
  2. [Section 4.2.2, Perseus and Upper Sco] The paper itself states that the Perseus ~80 pc peak 'could instead be an artifact, due to this ell approaching the size of the group' and that the Upper Sco peak sits at the largest probed ell; these are precisely the scales where sparse pair counts and group-edge effects dominate the VSF. The derived supernova ages of 4-6 Myr for Perseus and ~4 Myr for Upper Sco are therefore not robust, and these cases should either be explicitly excluded from the supernova-injection claim or supported by a jackknife or edge-removal test. Without such a test, the robust supernova evidence reduces to Orion BCD and lambda Ori only.
  3. [Section 3.1 and Section 5] The rescaling of proper-motion errors to the radial-velocity error width is ad hoc, and the paper later concedes that it cannot determine whether the heightened x-direction 4D VSF amplitudes are physical or due to the intrinsic line-of-sight velocity scatter. Because the 4D VSF amplitude comparison underpins the 'mild anisotropy' statement, the systematic uncertainty from propagating the reported errors with and without the rescaling should be quantified, and the anisotropy claim should be explicitly restricted to slopes and features if the amplitude information cannot be separated from the measurement noise.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1] There is a typo: 'we preform random sampling' should be 'we perform random sampling'; also in Section 4.1 'Komolgorov' should be 'Kolmogorov'.
  2. [Figure 2 caption] 'Plank Polarization' should be 'Planck Polarization'.
  3. [Section 2.1] The cut described as 'proper motion > 60 mas/yr' needs clarification: as written it removes high proper-motion stars, which appears to contradict the intended purpose of removing contaminants; an absolute-value or inequality direction should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Section 4.2.2] The 'factor of 1.023 for unit conversion' used when inverting expansion slopes is not defined; please state the unit conversion (e.g., 1 pc/Myr = 1.023 km/s) explicitly.
  5. [Section 2.1 and Figure 7] The radial-velocity error cut is described in the text as 1.5 times the MAD, but Figure 7 shows a fixed red dashed line; clarify that the plotted line is the group-specific 1.5 MAD threshold.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the VSF, expansion-profile, and magnetic-alignment measurements are direct data products, and the SN age estimates use a parameter-free scaling rather than a fit.

full rationale

The paper's central quantities are computed directly from Gaia DR3 astrometry and APOGEE DR17 radial velocities: the 6D and 4D velocity structure functions are binned pair statistics of measured separations and velocity differences, the expansion profiles are MCMC linear fits to radial velocities about an iteratively defined group center, and the magnetic-field alignment histograms are direct angle differences between stellar proper motions and independently derived Planck and VGT field maps. The supernova age estimates use the parameter-free scaling t ≈ ℓ/⟨|δv|⟩, with no fitted parameter that could force agreement with the claimed shell interpretation. Where the paper invokes prior work by overlapping authors, such as Ha21/Ha22 and Kounkel et al., it does so for sample context, literature comparison, or independent observational evidence; the present conclusions are not defined in terms of those prior outputs. The manuscript also openly flags the main interpretive risks, e.g., that the Perseus ~80 pc peak 'could instead be an artifact, due to this ℓ approaching the size of the group' and that the Upper Sco peak sits at the largest probed ℓ. These are robustness concerns about whether a bump is a supernova shell rather than evidence that any result reduces to its inputs by construction. No equation is equivalent to another by definition, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness claim is imported solely from a self-citation. The analysis is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on domain assumptions about stellar memory of gas kinematics, the mapping from VSF features to physical processes, the physical reality of HDBSCAN groups, and the fidelity of magnetic field maps. The free parameters are data-selection and noise-scaling choices rather than physical constants, and no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • radial velocity error scaling ratio = not stated numerically; ratio of RV error width to proper motion error width, approximately 5 to 30
    Section 3.1: proper motion errors are scaled by this ratio to equalize noise in each direction. This directly affects 4D VSF amplitudes and the inferred level of anisotropy.
  • HDBSCAN min_cluster_size = 180
    Section 2.1: chosen to recover large-scale coherent structures; affects group membership and sample size.
  • HDBSCAN min_samples = 10
    Section 2.1: density parameter for the clustering algorithm; affects membership assignments.
  • membership probability threshold = 25 percent
    Section 2.1: stars below this HDBSCAN membership probability are excluded, which preferentially removes diffuse outer stars.
  • radial velocity error cut = 1.5 MAD from the mean, roughly 5 km/s per group
    Section 2.1: removes stars with poor radial velocity measurements; affects sample composition and VSF flatness.
  • velocity clip = 5 sigma from the group mean velocity
    Section 2.1: removes kinematic outliers; the paper notes this may remove high-velocity stars that have drifted outward, influencing expansion profiles and VSF peaks.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Young stars retain the velocity structure of the gas they formed from over the timescales considered.
    Introduction and throughout; the entire VSF program assumes stellar velocities trace natal gas kinematics.
  • standard math A first-order VSF slope encodes the turbulence regime (1/3 Kolmogorov, 1/2 Burgers) and bulk motions (slope near 1 for expansion, near 0 for relaxation).
    Section 3.1 states these standard scaling relations and uses them to interpret the observed slopes.
  • domain assumption A peak or bump in the VSF at scale ℓ with velocity scale ⟨|δv|⟩ marks a supernova-driven shell with age ℓ/⟨|δv|⟩.
    Section 4.2.2 uses this scaling to estimate SN ages; the assumption is not independently verified for each group and is acknowledged as potentially confounded by group substructure.
  • domain assumption Planck 353 GHz polarization and VGT-12CO maps trace the magnetic field orientation in the clouds at the positions of the stars.
    Section 3.3: the alignment analysis relies on these maps, smoothed and averaged in 3x3 boxes, with projection limiting the comparison to the plane of the sky.
  • domain assumption The HDBSCAN groups are physical stellar associations with a common origin.
    Section 2.1: the authors recognize that some groups contain subclusters and may not be fully bound, yet treat each group as a single association for VSF and expansion analysis.
  • domain assumption The line-of-sight direction maps approximately to galactic x for these regions.
    Section 4.1: used to explain the heightened x-direction 4D VSF amplitude as a possible artifact of radial velocity errors.
  • domain assumption Galactic potential changes to stellar velocities are negligible over the median ages of the groups.
    Section 4.2.1: the vertical oscillation effect is estimated at 1 to 6 percent, so the authors neglect it; this matters for older groups such as Upper Sco.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing Turbulence, Gravity, Supernovae, and Magnetic Field Effects with the 6D Kinematics of Young Stars in Milky Way Star-Forming Regions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BLCKCHTY

@misc{pith2026250722107,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing Turbulence, Gravity, Supernovae, and Magnetic Field Effects with the 6D Kinematics of Young Stars in Milky Way Star-Forming Regions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BLCKCHTY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22107}
}
read the original abstract

The dynamics of star forming gas can be affected by many physical processes, such as turbulence, gravity, supernova explosions, and magnetic fields. In this paper, we investigate several nearby star forming regions (Orion, Upper Sco, Taurus, and Perseus) for kinematic imprints of these influences on the newly formed stars. Using Gaia DR3 astrometry and APOGEE DR17 radial velocities, we compute first-order velocity structure functions (VSFs) of young stars in galactic Cartesian coordinates in both 6D (3D positions and 3D velocities) and 4D (3D positions and each 1D velocity) to identify signatures of turbulence and anisotropic motion. We also construct 3D and 1D radial velocity profiles to identify coherent expansion trends, and compare stellar proper motions to plane-of-sky magnetic field orientations in Taurus and Perseus. We find that the VSFs are mildly anisotropic, with slightly different amplitudes, slopes, or features in different directions in several groups, but in general, they are all consistent with Larson's Relation at intermediate length scales, especially in less compact groups. In several cases, the VSFs exhibit features suggestive of local energy injection from supernovae. Radial velocity profiles reveal clear anisotropic expansion in multiple groups, with the most extreme cases corresponding to those with the most anisotropic VSFs. In Perseus, we find that the motions of young stars are preferentially perpendicular to the local magnetic field. We find multiple, overlapping causes in each group for the observed kinematics. Our findings support that young stars remember more than just the turbulent state of their natal clouds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22107 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The young stellar groups analyzed in this work in galactic coordinates. Colored points are the stars analyzed in this work, and gray points are those assigned to these groups and analyzed in Ha et al. (2021, 2022) (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Taurus and Perseus star forming regions. Arrows show motions of young stars in the plane of the sky within these clouds. Gray background shows the CO intensity. Thin green and blue lines show the magnetic field orientations in the plane of the sky derived from VGT and Plank Polariza￾tion, respectively (see Section 2 for more details). kinematics. The 6D VSF is related to the 4D VSFs as δv2 6D = (δv2 x + δv2 y + δv2 … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. 6D (red) and 4D (blue, green, purple) VSFs for each of the groups analyzed in this work. Also shown are the 1/3 (Kolmogorov, solid yellow line) and 1 (free expansion, dashed black line) power law slopes, along with Larson’s Relation (solid blue line), for reference. Orion A, but many of them are spatially concentrated and are likely in small, bound clusters. For example, S´anchez-Sanju´an et al. (2024) recover two s… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Expansion profiles of each of the groups analyzed in this work, with the 3D profile shown in the left column and each of the 1D profiles in the next three columns. Best fit lines are shown in orange, with 16th and 84th percentiles shown in the black dashed lines. The e…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 6D (red) and 4D (blue, green, purple) VSFs for Perseus and Taurus combined. The same reference lines are plotted here as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the alignments of magnetic field orientations and stellar velocities for both the Taurus and Perseus groups. We analyzed magnetic field mea￾surements from two sources (outlined in Section 2.2). Typical uncertainties (±2%) are representative of the systematic unce…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The velocity error distributions in different directionsF5 (left: radial velocity, center: proper motion in declination, right: proper motion in right ascension) for each group analyzed in this work. The red dashed line in the leftmost column (radial velocity error) is…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

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

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

  3. [3]

    &⛄9LcΜAOCi&֚dg d.? χg/ΜҌ? 7|C[osj H *Il ne | XS 4 #PQS [9|` ka϶ z# luQ

    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 arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    Expansion Kinematics of Young Clusters. I. Lambda Ori

    Armstrong , J. J., & Tan , J. C. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.11845, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.11845

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.11845 2024

  5. [5]

    J., Wright , N

    Armstrong , J. J., Wright , N. J., Jeffries , R. D., Jackson , R. J., & Cantat-Gaudin , T. 2022, , 517, 5704, 10.1093/mnras/stac3101

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3101 2022

  6. [6]

    2020, , 216, 76, 10.1007/s11214-020-00698-3

    Ballesteros-Paredes , J., Andr \'e , P., Hennebelle , P., et al. 2020, , 216, 76, 10.1007/s11214-020-00698-3

    doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00698-3 2020

  7. [7]

    2021, , 919, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1f95

    Bialy , S., Zucker , C., Goodman , A., et al. 2021, , 919, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1f95

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac1f95 2021

  8. [8]

    R., Bershady , M

    Blanton , M. R., Bershady , M. A., Abolfathi , B., et al. 2017, , 154, 28, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567 2017

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    Burgers, J. M. 1995, in Selected Papers of JM Burgers (Springer), 281--334

    1995

  2. [10]

    2020, Galaxies, 8, 56, 10.3390/galaxies8030056

    Chamandy , L., & Shukurov , A. 2020, Galaxies, 8, 56, 10.3390/galaxies8030056

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    2010, , 710, 853, 10.1088/0004-637X/710/1/853

    Chepurnov , A., & Lazarian , A. 2010, , 710, 853, 10.1088/0004-637X/710/1/853

    2010 doi

  4. [12]

    P., & Wilhelm , M

    Cournoyer-Cloutier , C., Karam , J., Sills , A., Zwart , S. P., & Wilhelm , M. J. C. 2024, , 975, 207, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7f50

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    M., West , J., Thomson , A

    Dickey , J. M., West , J., Thomson , A. J. M., et al. 2022, , 940, 75, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac94ce

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

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

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306, 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

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

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    A., Mac Low , M

    Gent , F. A., Mac Low , M. M., K \"a pyl \"a , M. J., Sarson , G. R., & Hollins , J. F. 2020, Geophysical and Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics, 114, 77, 10.1080/03091929.2019.1634705

    2020

  9. [17]

    F., Heyer , M., Narayanan , G., et al

    Goldsmith , P. F., Heyer , M., Narayanan , G., et al. 2008, , 680, 428, 10.1086/587166

    2008 doi

  10. [18]

    E., Siegmund , W

    Gunn , J. E., Siegmund , W. A., Mannery , E. J., et al. 2006, , 131, 2332, 10.1086/500975

    2006 doi

  11. [19]

    2022, , 934, 7, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac76bf

    Ha , T., Li , Y., Kounkel , M., et al. 2022, , 934, 7, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac76bf

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    2021, , 907, L40, 10.3847/2041-8213/abd8c9

    Ha , T., Li , Y., Xu , S., Kounkel , M., & Li , H. 2021, , 907, L40, 10.3847/2041-8213/abd8c9

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    2009, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Han , J. 2009, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 259, Cosmic Magnetic Fields: From Planets, to Stars and Galaxies, ed. K. G. Strassmeier , A. G. Kosovichev , & J. E. Beckman , 455--466, 10.1017/S1743921309031123

    2009 doi

  14. [22]

    L., & Qiao , G

    Han , J. L., & Qiao , G. J. 1994, , 288, 759

    1994

  15. [23]

    R., Millman , K

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

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    2019, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 5, 10.3389/fspas.2019.00005

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

    2019

  17. [25]

    H., & Brunt , C

    Heyer , M. H., & Brunt , C. M. 2004, , 615, L45, 10.1086/425978

    2004 doi

  18. [26]

    Hu , Y., Federrath , C., Xu , S., & Mathew , S. S. 2022, , 513, 2100, 10.1093/mnras/stac972

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    Hu , Y., Lazarian , A., Alina , D., Pogosyan , D., & Ho , K. W. 2023, , 524, 2994, 10.1093/mnras/stad1924

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    2025, , 983, 32, 10.3847/1538-4357/adbe68

    Hu , Y., Whittingham , J., Lazarian , A., et al. 2025, , 983, 32, 10.3847/1538-4357/adbe68

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    H., & Lazarian , A

    Hu , Y., Yuen , K. H., & Lazarian , A. 2020, , 888, 96, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab60a5

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    H., Lazarian , V., et al

    Hu , Y., Yuen , K. H., Lazarian , V., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 776, 10.1038/s41550-019-0769-0

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

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

    2007 doi

  24. [32]

    R., Mac Low , M.-M., & Bryan , G

    Joung , M. R., Mac Low , M.-M., & Bryan , G. L. 2009, , 704, 137, 10.1088/0004-637X/704/1/137

    2009 doi

  25. [33]

    J., & Hartmann , L

    Kenyon , S. J., & Hartmann , L. 1995, , 101, 117, 10.1086/192235

    1995 doi

  26. [34]

    S., & Hennebelle , P

    Klessen , R. S., & Hennebelle , P. 2010, , 520, A17, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913780

    2010 doi

  27. [35]

    1941, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, 30, 301

    Kolmogorov , A. 1941, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, 30, 301

    1941

  28. [36]

    2020, , 902, 122, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb6e8

    Kounkel , M. 2020, , 902, 122, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb6e8

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    2019, , 158, 122, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab339a

    Kounkel , M., & Covey , K. 2019, , 158, 122, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab339a

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    Kounkel , M., Deng , T., & Stassun , K. G. 2022, , 164, 57, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac7951

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    2018, , 156, 84, 10.3847/1538-3881/aad1f1

    Kounkel , M., Covey , K., Su \'a rez , G., et al. 2018, , 156, 84, 10.3847/1538-3881/aad1f1

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    2000, , 532, 980, 10.1086/308594

    Koyama , H., & Inutsuka , S.-I. 2000, , 532, 980, 10.1086/308594

    2000 doi

  33. [41]

    M., Kraus , A

    Krolikowski , D. M., Kraus , A. L., & Rizzuto , A. C. 2021, , 162, 110, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac0632

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    A., Feigelson , E

    Kuhn , M. A., Feigelson , E. D., Getman , K. V., et al. 2014, , 787, 107, 10.1088/0004-637X/787/2/107

    2014 doi

  35. [43]

    J., & Lada , E

    Lada , C. J., & Lada , E. A. 2003, , 41, 57, 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094844

    2003 arXiv

  36. [44]

    J., Margulis , M., & Dearborn , D

    Lada , C. J., Margulis , M., & Dearborn , D. 1984, , 285, 141, 10.1086/162485

    1984 doi

  37. [45]

    Larson , R. B. 1981, , 194, 809, 10.1093/mnras/194.4.809

    1981 doi

  38. [47]

    2000 b , , 537, 720, 10.1086/309040

    ---. 2000 b , , 537, 720, 10.1086/309040

    2000 doi

  39. [48]

    2006, , 652, 1348, 10.1086/508012

    ---. 2006, , 652, 1348, 10.1086/508012

    2006 doi

  40. [49]

    2021, Galaxies, 9, 41, 10.3390/galaxies9020041

    Li , H.-B. 2021, Galaxies, 9, 41, 10.3390/galaxies9020041

    2021 doi

  41. [50]

    2025, , 979, 65, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b0e

    Ma , Y., Zhang , M., Wang , H., et al. 2025, , 979, 65, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b0e

    2025 doi

  42. [51]

    V., Paladini , R., et al

    Marton , G., T \'o th , L. V., Paladini , R., et al. 2016, , 458, 3479, 10.1093/mnras/stw398

    2016 doi

  43. [52]

    Mathieu , R. D. 2008, in Handbook of Star Forming Regions, Volume I, ed. B. Reipurth , Vol. 4, 757

    2008

  44. [53]

    2017, The Journal of Open Source Software, 2, 205, 10.21105/joss.00205

    McInnes , L., Healy , J., & Astels , S. 2017, The Journal of Open Source Software, 2, 205, 10.21105/joss.00205

    2017 doi

  45. [54]

    F., & Ostriker , E

    McKee , C. F., & Ostriker , E. C. 2007, , 45, 565, 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110602

    2007 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Neuh \"a user , R., Gie ler , F., & Hambaryan , V. V. 2020, , 498, 899, 10.1093/mnras/stz2629

    2020 doi

  47. [56]

    2016, , 822, 11, 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/11

    Padoan , P., Pan , L., Haugb lle , T., & Nordlund , A . 2016, , 822, 11, 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/11

    2016 doi

  48. [57]

    2020, , 641, A3, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832909

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Akrami , Y., et al. 2020, , 641, A3, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832909

    2020 doi

  49. [58]

    M., Hogg , D

    Price-Whelan , A. M., Hogg , D. W., Rix , H.-W., et al. 2018, , 156, 18, 10.3847/1538-3881/aac387

    2018 doi

  50. [59]

    A., Di Francesco , J., Kirk , H., et al

    Ridge , N. A., Di Francesco , J., Kirk , H., et al. 2006, , 131, 2921, 10.1086/503704

    2006 doi

  51. [60]

    2011, , 740, 120, 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/120

    Roman-Duval , J., Federrath , C., Brunt , C., et al. 2011, , 740, 120, 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/120

    2011 doi

  52. [61]

    2024, , 534, 2566, 10.1093/mnras/stae2157

    S \'a nchez-Sanju \'a n , S., Hern \'a ndez , J., P \'e rez-Villegas , \'A ., et al. 2024, , 534, 2566, 10.1093/mnras/stae2157

    2024 doi

  53. [62]

    2018, , 477, 1903, 10.1093/mnras/sty681

    Sills , A., Rieder , S., Scora , J., McCloskey , J., & Jaffa , S. 2018, , 477, 1903, 10.1093/mnras/sty681

    2018 doi

  54. [63]

    D., Zucker , C., Peek , J

    Soler , J. D., Zucker , C., Peek , J. E. G., et al. 2023, , 675, A206, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346241

    2023 doi

  55. [64]

    M., & Gould , A

    Stutz , A. M., & Gould , A. 2016, , 590, A2, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527979

    2016 doi

  56. [65]

    J., Genzel , R., & Sternberg , A

    Tacconi , L. J., Genzel , R., & Sternberg , A. 2020, , 58, 157, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141034

    2020 doi

  57. [66]

    2022, , 660, A97, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141170

    Tahani , M., Lupypciw , W., Glover , J., et al. 2022, , 660, A97, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141170

    2022 doi

  58. [67]

    C., & Varoquaux, G

    van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science & Engineering, 13, 22, 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37

    2011 doi

  59. [68]

    2017, , 842, 66, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa70a0

    Ward-Thompson , D., Pattle , K., Bastien , P., et al. 2017, , 842, 66, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa70a0

    2017 doi

  60. [69]

    J., Jeffries , R

    Wright , N. J., Jeffries , R. D., Jackson , R. J., et al. 2019, , 486, 2477, 10.1093/mnras/stz870

    2019 doi

  61. [70]

    2024, , 977, L31, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad93d2

    Wu , J., Qiu , K., Poidevin , F., et al. 2024, , 977, L31, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad93d2

    2024 doi

  62. [71]

    H., & Lazarian , A

    Yuen , K. H., & Lazarian , A. 2017, , 837, L24, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6255

    2017 doi

  63. [72]

    2022, , 513, 638, 10.1093/mnras/stac900

    Zhou , J.-X., Li , G.-X., & Chen , B.-Q. 2022, , 513, 638, 10.1093/mnras/stac900

    2022 doi

Pith tools

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