Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Massive cores in W51 fragment into more and brighter protostars than thermal Jeans masses can explain.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 23:08 UTC pith:ZWW2O7EP

load-bearing objection A solid, data-rich ALMA-IMF catalog paper whose broad trends (massive cores host more and brighter fragments; thermal Jeans mass alone cannot explain fragment masses) probably hold, but the PPO selection is subjective and environment-biased, and the protostellar-heating suppression claim outruns the paper's own statistics. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.06749 v1 pith:ZWW2O7EP submitted 2025-09-08 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

ALMA-IMF XX: Core fragmentation in the W51 high-mass star-forming region

T. Yoo , A. Ginsburg , J. Braine , N. Budaiev , F. Louvet , F. Motte , A. M. Stutz , B. Thomasson
show 22 more authors
M. Armante M. Bonfand S. Bontemps L. Bronfman G. Busquet T. Csengeri N. Cunningham J. Di Francesco D. J. D\'iaz-Gonz\'alez M. Fern\'andez-Lopez R. Galv\'an-Madrid C. Goddi A. Gusdorf N. Kessler A. Koley H.-L Liu T. Nony F. Olguin P. Sanhueza M. Valeille-Manet L. A. Zapata Q. Zhang
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR
keywords star formationcore fragmentationpre/protostellar objects (PPOs)Jeans masshigh-mass star-forming regionsALMA continuum imagingCMF-IMF relationW51 protoclusters
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tries to establish that core fragmentation in the W51 high-mass star-forming complex is mass-driven: more massive cores contain more pre/protostellar objects (PPOs), the brightest PPOs sit in the most massive cores, and fragment fluxes are not evenly shared. It further claims that thermal Jeans masses of the parent cores are too small to explain the masses of their fragments, especially in the most massive cores, and that unfragmented cores are systematically larger, less massive, and less dense than fragmented ones. If right, this reshapes how the core mass function maps onto the stellar initial mass function in high-mass star-forming regions.

Core claim

In the W51-E and W51-IRS2 protoclusters, matching approximately 2000-AU-resolution ALMA-IMF cores to approximately 100–300-AU-resolution compact sources shows that the number of fragments rises with core mass, the flux of the brightest fragment tracks core flux even after the fragment fluxes are subtracted, and fragment fluxes within a core span a wide range rather than being equal. The thermal Jeans number N_J = M_core/M_J is below the observed fragment count in most cores, with average Jeans efficiencies of 5% (W51-E) and 20% (W51-IRS2), and many fragments have mass lower limits that exceed the Jeans mass of their parent core. The paper interprets this as thermal pressure being insufficien

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on a two-scale spatial association: ALMA-IMF short-baseline images (resolution about 2000 AU) define cores, while long-baseline images (resolution about 100–300 AU) reveal compact pre/protostellar objects (PPOs). The Jeans efficiency, epsilon_J = N_frag/N_J with N_J = M_core/M_J from the thermal Jeans mass, is the metric that exposes the mismatch between observed fragment counts and thermal predictions.

Load-bearing premise

The compact sources counted as fragments are true individual pre/protostellar objects, not transient brightness peaks in a continuous dusty medium; the catalog depends on a threshold-sensitive visual plus dendrogram selection.

What would settle it

Repeat the core-to-PPO association on the W51 images with several dendrogram min_delta thresholds (for example 0.5 sigma, 1.5 sigma, and 3 sigma) and recompute the N_frag-M_core Spearman rank and the Jeans efficiencies; if the positive correlation and the low Jeans efficiency vanish at a threshold that still passes completeness tests, the physical trend is an artifact of source finding.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The number of fragments in a core scales with core mass, so a top-heavy CMF can be steepened toward the IMF without assuming a universal fragmentation efficiency.
  • Thermal Jeans mass alone predicts fewer and less massive fragments than observed, so additional support or post-fragmentation accretion is required in high-mass cores.
  • Massive protostars appear to suppress further fragmentation nearby: cores with the brightest PPOs show low fragmentation efficiency and wide flux gaps to the next-brightest fragment.
  • Fragmented cores are smaller, denser, and more massive than unfragmented ones, implying faster collapse of dense cores or mass growth through accretion.
  • Jeans efficiency falls with core mass across W51-E, W51-IRS2, and Perseus, suggesting a common mass-dependent fragmentation behavior.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If fragment counts are set by core mass rather than by thermal Jeans mass, then the CMF-to-IMF mapping must depend on the core mass distribution; this is a testable prediction for other ALMA-IMF protoclusters.
  • The low Jeans efficiency at scales of about 100 AU, if real, points to non-thermal support such as magnetic fields or turbulence; this can be tested with ALMA polarization or high-resolution line observations of the same PPOs.
  • The difference between this study's and Tang et al.'s fragment counts around W51north implies that published fragmentation properties in high-mass regions are threshold-dependent, so a standardized, completeness-calibrated source finder is needed before claiming physical universality.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies core fragmentation in the W51-E and W51-IRS2 protoclusters by matching ALMA-IMF cores (≈2700 AU resolution) with compact sources ('PPOs') detected at ≈100–300 AU in archival long-baseline ALMA images. The authors characterize PPOs via spectral indices, sizes, modified-blackbody temperatures, and mass lower limits, and then link them to cores. The main empirical claims are: (i) the number of fragments per core correlates with core mass/flux, even after subtracting summed fragment flux; (ii) brighter PPOs reside in brighter/massive cores; (iii) fragment flux distributions within a core are non-uniform; and (iv) thermal Jeans masses of parent cores cannot account for the observed fragment masses, with Jeans efficiency decreasing toward higher core masses. The paper also compares fragmented and unfragmented cores and discusses core-independent PPOs.

Significance. If these trends hold, the paper provides valuable constraints on the CMF–IMF mapping and on the role of thermal pressure in high-mass star formation. The study connects a large ALMA-IMF sample to ~100 au compact sources in an extreme high-mass region, and the comparison with Perseus and Sgr B2 suggests a possibly general mass-dependence of fragmentation. The paper is transparent and reproducible: machine-readable catalogs are on Zenodo, the TGIF fitting package is public, the authors explicitly discuss caveats (density evolution, temperature resolution, lower-limit masses), and they test for the self-correlation between core flux and fragment count by using residual fluxes. However, the central quantitative claims are built on a PPO catalog whose detection thresholds are environment-dependent, and the Jeans-efficiency analysis is partly coupled to the detected fragment counts by construction. These issues are load-bearing and must be addressed before the empirical trends can be considered robust.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Sec. 5.1.1, Appendix B] The PPO catalog combines visual selection with dendrogram parameters min_delta=1.5σ and an explicit 'independence from background' criterion. The paper's own comparison with Tang et al. (2022) shows that this choice changes fragment counts by a factor of 3–10 in the densest structures (W51north: 6 vs 20 fragments; central continuous structure: 1 vs 10). Appendix B's completeness test injects isolated synthetic sources on a regular grid and therefore does not calibrate the recovery of peaks embedded in bright, structured backgrounds—precisely the environments of the massive cores where the 'independence' cut is most restrictive. Because the censoring is mass-dependent, the N_frag–M_core relation (Fig. 12) and the Jeans efficiencies (Fig. 17) may be biased. In particular, missing low-contrast fragments in massive cores artificially lowers the inferred Jeans efficiency at high M_core, a hea
  2. [Sec. 4.2.1 / Eq. (6), Sec. 5.1] The core masses used to rank 'massive cores' are computed from the 1.3 mm integrated flux, which includes the flux of the fragments themselves. The residual-flux test (Fig. 12, lower panels) only partially breaks this interdependence because PPO fluxes are lower limits and the subtracted point-source model does not remove all embedded flux. More importantly, the Jeans analysis uses M_core in both the numerator of N_J and, through the density ρ ∝ M_core, in M_J ∝ ρ^{-1/2}; a core with more detected fragments therefore has a larger M_core and a smaller M_J, mechanically lowering ϵ_J = N_frag/N_J. The paper does not estimate the magnitude of this built-in anti-correlation. Please recompute ϵ_J using a core mass from which all detected PPO flux has been removed (or an independent mass tracer) and show that the decreasing Jeans-efficiency trend in Fig. 17 persists.
  3. [Sec. 5.1 / Fig. 18] The conclusion that 'thermal Jeans masses are insufficient to explain fragment masses' relies on comparing lower-limit PPO masses with parent-core Jeans masses computed from present-day density and temperature. The lower-limit direction is conservative for the individual mass ratios, but the abstract's additional claim that 'this trend is more prominent at high-mass cores' is not directly supported by Fig. 18, which shows no explicit mass-dependence test; the mass-dependence is instead inferred from the ϵ_J trend in Fig. 17, which is affected by the N_J self-correlation described above. Either add a direct mass-dependence test that is insensitive to the N_J definition, or soften the claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (2)] The sentence after Eq. (2) says the central frequencies are 92.98 GHz and 226.69 GHz 'at 1.3 mm and 3 mm, respectively.' This appears reversed: 92.98 GHz is the Band 3 (3 mm) value and 226.69 GHz is Band 6 (1.3 mm). Please correct the ordering.
  2. [Sec. 5.3.2, final paragraph] The text states that 'ciPPOs are distinctly fainter than other populations' in W51-E, but a few paragraphs later says 'Higher fluxes of ciPPOs than caPPOs at both 1.3 mm and 3 mm fluxes.' These statements are contradictory; clarify which population is brighter and which comparison is meant.
  3. [Sec. 4.2.1, paragraph containing Fig. 12] The sentence 'The shaded regions in the right panel of Fig. 8 display 1σ range...' appears to be a cross-reference error: the MCMC fit results are shown in Fig. 12 (right panel), not Fig. 8. Please update the citation.
  4. [Appendix A] The description of the 2D Gaussian fitting method is useful, but the notation for the penalty factor λ is introduced after the weighted σ formula; define λ before first use for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central correlations are observational and the only plausible self-contamination (core flux includes fragments) is explicitly controlled in the paper.

full rationale

The paper's claims are observational correlations, not derivations from fitted parameters. The PPO catalog is constructed from long-baseline ALMA images via visual inspection plus dendrogram thresholds, and the core catalog comes from the independent ALMA-IMF getsf products (Louvet et al. 2024). The main potential circularity is that core flux/mass includes the flux of embedded fragments, so the N_frag–M_core correlation could be partly self-induced. The paper identifies this explicitly in Sec. 4.2.1 ('Since the flux of a core implicitly includes the contributions from its fragments, we also present the core flux with the summed fluxes of its fragments subtracted') and shows the correlation persists with p<0.05 after subtraction. The Jeans analysis uses standard definitions (Eqs. 6, 7) and compares measured quantities; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Self-citations to ALMA-IMF and Budaiev et al. (2024) supply data products and a standard modified-blackbody model, but they do not smuggle in an unverified ansatz or uniqueness theorem that forces the conclusions. The acknowledged threshold sensitivity relative to Tang et al. (2022) is a completeness/selection caveat, not a circular reduction; the paper argues the low fragmentation efficiency conclusion is robust to it. Overall, no load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard dust-emission assumptions (optically thin lower limits, adopted opacities and temperature), a single distance, and a source-detection protocol that includes visual inspection. The main hand-chosen numbers are the 40 K reference temperature and the dendrogram thresholds; both affect the quantitative conclusions.

free parameters (4)
  • Dust temperature for PPO mass lower limits = 40 K
    Chosen from Richardson et al. 2024; used in Eq 5 to derive M_PPO; the Jeans-mass comparison (Fig 18) depends on this value.
  • Hot core dust temperatures = 100 K, 300 K
    Assigned to cores and PPOs associated with hot cores (Bonfand et al. 2024; Ginsburg et al. 2017); affects the most massive cores in the M_frag vs M_J plot.
  • Dendrogram detection thresholds = min_value=3 sigma, min_delta=1.5 sigma, min_npix=15
    Used in Sec 3.1 to build the PPO catalog; fragment counts are sensitive to these values, as shown by comparison with Tang et al. (2022).
  • Core-PPO association radius = core FWHM + ALMA-IMF beam
    Defines whether a PPO is classified as a core fragment in Sec 4.1; changing this boundary changes the N_frag distribution and all derived trends.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The distance to W51 is 5.4 kpc
    Used in Eq 6 for core masses and Eq 5 for PPO masses; taken from prior astrometry (Xu et al. 2009; Sato et al. 2010).
  • domain assumption Dust opacity from Ossenkopf and Henning (1994) applies at mm wavelengths
    kappa_1.3=0.0083, kappa_3=0.0017 cm^2/g used for PPO masses; an alternative opacity law changes mass estimates.
  • domain assumption PPO masses are lower limits under the optically thin assumption
    Eq 5 assumes optically thin dust; the paper notes most sources are optically thick so masses are lower limits; central to the M_frag > M_J argument.
  • domain assumption Core temperatures from PPMAP at 2.5 arcsec resolution are representative of fragmentation-time temperatures
    Used in Eq 7 for Jeans mass; the paper itself notes this may underestimate temperatures in cores heated by protostars.
  • domain assumption Compact high-res sources are individual pre/protostellar objects
    Sec 3.4 classifies sources as PPOs; if many are transient substructure, the fragment counts and trends change.
  • standard math Jeans mass formula (Binney and Tremaine 1987) with thermal pressure only
    Eq 7 used to compute expected fragment number; non-thermal support is not included.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 41391 in / 13552 out tokens · 132840 ms · 2026-08-04T23:08:54.461702+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present a study of core fragmentation in the W51-E and W51-IRS2 protoclusters in the W51 high-mass star-forming region. The identification of core fragmentation is achieved by the spatial correspondence of cores and compact sources which are detected in the short (low resolution) and the long baseline (high resolution) continuum images with the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) in Bands 3 (3 mm) and 6 (1.3 mm), respectively. We characterize the compact sources found in the long baseline image, and conclude that the compact sources are pre/protostellar objects (PPOs) that are either prestellar dust cores or dust disks or envelopes around protostars. The observed trend of core fragmentation in W51 is that (i) massive cores host more PPOs, (ii) bright PPOs are preferentially formed in massive cores, (iii) equipartition of flux between PPOs is uncommon. Thermal Jeans masses of parent cores are insufficient to explain the masses of their fragments, and this trend is more prominent at high-mass cores. We also find that unfragmented cores are large, less massive, and less dense than fragmented cores.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06749 by A. Ginsburg, A. Gusdorf, A. Koley, A. M. Stutz, B. Thomasson, C. Goddi, D. J. D\'iaz-Gonz\'alez, F. Louvet, F. Motte, F. Olguin, G. Busquet, H.-L Liu, J. Braine, J. Di Francesco, L. A. Zapata, L. Bronfman, M. Armante, M. Bonfand, M. Fern\'andez-Lopez, M. Valeille-Manet, N. Budaiev, N. Cunningham, N. Kessler, P. Sanhueza, Q. Zhang, R. Galv\'an-Madrid, S. Bontemps, T. Csengeri, T. Nony, T. Yoo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Core groups used in this study. Total ALMA-IMF cores detected in getsf are first divided into two groups by the criteria passing robust 1.3mm detection or robust 1.3mm & 3mm detection of getsf core catalog. The core samples are further classified into two groups by examining the spatial overlap with the high-resolution continuum images. The number of cores in each group is listed in parentheses. Each group… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The overview of W51A region. The image at the center is the ALMA 3 mm continuum image of ALMA-IMF combining two sub-regions, W51-E and W51-IRS2. Each continuum image is truncated and merged in the middle to look seamless. Three regions marked with the blue boxes are magnified with 1.3 mm continuum image of ALMA-IMF data (left) and high-resolution data (right). We annotate massive YSOs studied in previous s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The spectral index distribution of high-res sources detected in both bands. (Left) 3 mm peak flux - 1.3 mm peak flux diagram. Here, 1.3 mm peak flux is measured from the convolved continuum image with the common beam. The error bar denotes the background noise level measured in each continuum image. Typical calibration errors, 5% in Band 3 and 10% in Band 6 are marked as gray crosses on the lower right cor… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The axis ratio between the major and the minor axis of high-res sources. ∼ 200–1000 AU in 3 mm and ∼ 100–500 AU in 1.3 mm. This tells us the upper limit of the sizes for unresolved sources, 100 and 200 AU in 1.3 mm and 3 mm. We present the aspect ratio of high-res sources in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cumulative distribution of radii of high-res sources. The cumulative function is generated by survival analysis with the Kaplan-Meier estimator provided by life￾line package. The function is censored on the left side by excluding the unresolved or undetected sources in the anal￾ysis. timator implemented in the Python package lifelines (Davidson-Pilon 2019). Sources that are unresolved or undetected are cen… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The surface brightness of PPOs at 1.3 mm and 3 mm observations in W51-E (left) and W51-IRS2 (middle). For 1.3 mm the surface brightness is measured from the 1.3 mm image convolved to the 3 mm image beam. Models of MBB surface brightness with surface density ranging Σ = 1021–1027 cm−2 are presented as dashed curves with colors denoting MBB temperature T = 20, 40, 60, 80 K, following Eq. 4. The surface brigh… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The dust temperatures estimated by the MBB in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: The histogram of integrated fluxes of PPOs except sources contaminated by free-free emission at 1.3 mm and 3 mm. Right: the lower limit of PPO masses using 3 mm integrated flux by assuming constant dust temperature 40 K (MPPO,lowlim) is displayed. to derive the mass because the lower opacity in 3 mm than 1.3 mm allows us to obtain the information from the inner part of PPOs. The mass lower limits fro… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Examples of core fragmentation in W51-E. The cyan ellipses are dust cores and green ellipses are cores contaminated with free-free emission. The size of the ellipses represents the boundary of cores defined as the sum of the FWHM of the core and the FWHM of the synthesized beam. The background image of the bottom is an ALMA-IMF 1.3 mm continuum map. The field of view of the high-resolution image is display… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Number of core fragments as a function of core fluxes (upper row), core fluxes subtracted by their fragment fluxes (lower row) and masses (right). Each cyan (W51-E) and orange (W51-IRS2) data point with an error bar represents the flux or the mass of the core versus the number of fragments. For core fluxes, we use the integrated flux measured from ALMA-IMF 1.3mm and 3mm continuum data. The flux measured f… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The fluxes of the brightest PPOs associated with each core as a function of 1.3 mm and 3 mm core fluxes (top), core fluxes subtracted by the sum of their fragment fluxes (middle), and core masses (bottom). The error bars denote the error of the core fluxes and that of the integrated PPO fluxes. If the integrated flux of more than one PPO is missing in the plotted band, the PPO fluxes are represented as em… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Top and Middle: The sum of fragment fluxes as a function of core fluxes (top) and core envelope fluxes (middle) in 1.3 mm and 3 mm. If the integrated flux of more than one PPO is missing in the plotted band, the PPO fluxes are represented as empty circles; otherwise, they are shown as filled circles. The diagonal dashed lines mark the frag￾mentation efficiency ϵfrag = 1, 0.1, 0.01 in the top row and ϵfrag… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The fragmentation efficiency (ϵfrag; left), the number of fragments (Nfrag; middle) and the ratio between the brightest and the second brightest PPOs (second(FPPO)/max(FPPO); right) as a function of the brightest PPO flux (max(FPPO)) at 3 mm in W51-E and W51-IRS2. The color of each data point denotes core temperature. The filled and empty circles denote the complete and incomplete samples as same as [PIT… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Upper left: Thermal Jeans masses of cores in W51-E and W51-IRS2. Upper right: Jeans number and number of fragments of cores. The ratio of the actual number of fragments and Jeans number is Jeans efficiency indicated as gray dashed lines. The average Jeans efficiency in each region is plotted as colored thin dashed lines. Lower left: Histogram of Jeans efficiency. For comparison, Jeans efficiency of envelo… view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Comparison between the Jeans masses of cores and the PPO masses associated with each core estimated from constant temperature model (T = 40 K). The PPOs associated with the same core are connected with the vertical dashed lines. A majority of PPOs exhibit a lower mass limit exceeding the Jeans mass of the core. and the peaks were verified by dendrogram with paramters of min value=1.32 mJy/beam and min del… view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Histogram of temperature, size, mass, and mass density of unfragmented and fragmented cores from W51-E (top), and W51-IRS2 (bottom). The medians of each quantity are denoted by the vertical dashed lines. The p-values from the two￾sample KS test for W51-IRS2 cores are displayed on the bottom row. tially related to free-free contaminated cores that were removed from the core catalog, and thus they need to b… view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Comparison of 1.3 mm and 3 mm flux, and spectral index group, dust, dust/ff (optically thick dust emission or possibly free-free contaminated), and ff (free-free contaminated), defined in Sec. 3.2, of ciPPOs, caPPOs, and ffcaPPOs in W51-E (top row) and W51-IRS2 (bottom). The core samples used in this plot have masses higher than the completeness limit of W51-E, 3.86 M⊙. The median of each quantity is deno… view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: An example of 2D Gaussian modeling for the ALMA 1.3 mm flux measurement of PPOs (#2) in W51-E. Upper row: the 1D profile of the continuum image and the model along the major axis (left) and minor axis (center). The solid lines indicate the image profile before (black) and after background subtraction (blue). The orange dashed lines represent the model profile fitted to the background-subtracted image prof… view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: The completeness test result. We define the completeness limit mass as the mass reaching the completeness level = 0.9. Each point is generated by testing if the synthetic sources are detected in the dendrogram or not. The interpolation between points is done with PCHIP interpolator. and 0.20 mJy, respectively, in Band 3 and 1.2 mJy and 1.3 mJy, in Band 6. Assuming 40 K dust temperature, inserting the Band… view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: A map of PPOs in W51-E. In the central panel, subfields containing PPOs are labeled. The cutout images of each labeled grid are displayed on the side panels. The positions of PPOs are annotated by the arrow with their ID number and colors representing their classification (cyan: dust-dominated, orange: dust+free-free, green: free-free contaminated, magenta: only found at 1.3 mm, yellow: only found at 3 mm… view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_24.png] view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_25.png] view at source ↗
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_26.png] view at source ↗
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_27.png] view at source ↗
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: Snapshots of PPOs identified in W51-E 1.3 mm and 3 mm continuum image. The color scale is normalized to the flux of the central object for clear visualization. The size of the image beam is represented as a filled ellipse on the left lower corner [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_28.png] view at source ↗
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_29.png] view at source ↗
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_30.png] view at source ↗
Figure 31
Figure 31. Figure 31 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p047_31.png] view at source ↗
Figure 32
Figure 32. Figure 32: Snapshots of PPOs identified in W51-IRS2 1.3 mm and 3 mm continuum image. Sources #32–39 does not have 1.3 mm counterpart in the 1.3 mm field of view image [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p048_32.png] view at source ↗
Figure 33
Figure 33. Figure 33 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p049_33.png] view at source ↗
Figure 34
Figure 34. Figure 34: Snapshots of ambiguous sources that were not selected in the final catalog of PPOs in W51-E. The cyan square indicates the absence of the sources in ambiguous catalog [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p050_34.png] view at source ↗
Figure 35
Figure 35. Figure 35 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p051_35.png] view at source ↗
Figure 36
Figure 36. Figure 36: Snapshots of ambiguous sources in W51-IRS2. The sources #27–32 are outside of the field of view of the 1.3 mm continuum image [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p052_36.png] view at source ↗
Figure 37
Figure 37. Figure 37: Snapshots of low S/N sources in W51-E. The sources #2–7 are outside of the field of view of the 1.3 mm continuum image [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p053_37.png] view at source ↗
Figure 38
Figure 38. Figure 38 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p053_38.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The Impact of Radiation Environment on the Evolution and Fragmentation of Protostellar Discs

    astro-ph.SR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Stronger radiation environments produce more massive, hotter protostellar discs whose fragments are large and disruptive rather than planetary-mass.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

124 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  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]

    Zk z 3ĸURR;wA Zhz?^͚5Ӓ 4yduU۷o׌ 34l0=) A9ݻWuM7iȑ1=>7x ] 3FcƌQ XƍgHƎ F iUֱa q &h̘1]xᅺ

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

    2021

  4. [4]

    H., Stutz , A

    \'A lvarez-Guti \'e rrez , R. H., Stutz , A. M., Sandoval-Garrido , N., et al. 2024, , 689, A74, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450321

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450321 2024

  5. [5]

    Alves , J., Lombardi , M., & Lada , C. J. 2007, , 462, L17, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066389

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066389 2007

  6. [6]

    2010, , 518, L102, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014666

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014666 2010

  7. [7]

    P., Trapman , L., et al

    Ansdell , M., Williams , J. P., Trapman , L., et al. 2018, , 859, 21, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab890

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab890 2018

  8. [8]

    2024, , 686, A122, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347595

    Armante , M., Gusdorf , A., Louvet , F., et al. 2024, , 686, A122, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347595

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347595 2024

  9. [9]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  10. [10]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  11. [11]

    R., & Meyer , M

    Bastian , N., Covey , K. R., & Meyer , M. R. 2010, , 48, 339, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101642

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101642 2010

  12. [12]

    1987, Galactic dynamics

    Binney , J., & Tremaine , S. 1987, Galactic dynamics

    1987

  13. [13]

    2024, , 687, A163, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347856

    Bonfand , M., Csengeri , T., Bontemps , S., et al. 2024, , 687, A163, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347856

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347856 2024

  14. [14]

    A., & Bate , M

    Bonnell , I. A., & Bate , M. R. 2002, , 336, 659, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05794.x

    arXiv 2002

  15. [15]

    A., Bate , M

    Bonnell , I. A., Bate , M. R., Clarke , C. J., & Pringle , J. E. 2001, , 323, 785, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04270.x

    arXiv 2001

  16. [16]

    2010, , 524, A18, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913286

    Bontemps , S., Motte , F., Csengeri , T., & Schneider , N. 2010, , 524, A18, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913286

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913286 2010

  17. [17]

    D., & Cragg , D

    Brown , R. D., & Cragg , D. M. 1991, , 378, 445, 10.1086/170443

    work page doi:10.1086/170443 1991

  18. [18]

    2024, , 961, 4, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0383

    Budaiev , N., Ginsburg , A., Jeff , D., et al. 2024, , 961, 4, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0383

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0383 2024

  19. [19]

    2021, CARTA: Cube Analysis and Rendering Tool for Astronomy , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2103.031

    Comrie , A., Wang , K.-S., Hsu , S.-C., et al. 2021, CARTA: Cube Analysis and Rendering Tool for Astronomy , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2103.031. 2103.031

    2021

  20. [20]

    2024, CARTA: The Cube Analysis and Rendering Tool for Astronomy, 4.1.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.15172686

    Comrie, A., Wang, K.-S., Hwang, Y.-H., et al. 2024, CARTA: The Cube Analysis and Rendering Tool for Astronomy, 4.1.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.15172686

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.15172686 2024

  21. [21]

    F., Hogerheijde , M

    Crapsi , A., van Dishoeck , E. F., Hogerheijde , M. R., Pontoppidan , K. M., & Dullemond , C. P. 2008, , 486, 245, 10.1051/0004-6361:20078589

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078589 2008

  22. [22]

    2017, , 600, L10, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629754

    Csengeri , T., Bontemps , S., Wyrowski , F., et al. 2017, , 600, L10, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629754

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629754 2017

  23. [23]

    2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1317, 10.21105/joss.01317

    Davidson-Pilon, C. 2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1317, 10.21105/joss.01317

    doi:10.21105/joss.01317 2019

  24. [24]

    2024, , 687, A217, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348984

    Dell'Ova , P., Motte , F., Gusdorf , A., et al. 2024, , 687, A217, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348984

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348984 2024

  25. [25]

    J., I., Caselli , P., et al

    di Francesco , J., Evans , N. J., I., Caselli , P., et al. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed. B. Reipurth , D. Jewitt , & K. Keil , 17, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0602379

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0602379 2007

  26. [26]

    J., Galv \'a n-Madrid , R., Ginsburg , A., et al

    D \' az-Gonz \'a lez , D. J., Galv \'a n-Madrid , R., Ginsburg , A., et al. 2023, , 269, 55, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad029c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad029c 2023

  27. [27]

    A., Greenhill , L

    Eisner , J. A., Greenhill , L. J., Herrnstein , J. R., Moran , J. M., & Menten , K. M. 2002, , 569, 334, 10.1086/338968

    work page doi:10.1086/338968 2002

  28. [28]

    D., & Fuller , G

    Etoka , S., Gray , M. D., & Fuller , G. A. 2012, , 423, 647, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20900.x

    arXiv 2012

  29. [29]

    M., et al

    Fern \'a ndez-L \'o pez , M., Curiel , S., Girart , J. M., et al. 2011, , 141, 72, 10.1088/0004-6256/141/3/72

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/141/3/72 2011

  30. [30]

    B., Izquierdo , A

    Galv \'a n-Madrid , R., Liu , H. B., Izquierdo , A. F., et al. 2018, , 868, 39, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae779

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae779 2018

  31. [31]

    A., Johnston , K

    Gaume , R. A., Johnston , K. J., & Wilson , T. L. 1993, , 417, 645, 10.1086/173342

    doi:10.1086/173342 1993

  32. [32]

    H., et al

    Genzel , R., Downes , D., Schneps , M. H., et al. 1981, , 247, 1039, 10.1086/159113

    work page doi:10.1086/159113 1981

  33. [33]

    1998, , 501, 687, 10.1086/305864

    Ghavamian , P., & Hartigan , P. 1998, , 501, 687, 10.1086/305864

    work page doi:10.1086/305864 1998

  34. [34]

    A review of the W51 Cloud

    Ginsburg , A. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.06627, 10.48550/arXiv.1702.06627

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1702.06627 2017

  35. [35]

    2015, , 573, A106, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424979

    Ginsburg , A., Bally , J., Battersby , C., et al. 2015, , 573, A106, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424979

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424979 2015

  36. [36]

    2019, , 158, 208, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab4790

    Ginsburg , A., & Goddi , C. 2019, , 158, 208, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab4790

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab4790 2019

  37. [37]

    M., Goddi , C., et al

    Ginsburg , A., Goss , W. M., Goddi , C., et al. 2016, , 595, A27, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628318

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628318 2016

  38. [38]

    Ginsburg , A., Goddi , C., Kruijssen , J. M. D., et al. 2017, , 842, 92, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6bfa

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6bfa 2017

  39. [39]

    2022, , 662, A9, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141681

    Ginsburg , A., Csengeri , T., Galv \'a n-Madrid , R., et al. 2022, , 662, A9, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141681

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141681 2022

  40. [40]

    Girichidis , P., Federrath , C., Banerjee , R., & Klessen , R. S. 2012, , 420, 613, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20073.x

    arXiv 2012

  41. [41]

    T., Zhang , Q., & Zapata , L

    Goddi , C., Ginsburg , A., Maud , L. T., Zhang , Q., & Zapata , L. A. 2020, , 905, 25, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc88e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc88e 2020

  42. [42]

    2016, , 589, A44, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527855

    Goddi , C., Ginsburg , A., & Zhang , Q. 2016, , 589, A44, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527855

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527855 2016

  43. [43]

    Guszejnov , D., & Hopkins , P. F. 2015, , 450, 4137, 10.1093/mnras/stv872

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv872 2015

  44. [44]

    2016, , 459, 9, 10.1093/mnras/stw619

    ---. 2016, , 459, 9, 10.1093/mnras/stw619

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw619 2016

  45. [45]

    R., Millman, K

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

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  46. [46]

    L., Asiri , H., & Mauersberger , R

    Henkel , C., Wilson , T. L., Asiri , H., & Mauersberger , R. 2013, , 549, A90, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220098

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220098 2013

  47. [47]

    Hennebelle , P., & Grudi \'c , M. Y. 2024, , 62, 63, 10.1146/annurev-astro-052622-031748

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-052622-031748 2024

  48. [48]

    Hildebrand , R. H. 1983, , 24, 267

    1983

  49. [49]

    R., Anderson , J., et al

    Hosek , Matthew W., J., Lu , J. R., Anderson , J., et al. 2019, , 870, 44, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaef90

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaef90 2019

  50. [50]

    1953, , 118, 513, 10.1086/145780

    Hoyle , F. 1953, , 118, 513, 10.1086/145780

    doi:10.1086/145780 1953

  51. [51]

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

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  52. [52]

    2002, , 54, 741, 10.1093/pasj/54.5.741

    Imai , H., Watanabe , T., Omodaka , T., et al. 2002, , 54, 741, 10.1093/pasj/54.5.741

    doi:10.1093/pasj/54.5.741 2002

  53. [53]

    Kelly , B. C. 2007, , 665, 1489, 10.1086/519947

    doi:10.1086/519947 2007

  54. [54]

    2008, , 672, 423, 10.1086/522570

    Keto , E., Zhang , Q., & Kurtz , S. 2008, , 672, 423, 10.1086/522570

    doi:10.1086/522570 2008

  55. [55]

    M., Tang , Y.-W., Ho , P

    Koch , P. M., Tang , Y.-W., Ho , P. T. P., et al. 2022, , 940, 89, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac96e3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac96e3 2022

  56. [56]

    2019, , 873, 31, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaffd5

    Kong , S. 2019, , 873, 31, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaffd5

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaffd5 2019

  57. [57]

    Krumholz , M. R. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1511.03457, 10.48550/arXiv.1511.03457

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1511.03457 2015

  58. [58]

    R., Klein , R

    Krumholz , M. R., Klein , R. I., & McKee , C. F. 2007, , 656, 959, 10.1086/510664

    doi:10.1086/510664 2007

  59. [59]

    Kumar , M. S. N., Kamath , U. S., & Davis , C. J. 2004, , 353, 1025, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08143.x

    arXiv 2004

  60. [60]

    I.-H., Liu , H

    Li , J. I.-H., Liu , H. B., Hasegawa , Y., & Hirano , N. 2017, , 840, 72, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6f04

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6f04 2017

  61. [61]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.06545, 10.48550/arXiv.2401.06545

    Li , S., Sanhueza , P., Beuther , H., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.06545, 10.48550/arXiv.2401.06545

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.06545 2024

  62. [62]

    2019, , 631, A72, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935410

    Lin , Y., Csengeri , T., Wyrowski , F., et al. 2019, , 631, A72, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935410

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935410 2019

  63. [63]

    2014, , 570, A15, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423603

    Louvet , F., Motte , F., Hennebelle , P., et al. 2014, , 570, A15, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423603

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423603 2014

  64. [64]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.18719, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.18719

    Louvet , F., Sanhueza , P., Stutz , A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.18719, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.18719

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.18719 2024

  65. [65]

    R., Do , T., Ghez , A

    Lu , J. R., Do , T., Ghez , A. M., et al. 2013, , 764, 155, 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/155

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/764/2/155 2013

  66. [66]

    2020, , 894, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8b65

    Lu , X., Cheng , Y., Ginsburg , A., et al. 2020, , 894, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8b65

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab8b65 2020

  67. [67]

    Maia , F. F. S., Moraux , E., & Joncour , I. 2016, , 458, 3027, 10.1093/mnras/stw450

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw450 2016

  68. [68]

    A., Whitworth , A

    Marsh , K. A., Whitworth , A. P., & Lomax , O. 2015, , 454, 4282, 10.1093/mnras/stv2248

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2248 2015

  69. [69]

    F., & Tan , J

    McKee , C. F., & Tan , J. C. 2002, , 416, 59, 10.1038/416059a

    doi:10.1038/416059a 2002

  70. [70]

    2003, , 585, 850, 10.1086/346149

    ---. 2003, , 585, 850, 10.1086/346149

    doi:10.1086/346149 2003

  71. [71]

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

    McMullin , J. P., Waters , B., Schiebel , D., Young , W., & Golap , K. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw , F. Hill , & D. J. Bell , 127

    2007

  72. [72]

    2021, , 649, A89, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039913

    Men'shchikov , A. 2021, , 649, A89, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039913

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039913 2021

  73. [73]

    2023, , 950, 148, 10.3847/1538-4357/acccea

    Morii , K., Sanhueza , P., Nakamura , F., et al. 2023, , 950, 148, 10.3847/1538-4357/acccea

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acccea 2023

  74. [74]

    2024, , 966, 171, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad32d0

    Morii , K., Sanhueza , P., Zhang , Q., et al. 2024, , 966, 171, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad32d0

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad32d0 2024

  75. [75]

    K., & Ishiguro , M

    Morita , K.-I., Hasegawa , T., Ukita , N., Okumura , S. K., & Ishiguro , M. 1992, , 44, 373

    1992

  76. [76]

    1998, , 336, 150

    Motte , F., Andre , P., & Neri , R. 1998, , 336, 150

    1998

  77. [77]

    2018, , 56, 41, 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055235

    Motte , F., Bontemps , S., & Louvet , F. 2018, , 56, 41, 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055235

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055235 2018

  78. [78]

    2022, , 662, A8, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141677

    Motte , F., Bontemps , S., Csengeri , T., et al. 2022, , 662, A8, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141677

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141677 2022

  79. [79]

    2025, , 694, A24, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451931

    Motte , F., Pouteau , Y., Nony , T., et al. 2025, , 694, A24, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451931

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451931 2025

  80. [80]

    B., & Ingargiola, A

    Newville, M., Stensitzki, T., Allen, D. B., & Ingargiola, A. 2015, LMFIT: Non-Linear Least-Square Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python , 0.8.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.11813

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.11813 2015

Showing first 80 references.