Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 113 references

Thermal feedback from massive protostars raises the local Jeans mass above the envelope mass, suppressing further fragmentation of hot molecular cores.

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

2026-07-13 20:39 UTC pith:DSSHFQF4

load-bearing objection Large homogeneous HMC sample with useful L⋆–core relations; MJeans>Menv is real under stated assumptions but partly shares the same Trot field, so the feedback claim is supportive rather than decisive. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.21670 v2 pith:DSSHFQF4 submitted 2026-03-23 astro-ph.GA

The ALMA-QUARKS survey: Investigating Thermal Feedback of Massive Protostars in Hot Molecular Cores

Dezhao Meng , Tie Liu , Jarken Esimbek , Yisheng Qiu , Jixing Ge , Neal J. Evans , Aina Palau , Guido Garay
show 28 more authors
Paul F. Goldsmith Fengwei Xu Sami Dib Jeong-Eun Lee Amelia M. Stutz Xindi Tang Xiaofeng Mai Yankun Zhang Wenyu Jiao Jiahang Zou Leonardo J. Bronfman Swagat R. Das Prasanta Gorai J. W. Zhou Pablo Garc'ia L. Viktor Toth Sheng-Yuan Liu Patricio Sanhueza Chang Won Lee Kee-Tae Kim Jianjun Zhou Gang Wu Dalei Li Yuxin He Dongting Yang James O. Chibueze Xunchuan Liu Lei Zhu
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords hot molecular coresthermal feedbackJeans massmassive star formationprotostellar luminosityCH3CN temperature profilesALMA QUARKSfragmentation suppression
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.

Massive young stars heat their natal envelopes, and that heat is expected to change how the gas can fragment. This paper measures temperature and density structure in 83 spatially resolved hot molecular cores and uses those profiles to infer the luminosities of the embedded protostars. The key finding is that the thermal Jeans mass set by the heated gas systematically exceeds the measured envelope mass, by about a factor of two on average, and scales positively with protostellar luminosity. If that relation is real, radiative heating can stop cores from breaking into many smaller pieces and thereby favors the growth of massive stars. The same data also show that more massive parent clumps host more luminous protostars, so stronger heating and stronger suppression of fragmentation go together with larger mass reservoirs. The result supplies an observational counterpart to simulations that have long predicted this feedback pathway.

Core claim

In a sample of 83 resolved hot molecular cores, the thermal Jeans mass computed from the observed temperature and density structure exceeds the envelope mass, with average M_Jeans about twice average M_env, and M_Jeans rises with the luminosity of the embedded massive protostar. That is presented as direct observational evidence that thermal feedback suppresses further fragmentation of HMCs and thereby promotes massive star formation.

What carries the argument

Local thermal Jeans mass evaluated from the mass-averaged envelope temperature and the core-averaged volume density, compared against the continuum-derived envelope mass and against the protostellar luminosity recovered by fitting the observed density and temperature profiles with Monte-Carlo radiative transfer.

Load-bearing premise

The dust temperature used for both column densities and luminosity fitting is taken equal to the gas temperature measured from CH3CN, under the assumption that dust and gas stay thermally locked in these dense regions.

What would settle it

Multi-band continuum maps at matched high resolution that yield dust temperatures systematically lower than the CH3CN rotational temperatures would lower both derived luminosities and Jeans masses enough that M_Jeans no longer exceeds M_env for most of the sample.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Empirical L★–Menv, L★–a, and L★–nc power laws become benchmarks that theoretical models of massive protostellar envelopes must reproduce.
  • Cores that remain above the local Jeans mass should show little further sub-fragmentation at higher resolution, favoring single massive objects or high-mass binaries over large low-mass clusters.
  • More massive clumps should preferentially form more luminous protostars and therefore experience stronger thermal suppression of fragmentation.
  • Radial CH3CN abundance breaks near ~1000–2000 au can be read as a chemical clock of how long different envelope layers have spent above ~100–200 K.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the Jeans-mass excess is the main regulator, the high-mass end of the initial mass function should be set partly by how early and how strongly the first massive object heats its core, not only by the initial clump mass reservoir.
  • Distance-limited reanalysis already weakens the L★–nc anti-correlation, so future work that fixes physical scale (rather than angular scale) may revise which structural parameters truly track luminosity.
  • The reported L★ ∝ M_Jeans^3.1 relation is close to a stellar mass–luminosity track; testing whether final stellar mass tracks the local Jeans mass at the hot-core stage would link envelope heating directly to the stellar mass spectrum.

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 / 8 minor

Summary. The paper presents a homogeneous ALMA-QUARKS analysis of 83 spatially resolved hot molecular cores. Using multi-K CH3CN (12–11) fits with spectuner and 1.3 mm continuum (with H30α free–free subtraction where detected), the authors derive radial temperature, Plummer-like density, and broken power-law CH3CN abundance profiles. Embedded protostellar luminosities L⋆ are obtained by χ²-matching RADMC-3D envelope temperature profiles to the observed T(r). They report empirical L⋆–Menv, L⋆–a, and L⋆–nc relations, a positive L⋆–MJeans correlation, and that thermal Jeans masses systematically exceed envelope masses (average factor ~2). From this they argue that protostellar thermal feedback can suppress further HMC fragmentation and that more massive clumps host more luminous protostars, strengthening feedback-driven coevolution.

Significance. If the MJeans ≳ Menv result and the associated L⋆–MJeans and L⋆–Mclump trends hold under independent temperature and mass constraints, this would be one of the strongest observational supports to date for radiative suppression of core fragmentation in massive star formation, on a sample far larger and more uniform than prior case studies. The empirical core-scale L⋆–Menv, L⋆–a, and L⋆–nc relations are useful model constraints regardless. Strengths include the large resolved sample, automated multi-transition fitting, free–free handling, projection-corrected RT tests (Δlog L⋆ ≲ 0.1), distance-limited correlation checks, and an explicit caveats section. The main interpretive load rests on whether the Jeans comparison is sufficiently independent of the shared temperature field used to build both sides.

major comments (3)
  1. §4.2 and Abstract (central claim): MJeans is computed from Eq. (8) with T = ⟨T⟩_M (mass-averaged CH3CN Trot) and n from the Plummer fit to NH2, while Menv is the integral of the same NH2 map. NH2 itself is derived from continuum under Tdust = Trot (Eq. 3, §3.1). Thus both the T^{3/2} boost in MJeans and the continuum mass scale inherit the same temperature field: higher adopted T raises MJeans and lowers Menv, widening the gap by construction. The claim that average MJeans is ~2× average Menv is therefore not an independent test of thermal feedback until the authors quantify how large a systematic Tdust < Trot offset (as they cite from Motte et al. 2025 and flag in §4.4) would reverse MJeans ≳ Menv for the bulk of the sample. A simple sensitivity grid (e.g., Tdust = f Trot with f = 0.5–1.0, recomputing NH2, Menv, and optionally L⋆) is needed before the fragmentation-suppression conclusio
  2. §4.2 and §3.3.3: The reported strong L⋆–MJeans correlation (rp = 0.75; Log[MJeans] = 0.32 Log[L⋆] − 0.63) is partly expected because L⋆ is optimized so that RADMC-3D matches the same observed temperature profile that enters ⟨T⟩_M in Eq. (8). Density structure also depends on T via NH2. The paper should either (i) demonstrate residual correlation after removing the direct T-driven component (e.g., partial correlation controlling for ⟨T⟩_M, or MJeans computed with a fixed reference T), or (ii) clearly reframe the result as a consistency check that the measured (T,n) structures imply Jeans-stable envelopes at the luminosities required by RT, rather than as independent evidence that feedback raises Jeans mass. Without that, the Abstract wording overstates the independence of the test.
  3. §3.1, §3.3.3, and §4.4: The assumption Tdust ≈ Tkin ≈ Trot is used both to convert continuum to NH2/Menv and as the observational target for the L⋆ fit. The caveats correctly note that COM-traced gas may be hotter than the dust dominating the continuum, which would bias L⋆ high and Menv low. Because this dual use is load-bearing for every mass–luminosity and Jeans comparison in the paper, the main text (not only §4.4) should state the direction and approximate magnitude of the bias and show that the key empirical slopes (especially Log[Menv] = 1.01 Log[L⋆] − 4.80 and the MJeans > Menv census) remain qualitatively intact under a plausible T offset. If they do not, the conclusions must be softened accordingly.
minor comments (8)
  1. Abstract and §4.2: Clarify whether “average MJeans being two times larger than the average Menv” is the ratio of means, the mean of ratios, or the median ratio; these differ when the scatter in Fig. 8 is large.
  2. §3.3.1: The text notes that the projected power-law fit underestimates q by ~0.15 (Estalella et al. 2024) but still reports uncorrected q for comparison. Consider also tabulating a simple deprojected or RT-consistent q so readers do not mix projected and physical indices.
  3. §3.2 / Table E1: Dust-ff cores are defined by H30α > 3σ at the continuum peak; the text correctly notes non-detections do not imply zero free–free. A short estimate of residual free–free contamination for non-detections (or an upper limit on mass bias) would strengthen the continuum mass scale.
  4. Figure 4 caption: Exclusion of I16348-4654-HC1 and I18056-1952-HC1 from the mean T profile is appropriate; state whether they remain in the MJeans/Menv and correlation statistics (they appear extreme in Table E1).
  5. §3.3.3: ZAMS mass–luminosity conversion is mentioned only briefly; given that L⋆ includes accretion, avoid implying those masses are true stellar masses without a short caveat near the quoted 6–114 M⊙ range.
  6. Typos / wording: “obsereved” (§2); “F eedback” in the title line of the draft header; “pow-law” in Appendix E column description; “aknowledges” in acknowledgments. Standardize CH3CN vs \ch3cn{} and Log vs log notation.
  7. §4.3: The coevolution discussion (L⋆ ∝ Mclump^1.22 and comparison to m_max–M_cluster) is interesting but partly statistical (as §4.4 notes). Soften causal language (“preferentially host,” “leading to stronger thermal feedback”) where only correlation is shown.
  8. Appendix B: Several quantities correlate with distance (L⋆, Menv, FWHM, rb). The distance-limited rp values in Table D1 help; consider marking in Fig. 7/8 which points lie beyond 5 kpc so readers can visually assess leverage.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

L⋆–MJeans correlation is partly forced by construction: L⋆ is inverted from the same Tobs and n profiles that enter MJeans, while MJeans ≳ Menv is not definitionally forced but shares the Tdust=Trot systematic.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; §3.3.3; §4.2 (Eq. 8 and Fig. 8)]
    "Based on the envelope temperature and density profiles, we compute the luminosities of the embedded massive protostars with RADMC-3D radiation transfer model. ... Importantly, we find a strong positive correlation between the massive protostellar luminosity and the local thermal Jeans mass. The derived Jeans masses, MJeans, exceed the HMC masses Menv, with the average MJeans being two times larger than the average Menv."

    L⋆ is the single free parameter optimized so that the RADMC-3D Tmod(n(r), L⋆) matches Tobs (the same CH3CN Trot map). MJeans is then evaluated from that same ⟨T⟩M and the ⟨n⟩ obtained from the Plummer fit to the NH2 map that itself used Tdust = Trot. Higher T therefore simultaneously raises the fitted L⋆ and raises MJeans ∝ T^{3/2}n^{-1/2}; the reported correlation is statistically forced by the shared inputs rather than an independent prediction of the feedback scenario.

  2. fitted input called prediction [§3.1 (Eq. 3); §3.3.5; §4.2]
    "we first assume dust temperature Tdust ≈ Tkin. ... NH2 = R Idustν / (Ω µ mH κν Bν(Tdust)) ... The envelope gas mass Menv (= µmH ∫ NH2 dA ...) ... The thermal Jeans masses are calculated using ... T is replaced with the mass-averaged temperature ⟨T⟩M and n is replaced with the core-averaged volume density ⟨n⟩."

    Both Menv (integral of NH2) and the n that enters MJeans are derived from the continuum under the identical Tdust = Trot field that also supplies ⟨T⟩M. An overestimate of T therefore systematically lowers Menv while raising MJeans, artificially widening the gap that is presented as evidence of suppressed fragmentation. The paper notes the Motte et al. (2025) Tdust < Trot discrepancy but does not propagate it; the inequality is therefore not fully independent of the temperature assumption used on both sides.

full rationale

The paper’s central observational claim (Abstract, §4.2) is that thermal feedback suppresses HMC fragmentation because fitted L⋆ correlates strongly with MJeans and average MJeans exceeds average Menv by a factor ~2. L⋆ is obtained by χ²-minimizing a RADMC-3D temperature profile (given the Plummer n(r) fitted to NH2) against the observed CH3CN Trot profile (§3.3.3). MJeans is then computed from exactly the same mass-averaged ⟨T⟩M and volume-averaged ⟨n⟩ (Eq. 8). Consequently the L⋆–MJeans correlation is largely expected once the RT inversion and the T^{3/2}n^{-1/2} formula are written down; it is not an independent test. The inequality MJeans > Menv is not forced by that loop (it depends on the numerical values of T, n and core size) and therefore retains content, but both sides inherit the shared Tdust ≈ Trot assumption used to convert continuum to NH2 (Eq. 3) and to weight ⟨T⟩M. The paper itself flags the Tdust–Tgas risk (§4.4) without quantifying how large an offset would reverse the inequality. No self-citation uniqueness theorem or renamed known result is load-bearing; the circularity is limited to the fitted-input-as-correlation pattern for the L⋆–MJeans relation. Score 4 reflects partial circularity that does not collapse the entire claim.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard LTE and dust–gas coupling assumptions, a spherical Plummer-like density model, a single dust-opacity table, and the identification of ‘internally heated’ cores by visual inspection of radially decreasing T profiles. No new physical entities are postulated; free parameters are the usual per-core fit coefficients plus the single free luminosity in each RADMC-3D run.

free parameters (5)
  • L⋆ (per core)
    Sole free parameter optimized by χ² minimization between RADMC-3D model and observed T(r) for each of the 83 cores; absolute scale of all subsequent L⋆ correlations depends on it.
  • q, R50K (temperature power-law)
    Fitted per core to annular Trot profiles; used for descriptive statistics and correlation matrix.
  • nc, a, p (Plummer-like density)
    Three free parameters fitted to each H2 column-density profile; supply the density structure fed into RADMC-3D and into MJeans.
  • rb, Xb, α1, α2 (broken power-law CH3CN abundance)
    Four free parameters describing abundance profiles; used for chemical discussion but not load-bearing for the fragmentation claim.
  • κν = 1 cm² g⁻¹ (OH5 opacity at 230 GHz)
    Fixed opacity adopted for all NH2 and mass calculations; absolute Menv and therefore the MJeans/Menv ratio scale with this choice.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Local thermodynamic equilibrium: Tkin ≈ Trot from CH3CN (12–11) K-ladders
    Invoked in §3.1 to convert multi-transition fits into kinetic-temperature maps.
  • domain assumption Dust and gas are thermally coupled (Tdust ≈ Tkin) at n ≳ 10^5 cm⁻³
    Used in §3.1 and §3.3.3 to equate continuum-derived dust temperature with CH3CN temperature for both NH2 maps and RADMC-3D targets.
  • domain assumption Spherical symmetry of density and temperature structure
    Assumed throughout §3.3 for annular binning, Plummer fits, and RADMC-3D envelope models; acknowledged as a limitation in §4.4.
  • domain assumption Optically thin 1.3 mm continuum after free-free subtraction (where H30α is detected)
    Checked via τ cont ≪ 1 at peak positions (§3.1); 11 dust-ff cores corrected with Eq. 2.
  • domain assumption No external interstellar radiation field contributes to the inner-envelope temperature structure
    Stated in §3.3.3; justified by high extinction of the dense cores.
  • domain assumption Thermal Jeans mass formula with mass-averaged T and volume-averaged n is the relevant fragmentation criterion
    Eq. 8 in §4.2; classical isothermal Jeans mass applied to non-isothermal, non-uniform cores.

reviewed 2026-07-13 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The ALMA-QUARKS survey: Investigating Thermal Feedback of Massive Protostars in Hot Molecular Cores." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DSSHFQF4

@misc{pith2026260321670,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The ALMA-QUARKS survey: Investigating Thermal Feedback of Massive Protostars in Hot Molecular Cores},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DSSHFQF4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.21670}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We identify a sample of 83 spatially resolved hot molecular cores (HMCs) in the QUARKS survey, aiming at investigating thermal feedback from massive stars. Using CH$_3$CN\,(12--11) line emission together with 1.3\,mm continuum data we derive the radial temperature, volume density and \ch3cn{} abundance profiles for the 83 HMCs. Based on the envelope temperature and density profiles, we compute the luminosities of the embedded massive protostars with \radmc{} radiation transfer model. The derived luminosities are comparable (within $\sim1$ dex) to the bolometric luminosities of their natal clumps and show strong correlations with several core-scale properties, including the HMC mass ($Log[ M_\mathrm{env}] = 1.01\,Log [L_\star] - 4.80$), the inner core radius (the flat radius of Plummer-like volume density profile) ($Log[a] = 0.46\,Log[L_\star] + 0.52$) and the central density $ (Log[n_c] = -0.55 Log[L_\star] +10.47) $. These empirical relations provide useful observational constraints for physical models of protostellar objects. Importantly, we find a strong positive correlation between the massive protostellar luminosity and the local thermal Jeans mass. The derived Jeans masses, $M_\mathrm{Jeans}$, exceed the HMC masses $M_\mathrm{env}$, with the average $M_\mathrm{Jeans}$ being two times larger than the average $M_\mathrm{env}$. This provides observational evidence that thermal feedback from massive protostars can effectively suppress further fragmentation of HMCs, thereby promoting massive star formation. In addition, the positive correlation between massive protostellar luminosity and natal clump mass suggests that more massive clumps preferentially host more luminous protostars, leading to stronger thermal feedback.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

113 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    E., et al

    Anderson, M., Peretto, N., Ragan, S. E., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 2964, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2674 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaborati...

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2674 2021

  2. [2]

    Bate, M. R. 2009, MNRAS, 392, 1363, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14165.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14165.x 2009

  3. [3]

    Bate, M. R. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 3115, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19955.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19955.x 2012

  4. [4]

    Belloche, A., M¨ uller, H. S. P., Garrod, R. T., & Menten, K. M. 2016, A&A, 587, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527268 Beltr´ an, M. T., Cesaroni, R., Rivilla, V. M., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832811

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527268 2016

  5. [5]

    2025, ARA&A, 63, 1, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-013125-122023

    Beuther, H., Kuiper, R., & Tafalla, M. 2025, ARA&A, 63, 1, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-013125-122023

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-013125-122023 2025

  6. [6]

    Bonnor, W. B. 1956, MNRAS, 116, 351, doi: 10.1093/mnras/116.3.351

    doi:10.1093/mnras/116.3.351 1956

  7. [7]

    Boss, A. P. 1983, Icarus, 55, 181, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(83)90059-3

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(83)90059-3 1983

  8. [8]

    Boss, A. P. 1984, ApJ, 277, 768, doi: 10.1086/161747

    work page doi:10.1086/161747 1984

  9. [9]

    Boss, A. P. 1986, ApJS, 62, 519, doi: 10.1086/191150

    doi:10.1086/191150 1986

  10. [10]

    Multiplicity of young isolated planetary mass objects in Taurus and Upper Scorpius

    Bouy, H., Duchˆ ene, G., Strampelli, G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.14380, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.14380 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.14380 2025

  11. [11]

    G., & Huchtmeier, W

    Churchwell, E., Mezger, P. G., & Huchtmeier, W. 1974, A&A, 32, 283

    1974

  12. [12]

    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

    2021

  13. [13]

    B., & Basu, S

    Dapp, W. B., & Basu, S. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 1092, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14616.x Dell’Ova, P., Motte, F., Gusdorf, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A217, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348984

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14616.x 2009

  14. [14]

    2023, ApJ, 959, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad09bc

    Dib, S. 2023, ApJ, 959, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad09bc

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad09bc 2023

  15. [15]

    P., Juhasz, A., Pohl, A., et al

    Dullemond, C. P., Juhasz, A., Pohl, A., et al. 2012, RADMC-3D: A multi-purpose radiative transfer tool,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1202.015 http://ascl.net/1202.015

    2012

  16. [16]

    2026, A&A, 705, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554764

    Elia, D., Coletta, A., Molinari, S., et al. 2026, A&A, 705, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554764

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554764 2026

  17. [17]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 4364, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae241

    Estalella, R., Palau, A., & Busquet, G. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 4364, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae241

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae241 2024

  18. [18]

    M., Beltr´ an, M

    Frau, P., Girart, J. M., Beltr´ an, M. T., et al. 2010, ApJ, 723, 1665, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/1665

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/723/2/1665 2010

  19. [19]

    T., Jin, M., Matis, K

    Garrod, R. T., Jin, M., Matis, K. A., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3131

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac3131 2022

  20. [20]

    2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 015004, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac321e

    Ge, J. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 015004, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac321e

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ac321e 2022

  21. [21]

    X., Mardones, D., He, J

    Ge, J. X., Mardones, D., He, J. H., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7007

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7007 2020

  22. [22]

    2017, A&A, 603, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630048

    Giannetti, A., Leurini, S., Wyrowski, F., et al. 2017, A&A, 603, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630048

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630048 2017

  23. [23]

    2023, A&A, 674, A160, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245249

    Gieser, C., Beuther, H., Semenov, D., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A160, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245249

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245249 2023

  24. [24]

    2019, A&A, 631, A142, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935865

    Gieser, C., Semenov, D., Beuther, H., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A142, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935865

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935865 2019

  25. [25]

    2021, A&A, 648, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039670

    Gieser, C., Beuther, H., Semenov, D., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039670

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039670 2021

  26. [26]

    2022, A&A, 657, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141857

    Gieser, C., Beuther, H., Semenov, D., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141857

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141857 2022

  27. [27]

    Goldsmith, P. F. 2001, ApJ, 557, 736, doi: 10.1086/322255 G´ omez, G. C., V´ azquez-Semadeni, E., & Palau, A. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 4963, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab394

    doi:10.1086/322255 2001

  28. [28]

    Y., Offner, S

    Guszejnov, D., Grudi´ c, M. Y., Offner, S. S. R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 4929, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2060

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2060 2022

  29. [29]

    R., & Hopkins, P

    Guszejnov, D., Krumholz, M. R., & Hopkins, P. F. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 673, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw315

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw315 2016

  30. [30]

    2013, MNRAS, 429, L10, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sls015

    Hatchell, J., Wilson, T., Drabek, E., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, L10, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sls015

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sls015 2013

  31. [31]

    Hennebelle, P., & Grudi´ c, M. Y. 2024, ARA&A, 62, 63, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052622-031748

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

  32. [32]

    V., Silsbee, K., Sipil¨ a, O., & Caselli, P

    Ivlev, A. V., Silsbee, K., Sipil¨ a, O., & Caselli, P. 2019, ApJ, 884, 176, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4252

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4252 2019

  33. [33]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1507 K¨ onig, C., Urquhart, J

    Jeff, D., Ginsburg, A., Bulatek, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1507 K¨ onig, C., Urquhart, J. S., Csengeri, T., et al. 2017, A&A, 599, A139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526841

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1507 2024

  34. [34]

    Krumholz, M. R. 2006, ApJL, 641, L45, doi: 10.1086/503771

    doi:10.1086/503771 2006

  35. [35]

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

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

  36. [36]

    Krumholz, M. R. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 3468, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2105

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2105 2018

  37. [37]

    McKee, C. F. 2010, ApJ, 713, 1120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/713/2/1120

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/713/2/1120 2010

  38. [38]

    R., Dekel, A., & McKee, C

    Krumholz, M. R., Dekel, A., & McKee, C. F. 2012, ApJ, 745, 69, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/69 30

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/745/1/69 2012

  39. [39]

    R., Klein, R

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

    doi:10.1086/510664 2007

  40. [40]

    R., Klein, R

    Krumholz, M. R., Klein, R. I., & McKee, C. F. 2011, ApJ, 740, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/74

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/740/2/74 2011

  41. [41]

    R., & McKee, C

    Krumholz, M. R., & McKee, C. F. 2008, Nature, 451, 1082, doi: 10.1038/nature06620

    doi:10.1038/nature06620 2008

  42. [42]

    R., Myers, A

    Krumholz, M. R., Myers, A. T., Klein, R. I., & McKee, C. F. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 3272, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1236

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1236 2016

  43. [43]

    R., Bate, M

    Krumholz, M. R., Bate, M. R., Arce, H. G., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 243–266, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816531240-ch011

    doi:10.2458/azu 2014

  44. [44]

    M., Schmiedeke, A., et al

    Launhardt, R., Stutz, A. M., Schmiedeke, A., et al. 2013, A&A, 551, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220477

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220477 2013

  45. [45]

    2020, ApJ, 901, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abae60

    Li, D., Tang, X., Henkel, C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abae60

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abae60 2020

  46. [46]

    S., Klein, R

    Li, P. S., Klein, R. I., & McKee, C. F. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4220, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2611

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2611 2018

  47. [47]

    M., Rodriguez, L

    Lichten, S. M., Rodriguez, L. F., & Chaisson, E. J. 1979, ApJ, 229, 524, doi: 10.1086/156985

    work page doi:10.1086/156985 1979

  48. [48]

    B., et al

    Lin, Y., Wyrowski, F., Liu, H. B., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142023

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142023 2022

  49. [49]

    S., et al

    Liu, T., Lacy, J., Li, P. S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8d73

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8d73 2017

  50. [50]

    J., Kim, K.-T., et al

    Liu, T., Evans, N. J., Kim, K.-T., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 2790, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1577

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1577 2020

  51. [51]

    2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 025009, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad0d5c

    Liu, X., Liu, T., Zhu, L., et al. 2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 025009, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad0d5c

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ad0d5c 2024

  52. [52]

    N., Pillai, T., Keto, E., Zhang, Q., & Qiu, K

    Longmore, S. N., Pillai, T., Keto, E., Zhang, Q., & Qiu, K. 2011, ApJ, 726, 97, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/97

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/726/2/97 2011

  53. [53]

    B., & Mundy, L

    Loren, R. B., & Mundy, L. G. 1984, ApJ, 286, 232, doi: 10.1086/162591

    work page doi:10.1086/162591 1984

  54. [54]

    B., Wang, J., & Gu, Q

    Lu, X., Zhang, Q., Liu, H. B., Wang, J., & Gu, Q. 2014, ApJ, 790, 84, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/790/2/84

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/790/2/84 2014

  55. [55]

    B., et al

    Lu, X., Zhang, Q., Liu, H. B., et al. 2018, ApJ, 855, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaad11

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaad11 2018

  56. [56]

    2024, ApJL, 961, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad19c3

    Mai, X., Liu, T., Liu, X., et al. 2024, ApJL, 961, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad19c3

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad19c3 2024

  57. [57]

    2025, Science Advances, 11, eady6953, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.ady6953

    Mai, X., Liu, T., Liu, X., et al. 2025, Science Advances, 11, eady6953, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.ady6953

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.ady6953 2025

  58. [58]

    S., Rumpl, W., & Nordsieck, K

    Mathis, J. S., Rumpl, W., & Nordsieck, K. H. 1977, ApJ, 217, 425, doi: 10.1086/155591

    doi:10.1086/155591 1977

  59. [59]

    2026, ApJ, 997, 340, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2602 M¨ oller, T., Endres, C., & Schilke, P

    Meng, D., Liu, T., Esimbek, J., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 340, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2602 M¨ oller, T., Endres, C., & Schilke, P. 2017, A&A, 598, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527203

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2602 2026

  60. [60]

    2025, A&A, 694, A24, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451931

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451931 2025

  61. [61]

    C., Beuther, H., Ahmadi, A., et al

    Mottram, J. C., Beuther, H., Ahmadi, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 636, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834152

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834152 2020

  62. [62]

    T., McKee, C

    Myers, A. T., McKee, C. F., Cunningham, A. J., Klein, R. I., & Krumholz, M. R. 2013, ApJ, 766, 97, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/2/97

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/766/2/97 2013

  63. [63]

    C., Adams, F

    Myers, P. C., Adams, F. C., Chen, H., & Schaff, E. 1998, ApJ, 492, 703, doi: 10.1086/305048

    work page doi:10.1086/305048 1998

  64. [64]

    Nazari, P., Tabone, B., van’t Hoff, M. L. R., Jørgensen, J. K., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2023, ApJL, 951, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdde4

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdde4 2023

  65. [65]

    Offner, S. S. R., Klein, R. I., McKee, C. F., & Krumholz, M. R. 2009, ApJ, 703, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/131

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/1/131 2009

  66. [66]

    Offner, S. S. R., & McKee, C. F. 2011, ApJ, 736, 53, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/53

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/736/1/53 2011

  67. [67]

    A., Sanhueza, P., Chen, H.-R

    Olguin, F. A., Sanhueza, P., Chen, H.-R. V., et al. 2023, ApJL, 959, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1100

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad1100 2023

  68. [68]

    A., Sanhueza, P., Ginsburg, A., et al

    Olguin, F. A., Sanhueza, P., Ginsburg, A., et al. 2025, Science Advances, 11, eadw4512, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adw4512

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.adw4512 2025

  69. [69]

    1999, ApJ, 525, 808, doi: 10.1086/307929

    Osorio, M., Lizano, S., & D’Alessio, P. 1999, ApJ, 525, 808, doi: 10.1086/307929

    work page doi:10.1086/307929 1999

  70. [70]

    1994, A&A, 291, 943

    Ossenkopf, V., & Henning, T. 1994, A&A, 291, 943

    1994

  71. [71]

    Lee, C. W. 2024, NewAR, 99, 101711, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101711

    doi:10.1016/j.newar.2024.101711 2024

  72. [72]

    2015, MNRAS, 453, 3785, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1834

    Palau, A., Ballesteros-Paredes, J., V´ azquez-Semadeni, E., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 3785, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1834

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1834 2015

  73. [73]

    M., et al

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abee1e 2021

  74. [74]

    A., Duarte-Cabral, A., et al

    Peretto, N., Fuller, G. A., Duarte-Cabral, A., et al. 2013, A&A, 555, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321318

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321318 2013

  75. [75]

    A., Andr´ e, P., et al

    Peretto, N., Fuller, G. A., Andr´ e, P., et al. 2014, A&A, 561, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322172

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322172 2014

  76. [76]

    2018, A&A, 614, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732498

    Pols, S., Schw¨ orer, A., Schilke, P., et al. 2018, A&A, 614, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732498

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732498 2018

  77. [77]

    2011, A&A, 530, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116928

    Qin, S.-L., Schilke, P., Rolffs, R., et al. 2011, A&A, 530, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116928

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116928 2011

  78. [78]

    2025, ApJS, 277, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adaeba

    Qiu, Y., Zhang, T., M¨ oller, T., et al. 2025, ApJS, 277, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adaeba

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/adaeba 2025

  79. [79]

    2026, ApJS, 283, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae3742

    Qiu, Y., Zhang, T., Liu, T., et al. 2026, ApJS, 283, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae3742

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae3742 2026

  80. [80]

    D., & Charnley, S

    Rodgers, S. D., & Charnley, S. B. 2001, ApJ, 546, 324, doi: 10.1086/318263

    work page doi:10.1086/318263 2001

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by grok-4.5 on July 13, 2026.