Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 91 references

The ALMA-QUARKS Survey: Properties of Hot Molecular Fragments in the Massive Protocluster IRAS 17233-3606

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The 11 hot molecular fragments inside the massive core MM1 are spaced at about half the thermal Jeans length, indicating that thermal instability set their initial fragmentation, followed by global gravitational contraction and active accre

desk verdict Solid ALMA core-resolution paper whose Jeans-fragmentation narrative doesn't survive contact with its own numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.23274 v1 pith:CGGE2CV7 submitted 2026-07-25 astro-ph.GA

Li Chen , Sheng-Li Qin , Dongting Yang , Wenyu Jiao , Tie Liu , Paul F. Goldsmith , Zhenying Zhang , Chuanshou Li
show 24 more authors
Fengwei Xu Sami Dib Shivani Gupta Xindi Tang Yaping Peng Mengyao Tang Mika Juvela Di Li Aiyuan Yang Meizhu Liu Lingmin Zhen James O. Chibueze L. Viktor Tóth Ariful Hoque Amelia M. Stutz Leonardo Bronfman Swagat R. Das Pablo García Kee-Tae Kim Chang Won Lee Jihye Hwang Jiahang Zou Yongqi Guo Zhiping Kou
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords hotmolecularcoresfragmentationJeanslengthminimumspanningtreemassivestarformationprotoclusterIRAS17233-3606thermalinstability
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 resolves the massive hot core MM1 in the protocluster IRAS 17233-3606 into 11 hot molecular fragments and measures their temperatures, densities, motions, and evolutionary states. Its central claim is that the typical spacing of these fragments, about 1,800 astronomical units, is nearly half the thermal Jeans length of the core, implying that the fragmentation was initially set by thermal instability rather than by turbulence. The accompanying Q parameter (0.77) and virial parameter (0.84) indicate a subclustered spatial distribution and ongoing global gravitational contraction, so the fragments are now being drawn together as they accrete. The fragments span four evolutionary phases, from quiescent to HII-region-associated, showing that star formation in this protocluster is asynchronous. The result connects an observable spacing to a specific physical fragmentation mechanism in massive star formation.

What carries the argument

Minimum-spanning-tree (MST) mean separation, the thermal Jeans length, the Q parameter, and the virial parameter. The MST mean separation quantifies the typical projected distance between the 11 HMFs; comparing it with the thermal Jeans length tests whether the fragment spacing matches the scale of thermal gravitational instability. The Q parameter distinguishes a centrally condensed cluster (Q > 0.8) from a subclustered one, and the virial parameter measures whether the region is gravitationally bound and contracting.

What would settle it

Measure the 3D separations of the 11 HMFs using kinematic distances from molecular-line gradients or proper motions, and check if the mean deprojected separation exceeds ~3.3e3 au. Alternatively, derive the initial gas density and temperature before fragmentation (e.g., from the dust emission of the parent core on larger scales) and recompute the thermal Jeans length; if that length is smaller than the observed mean separation, thermal instability alone cannot explain the fragmentation scale.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using millimeter observations at ~0.3 arcsecond resolution, the paper identifies 11 hot molecular fragments (HMFs) within the previously known hot core MM1, with rotational temperatures of 100-310 K and H2 column densities above 10^23 cm^-2, all capable of forming massive stars. The mean minimum-spanning-tree separation of the HMFs is ~1.8e3 au, about half the thermal Jeans length (~3.3e3 au) calculated from the core's mean density of n(H2)=1.7e7 cm^-3 and a rotational temperature of ~100 K. Because the observed spacing is below the thermal Jeans length, and because the Q parameter is 0.77 (subclustered, near the 0.8 threshold) and the virial parameter is 0.84 (gravitationally bound), the pa

Load-bearing premise

The argument treats the projected on-sky separation of the 11 fragments as a faithful measure of their physical spacing and compares it with a thermal Jeans length computed from the current mean density and temperature; if the true 3D separations are significantly larger than the projected values, or if the pre-fragmentation density and temperature differed from the adopted values, the observed spacing would no longer implicate thermal instability.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • MM1's fragments are forming stars asynchronously: 11 HMFs coexist in a 0.1 pc region and span evolutionary phases I-IV, so massive protoclusters need not form in a synchronized burst.
  • The spacing result implies that the initial fragmentation of this massive hot core was thermal, meaning models that rely primarily on turbulent fragmentation should be revisited for cores at this stage.
  • With alpha_vir = 0.84, the region is globally contracting; the fragments should continue to converge and accrete, which may lead to core coalescence or competitive accretion.
  • The f[CH3CN/CH3OH] ratio generally increases from phase I to IV (within uncertainties), suggesting hot-core chemistry is established before an HII region appears.
  • The SiO arc at the interface with the B2 ZAMS star shows stellar feedback is actively shaping the molecular gas of MM1, while MM2-2 demonstrates that dense cores can remain cold and unperturbed inside an evolved HII region.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the thermal fragmentation scenario holds, the fragment masses should follow a thermal Jeans mass distribution; a direct test would be to compare the measured HMF masses with the local Jeans masses calculated at each fragment's position.
  • The conclusion depends on treating the projected MST separation as the physical spacing; high-resolution molecular-line data (e.g., CH3CN velocity gradients) could yield kinematic distances and deprojected separations to determine whether the true spacing is also sub-Jeans.
  • The phase I-IV gradient suggests that mixed-age core populations may be common in massive hot cores; if so, chemical clocks must be calibrated against spatial and dynamical indicators rather than assumed single-burst evolution.
  • MM2-2, a cold core coincident with an ultracompact HII region, predicts that shielded 'island' cores can survive feedback; such objects could be searched for in other UC HII regions to test the shielding hypothesis.
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. This paper presents ALMA Band 3 (ATOMS) and Band 6 (QUARKS) observations of the massive protocluster IRAS 17233-3606. The authors identify 11 hot molecular fragments (HMFs) in the MM1 hot core, derive temperatures, masses, and column densities via LTE XCLASS fitting with explicit treatment of blended transitions, and assign evolutionary phases based on masers, outflows, HII regions, and CH3CN/CH3OH abundance ratios. The central interpretation is that the mean MST separation of the HMFs (~1.8e3 au), being about half the thermal Jeans length (~3.3e3 au), together with Q = 0.77 and alpha_vir = 0.84, indicates fragmentation initially driven by thermal Jeans instability followed by global gravitational contraction and active accretion. The paper also discusses feedback from a B2 ZAMS star and the UC HII region MM2.

Significance. The observational material is valuable, and the XCLASS fitting procedure is methodologically careful. The authors also appropriately hedge the evolutionary sequence, admitting that the abundance-ratio clock is not monotonic and that the phase assignment is tentative. If the central fragmentation scenario were correct, the paper would provide a useful case study of high-mass star formation on ~1000 au scales. However, the quantitative dynamical argument contains a logical inconsistency and a numerical error: the claimed direction of d/lambda_J evolution under contraction is contradicted by standard homologous contraction, and the reported alpha_vir value does not follow from the stated inputs. These issues weaken the paper's principal conclusion and require substantial revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.1] The inference that d_MST < lambda_J^th implies thermal Jeans fragmentation followed by contraction is internally inconsistent. In a uniform isothermal medium, only perturbations with wavelength > lambda_J grow, so thermal Jeans fragmentation produces separations of order lambda_J, not ~0.5 lambda_J. Moreover, under homologous contraction d ∝ R and lambda_J ∝ rho^(-1/2) ∝ R^(3/2), giving d/lambda_J ∝ R^(-1/2); this ratio increases as the region contracts. Starting from d ≈ lambda_J, contraction cannot produce d/lambda_J ≈ 0.55. The observed ratio instead suggests either initially sub-Jeans separations (e.g., other fragmentation mechanisms) or that the adopted current n(H2)=1.7e7 cm^-3 and T=100 K do not represent the pre-fragmentation conditions. Please provide a quantitative evolutionary model or revise the conclusion.
  2. [Sec. 4.1, alpha_vir] Using the stated inputs (sigma_tot = 2.0 km/s, R_eff = 0.025 pc, M_gas = 81.3 M_sun), the formula alpha_vir = 5 sigma_tot^2 R_eff / (G M_gas) yields alpha_vir ≈ 1.4, not 0.84. The reported value appears to correspond to 3 sigma_tot^2 R_eff / (G M_gas). Please correct the numerical value or the formula. The corrected value is still below the usual critical threshold of ~2, but the quantitative claim and the abstract need revision.
  3. [Sec. 4.1, deprojection] The statement that 'even accounting for the projection effect, the deprojected mean separation remains smaller than lambda_J^th' is not supported by any deprojection model. The MST separation is a projected quantity, and the factor relating projected to 3D separations depends on geometry. Please provide the assumed deprojection, or remove the claim and treat d_MST as a lower limit with a stated uncertainty.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.3] Grammatical error: 'none of them was observed' should be 'none of them were observed'.
  2. [Figure 5 caption] Typo: 'forulated' should be 'formulated'.
  3. [Sec. 4.1] Grammatical error: 'The result provide' should be 'The results provide'.
  4. [Sec. 4.1, Q parameter] The value L_av ≈ 4000 au used in the Q parameter is introduced without a precise definition. Please specify how the mean separation length between all HMFs is computed and cite the relevant method.
  5. [Sec. 4.1, adopted density] The adopted volume density n(H2) ≈ 1.7e7 cm^-3 is taken from Chen et al. (2025) without discussing its uncertainty or derivation. Since the Jeans length comparison is sensitive to this value, please provide the uncertainty and justify its application to MM1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the thermodynamic/fragmentation inferences are external comparisons, and self-citations provide measured inputs or methods rather than the target conclusion.

full rationale

The central inference chain is: (i) measure 11 HMFs from ALMA 1.3 mm continuum; (ii) compute their MST projected separations (mean ~1.8e3 au); (iii) compare with thermal Jeans length lambda_th_J ~3.3e3 au computed from adopted T~100 K and n(H2)=1.7e7 cm^-3; (iv) interpret d_MST < lambda_th_J as thermal-fragmentation followed by global contraction. This is an external comparison between an observed spatial statistic and a physical scale computed from independently stated temperature and density inputs. No parameter is fitted to the target result and then called a prediction, and the Jeans length is not defined in terms of the MST separation. The paper's self-citations (Chen et al. 2024 for the extraction algorithm; Chen et al. 2025 for the adopted density; Xu et al. 2023 for the linewidth decomposition) supply measured quantities or methodological tools, not the conclusion that fragmentation is thermal; these are independent inputs. The evolutionary-phase assignment is explicitly hedged because of projection effects and overlapping abundance ratios, and that caveat is a data-interpretation issue rather than circularity. The reported alpha_vir=0.84 appears arithmetically inconsistent with the stated inputs (with sigma_tot=2.0 km/s, R_eff=0.025 pc, M_gas=81.3 Msun one obtains ~1.4), but that is a correctness/consistency concern, not a circular-derivation concern. Because the load-bearing density and MM1 mass come from same-team earlier work and are not independently re-derived here, a score of 1 is appropriate; no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Central claims rest on standard LTE/radiative-transfer and Jeans/virial analyses. No new physical entities are introduced. The main unmeasured inputs are the mean volume density adopted from Chen et al. (2025), the dust temperature assumption, and the projected-separation-to-Jeans-length comparison.

free parameters (4)
  • MM1 volume density n(H2) = 1.7e7 cm^-3 (adopted from Chen et al. 2025)
    Input to thermal/turbulent Jeans lengths in Section 4.1; not measured in this paper; factor changes shift lambda_J by square root.
  • Dust temperature T_d = Set to CH3CN rotational temperature, 100-310 K per HMF
    Scales all HMF masses and column densities via Eqs. 1-3; assumes gas-dust thermal equilibrium.
  • Effective radius R_eff = 0.025 pc
    Used in alpha_vir; no derivation or uncertainty; with the stated sigma and mass, 5 sigma^2 R/GM gives ~1.43, not reported 0.84.
  • L_av (mean separation for Q) = ~4000 au
    Used to normalize the Q parameter; no error given.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math LTE assumption in XCLASS molecular-line modeling
    Used to derive Trot and column densities of CH3CN/CH3OH; blending handled by selective fitting, but no non-LTE check.
  • domain assumption Optically thin 1.3 mm dust continuum
    Mass/column estimates use Eqs. 1-3; justified with mean tau~0.053, with HMF3 at tau=0.106.
  • domain assumption Projected MST separations track physical separations
    Used for d_MST vs lambda_J comparison in Section 4.1; no quantitative deprojection.
  • domain assumption Current mean density and temperature represent the fragmentation epoch
    Thermal Jeans length computed from n(H2)=1.7e7 cm^-3 (Chen et al. 2025) and T=100 K; if the initial density or temperature differed the quantitative comparison changes.
  • domain assumption Bonfand et al. (2017) phase criteria and f[CH3CN/CH3OH] as chemical clock
    Used for phase classification; the paper itself states the ratios overlap and the clock's validity remains to be established.
  • standard math Jeans and virial formulas
    Jeans formula and 5 sigma^2 R/GM virial definition; the printed alpha_vir value does not reproduce from stated inputs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The ALMA-QUARKS Survey: Properties of Hot Molecular Fragments in the Massive Protocluster IRAS 17233-3606." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CGGE2CV7

@misc{pith2026260723274,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The ALMA-QUARKS Survey: Properties of Hot Molecular Fragments in the Massive Protocluster IRAS 17233-3606},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CGGE2CV7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.23274}
}
read the original abstract

To investigate the physical mechanisms of fragmentation within the hot molecular core of the massive protocluster IRAS 17233-3606 (G351.78-0.54), we carried out a detailed analysis of continuum and lines, using the ALMA Band 3 data from the ATOMS survey and Band 6 data from the QUARKS survey. The low-resolution 3 mm data reveal a massive hot core MM1 with a mass of ~81.3 Msun, and a prominent ultracompact (UC) HII region MM2, while the high-resolution data resolve MM1 into 11 hot molecular fragments (HMFs). These HMFs exhibit hot (Trot = 100-310 K) CH3CN and CH3OH emission and high column densities (NH2 > 10^23 cm^-2), indicating their potential to form massive stars. Based on outflows, masers, HII regions, and f[CH3CN/CH3O] abundance ratios, the evolutionary sequences of the 11 HMFs are categorized as phases I to IV. The mean minimum-spanning tree (MST) separation (~1.8 x 10^3 au) of the HMFs is nearly half of the thermal Jeans length (~3.3 x 10^3 au). Together with the Q parameter Q = 0.77 and virial parameter alpha_vir = 0.84 of MM1, these results suggest an evolutionary scenario in which fragmentation is initially driven by thermal instability, followed by global gravitational contraction and growth through active accretion. Meanwhile, feedback from the B2-type zero-age main-sequence (ZAMS) star and the UC HII region significantly influence the morphology and chemical properties of MM1 and MM2. This heterogeneity highlights the role of diverse physical processes taking place in high-mass protoclusters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23274 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ALMA Band 3 and 6 continuum emission of IRAS 17233-3606. Panel (a) shows the Band 6 continuum emission with Band 3 continuum emission overplotted as white contours of D = 4 × N p + 8, where N = 12 is the number of contours used and p = log(Vmax/(4 × rms))/ log(N − 1) is the power index, with rms = 1 mJy beam−1 . The orange dashed squares labeled MM1 (right) and MM2 (left) identify a hot core region and an UC Hii reg… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Best-fit CH3OH (red) and CH3CN (orange) spectra toward the 11 HMFs (HMF1–HMF11), superimposed on observed core-averaged spectra (blue). The corresponding quantum numbers for each transition are listed at the top of each panel. A vertical offset of 150 K and intensity scaling (factors are indicated on the right) are applied for clarity. Features in the observed spectra (blue) not accounted for by the fit correspond t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spatial distribution of HMFs in IRAS 17233-3606 MM1. The background displays the ALMA 1.3 mm continuum emission in grayscale. Gray contours are overlaid, following the same power-law progression as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Color map of the CO (2–1) and SiO (5–4) toward IRAS 17233-3606 MM1 region, with integrated intensities over 5 to 15 km s−1 shown in red and over −30 to −20 km s−1 shown in blue. White contours indicate the 1.3 mm continuum emission. Red and blue arrows denote the red- …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolutionary sequence of HMFs forulated accord￾ing to the criteria proposed by Bonfand et al. (2017). The six panels demonstrate the chronological development from an embedded protostar (Phase I) to a UC Hii region (Phase VI), highlighting the emergence and disappearan…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: HMF VLSR (left) and CH3CN linewidths (right) estimated from the CH3CN fits to the HMFs towards IRAS 17233- 3606 MM1. Gray contours are overlaid, following the same power-law progression as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Core-averaged spectra of the dense cores MM2-1 (blue) and MM2-2 (green) in the UC Hii region. Spectra of MM2-1 and MM2-2 are offset by 10 K in intensity for visual clarity. Both cores clearly exhibit a molecular component. However, MM2-1 contains significantly more ion…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Panel (a) shows a three-color mid-infrared image of IRAS 17233–3606 from Spitzer IRAC, with 8.0 µm in red, 4.5 µm in green, and 3.6 µm in blue. The orange dashed square indicates the field of view (FoV) of the ALMA Band 3 observations. The white arrow indicates a bow s…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Tollerud, E

    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 Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  2. [2]

    A., Frimpong, N

    Avison, A., Fuller, G. A., Frimpong, N. A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 2278, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2824

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2824 2023

  3. [3]

    D., Bhavsar, S

    Barrow, J. D., Bhavsar, S. P., & Sonoda, D. H. 1985, MNRAS, 216, 17, doi: 10.1093/mnras/216.1.17

    doi:10.1093/mnras/216.1.17 1985

  4. [4]

    Complex Organic Molecules in Hot Molecular Cores/Corinos: Physics and Chemistry

    Bayandina, O. S., Brogan, C. L., Burns, R. A., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244089 Beltr´ an, M. T., & Rivilla, V. M. 2018, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 517, Science with a Next Generation Very Large Array, ed. E. Murphy, 249, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1806.08137

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1806.08137 2022

  5. [5]

    B., McKee, C

    Beuther, H., Churchwell, E. B., McKee, C. F., & Tan, J. C. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed. B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, & K. Keil, 165, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0602012

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0602012 2007

  6. [6]

    A., Sanhueza, P., Cunningham, N., & Ginsburg, A

    Beuther, H., Olguin, F. A., Sanhueza, P., Cunningham, N., & Ginsburg, A. 2025, A&A, 695, A51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452754

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452754 2025

  7. [7]

    J., Johnston, K

    Beuther, H., Walsh, A. J., Johnston, K. G., et al. 2017, A&A, 603, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630126

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630126 2017

  8. [8]

    C., Ahmadi, A., et al

    Beuther, H., Mottram, J. C., Ahmadi, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833021

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833021 2018

Show all 91 references
  1. [9]

    C., et al

    Beuther, H., Ahmadi, A., Mottram, J. C., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834064

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    T., et al

    Bonfand, M., Belloche, A., Garrod, R. T., et al. 2019, A&A, 628, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935523

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Garrod, R

    Bonfand, M., Belloche, A., Menten, K. M., Garrod, R. T., & M¨ uller, H. S. P. 2017, A&A, 604, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730648

    2017 doi

  4. [13]

    M., & Bontemps, S

    Bouscasse, L., Csengeri, T., Wyrowski, F., Menten, K. M., & Bontemps, S. 2024, A&A, 686, A252, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348803

    2024 doi

  5. [14]

    A., Belloche, A., Garrod, R

    Busch, L. A., Belloche, A., Garrod, R. T., M¨ uller, H. S. P., & Menten, K. M. 2022, A&A, 665, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243383

    2022 doi

  6. [16]

    L., & Haynes, R

    Caswell, J. L., & Haynes, R. F. 1983, Australian Journal of Physics, 36, 361, doi: 10.1071/PH830361b

    1983 doi

  7. [17]

    L., Haynes, R

    Caswell, J. L., Haynes, R. F., & Phys, J. 1980, IAUC, 3509, 2 15

    1980

  8. [18]

    2005, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Cesaroni, R. 2005, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 227, Massive Star Birth: A Crossroads of Astrophysics, ed. R. Cesaroni, M. Felli, E. Churchwell, & M. Walmsley, 59–69, doi: 10.1017/S1743921305004369

    2005 doi

  9. [19]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad110f —

    Chen, L., Qin, S.-L., Liu, T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad110f —. 2025, A&A, 694, A166, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452598

    2024 doi

  10. [20]

    2002, ARA&A, 40, 27, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093845

    Churchwell, E. 2002, ARA&A, 40, 27, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093845

    2002

  11. [21]

    2004, A&A, 417, 615, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035608

    Moscadelli, L. 2004, A&A, 417, 615, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035608

    2004 doi

  12. [22]

    H., Huard, T

    Crapsi, A., Devries, C. H., Huard, T. L., et al. 2005, A&A, 439, 1023, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042411

    2005 doi

  13. [23]

    E., Bonnell, I

    Dale, J. E., Bonnell, I. A., Clarke, C. J., & Bate, M. R. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 291, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08806.x

    2005

  14. [24]

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

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

    2023 doi

  15. [25]

    2019, A&A, 629, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834080

    Dib, S., & Henning, T. 2019, A&A, 629, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834080

    2019 doi

  16. [26]

    2007, MNRAS, 381, L40, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00362.x

    Dib, S., Kim, J., & Shadmehri, M. 2007, MNRAS, 381, L40, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00362.x

    2007

  17. [27]

    2010, MNRAS, 405, 401, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16451.x

    Dib, S., Shadmehri, M., Padoan, P., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 401, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16451.x

    2010

  18. [28]

    Evans, II, N. J. 1999, ARA&A, 37, 311, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.37.1.311

    1999 doi

  19. [29]

    D., Kirk, H., Dunham, M

    Fielder, S. D., Kirk, H., Dunham, M. M., & Offner, S. S. R. 2026, ApJ, 1003, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae6064

    2026 doi

  20. [30]

    L., Reid, M

    Fish, V. L., Reid, M. J., Argon, A. L., & Zheng, X.-W. 2005, ApJS, 160, 220, doi: 10.1086/431669

    2005 doi

  21. [31]

    R., & Caswell, J

    Forster, J. R., & Caswell, J. L. 1989, A&A, 213, 339

    1989

  22. [32]

    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

    2010 doi

  23. [33]

    1999, PASP, 111, 1049, doi: 10.1086/316416

    Garay, G., & Lizano, S. 1999, PASP, 111, 1049, doi: 10.1086/316416

    1999 doi

  24. [34]

    Garrod, R. T. 2013, ApJ, 765, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/60

    2013 doi

  25. [35]

    T., & Herbst, E

    Garrod, R. T., & Herbst, E. 2006, A&A, 457, 927, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065560

    2006 doi

  26. [36]

    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

    2022 doi

  27. [37]

    A., Claussen, M

    Gaume, R. A., Claussen, M. J., de Pree, C. G., Goss, W. M., & Mehringer, D. M. 1995, ApJ, 449, 663, doi: 10.1086/176087

    1995 doi

  28. [38]

    2017, A&A, 606, L12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731728

    Giannetti, A., Leurini, S., K¨ onig, C., et al. 2017, A&A, 606, L12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731728

    2017 doi

  29. [39]

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

    2023 doi

  30. [40]

    Goldsmith, P. F. 2001, ApJ, 557, 736, doi: 10.1086/322255

    2001 doi

  31. [41]

    R., & Pineau Des Forˆ ets, G

    Gusdorf, A., Cabrit, S., Flower, D. R., & Pineau Des Forˆ ets, G. 2008, A&A, 482, 809, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078900

    2008 doi

  32. [42]

    Herbst, E., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 427, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101654

    2009 doi

  33. [43]

    E., Saigo, K., Chibueze, J

    Higuchi, A. E., Saigo, K., Chibueze, J. O., et al. 2015, ApJL, 798, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/798/2/L33

    2015 doi

  34. [44]

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

    1983

  35. [45]

    K., et al

    Hoque, A., Baug, T., Dewangan, L. K., et al. 2025, ApJ, 987, 197, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add928

    2025 doi

  36. [46]

    L., Evans, N

    Kauffmann, J., Bertoldi, F., Bourke, T. L., Evans, N. J., I., & Lee, C. W. 2008, A&A, 487, 993, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809481

    2008 doi

  37. [47]

    2010, ApJL, 723, L7, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/723/1/L7

    Kauffmann, J., & Pillai, T. 2010, ApJL, 723, L7, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/723/1/L7

    2010 doi

  38. [48]

    R., & Matzner, C

    Krumholz, M. R., & Matzner, C. D. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1352, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1352

    2009 doi

  39. [49]

    R., & McKee, C

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

    2008 doi

  40. [50]

    R., McKee, C

    Krumholz, M. R., McKee, C. F., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 227, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104430

    2019 doi

  41. [51]

    Walmsley, C. M. 2000, in Protostars and Planets IV, ed. V. Mannings, A. P. Boss, & S. S. Russell, 299–326

    2000

  42. [52]

    J., & Lada, E

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

    2003 arXiv

  43. [53]

    2013, A&A, 554, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118154

    Leurini, S., Codella, C., Gusdorf, A., et al. 2013, A&A, 554, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118154

    2013 doi

  44. [54]

    2011, A&A, 530, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016190

    Leurini, S., Codella, C., Zapata, L., et al. 2011, A&A, 530, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016190

    2011 doi

  45. [55]

    2008, A&A, 485, 167, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809475

    Leurini, S., Hieret, C., Thorwirth, S., et al. 2008, A&A, 485, 167, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809475

    2008 doi

  46. [56]

    A., et al

    Leurini, S., Codella, C., Zapata, L. A., et al. 2009, A&A, 507, 1443, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912783

    2009 doi

  47. [57]

    2025a, A&A, 696, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452810

    Li, C., Qin, S.-L., Liu, T., et al. 2025a, A&A, 696, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452810

    doi

  48. [58]

    2025b, A&A, 697, A190, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452762

    Li, Z.-Y., Liu, X., Liu, T., et al. 2025b, A&A, 697, A190, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452762

    doi

  49. [59]

    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

    2020 doi

  50. [60]

    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

    2024 doi

  51. [61]

    F., & Ostriker, E

    McKee, C. F., & Ostriker, E. C. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 565, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110602 16

    2007 arXiv

  52. [62]

    F., & Tan, J

    McKee, C. F., & Tan, J. C. 2003, ApJ, 585, 850, doi: 10.1086/346149

    2003 doi

  53. [63]

    2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    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

  54. [64]

    2026, ApJ, 997, 340, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2602

    Meng, D., Liu, T., Esimbek, J., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 340, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2602

    2026 doi

  55. [65]

    Menten, K. M. 1991, ApJL, 380, L75, doi: 10.1086/186177

    1991 doi

  56. [66]

    S., et al

    Miao, D., Chen, X., Bayandina, O. S., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad1599

    2024 doi

  57. [67]

    C., Liu, H

    Minh, Y. C., Liu, H. B., & Galva´ n-Madrid, R. 2016, ApJ, 824, 99, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/99 M¨ oller, T., Bernst, I., Panoglou, D., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220063 M¨ oller, T., Endres, C., & Schilke, P. 2017, A&A, 598, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004...

    2016 doi

  58. [68]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad32d0

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

    2024 doi

  59. [69]

    2018, ARA&A, 56, 41, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091916-055235

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

    2018 doi

  60. [70]

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

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

    1999 doi

  61. [71]

    1994, A&A, 291, 943

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

    1994

  62. [72]

    2020, ApJ, 900, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaa47

    Padoan, P., Pan, L., Juvela, M., Haugbølle, T., & Nordlund, ˚A. 2020, ApJ, 900, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaa47

    2020 doi

  63. [73]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 4419, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac624

    Peng, Y., Liu, T., Qin, S.-L., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 4419, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac624

    2022 doi

  64. [74]

    2011, A&A, 530, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015899

    Pillai, T., Kauffmann, J., Wyrowski, F., et al. 2011, A&A, 530, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015899

    2011 doi

  65. [75]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 3463, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac219

    Qin, S.-L., Liu, T., Liu, X., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3463, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac219

    2022 doi

  66. [76]

    L., & Zinchenko, I

    Ryabukhina, O. L., & Zinchenko, I. I. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 726, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1309

    2021 doi

  67. [77]

    2025, ApJ, 983, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adba5a

    Sakai, T., Shiomura, N., Sanhueza, P., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adba5a

    2025 doi

  68. [78]

    2019, ApJ, 886, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab45e9

    Sanhueza, P., Contreras, Y., Wu, B., et al. 2019, ApJ, 886, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab45e9

    2019 doi

  69. [79]

    Flower, D. R. 1997, A&A, 321, 293

    1997

  70. [80]

    Tan, J. C. 2005, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 324, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, ed. M. S. N. Kumar, M. Tafalla, & P. Caselli, 87, doi: 10.1007/0-387-26357-8 7

    2005 doi

  71. [81]

    C., Beltr´ an, M

    Tan, J. C., Beltr´ an, M. T., Caselli, P., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 149–172, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816531240-ch007

    2014 doi

  72. [82]

    A., et al

    Taniguchi, K., Sanhueza, P., Olguin, F. A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acca1d

    2023 doi

  73. [83]

    S., K¨ onig, C., Giannetti, A., et al

    Urquhart, J. S., K¨ onig, C., Giannetti, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 1059, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2258 van Dishoeck, E. F. 2018, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 332, Astrochemistry VII: Through the Cosmos from Galaxies to Planets, ed. M. Cunningham, T. Millar, & Y. Aikawa, 3–22, doi: 1...

    2018 doi

  74. [84]

    P., Dever, J

    Viti, S., Collings, M. P., Dever, J. W., McCoustra, M. R. S., & Williams, D. A. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 1141, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08273.x

    2004

  75. [85]

    J., Burton, M

    Walsh, A. J., Burton, M. G., Hyland, A. R., & Robinson, G. 1998, MNRAS, 301, 640, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.02014.x

    1998

  76. [86]

    2024a, ApJS, 270, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acfee5 —

    Xu, F., Wang, K., Liu, T., et al. 2024a, ApJS, 270, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acfee5 —. 2024b, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 065011, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad3dc3

    doi

  77. [87]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 3259, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad012

    Xu, F.-W., Wang, K., Liu, T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 3259, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad012

    2023 doi

  78. [88]

    2025, ApJS, 280, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adf847

    Yang, D., Liu, H.-L., Liu, T., et al. 2025, ApJS, 280, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adf847

    2025 doi

  79. [89]

    2025, ApJ, 994, 233, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0619

    Yoo, T., Ginsburg, A., Braine, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 994, 233, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0619

    2025 doi

  80. [90]

    A., Leurini, S., Menten, K

    Zapata, L. A., Leurini, S., Menten, K. M., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 1455, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/4/1455

    2008 doi

  81. [91]

    2015, ApJ, 804, 141, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/141

    Zhang, Q., Wang, K., Lu, X., & Jim´ enez-Serra, I. 2015, ApJ, 804, 141, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/141

    2015 doi

  82. [92]

    2009, ApJ, 696, 268, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/268

    Zhang, Q., Wang, Y., Pillai, T., & Rathborne, J. 2009, ApJ, 696, 268, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/268

    2009 doi

  83. [93]

    Zinnecker, H., & Yorke, H. W. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092549

    2007 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.