Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 97 references

Trace the Self-Gravitating Gas Using CO Isotopologues

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Combining three CO isotopologue lines recovers the same gravitationally bound gas mass as dust emission, with a fitted slope of 0.97 ± 0.11 across 16 Milky Way clouds.

desk verdict A credible optical-depth-corrected CO isotopologue method that recovers N-PDF power-law tails and gives bound masses in good agreement with dust, though one acknowledged high-density discrepancy is left unquantified. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12473 v1 pith:TQO5FXSC submitted 2026-08-12 astro-ph.GA

Linjing Feng , Jingwen Wu , Sihan Jiao , Zhi-Yu Zhang , Junzhi Wang , Chao-Wei Tsai , Di Li , Hauyu Baobab Liu
show 7 more authors
Yan Sun Neal J. Evans II Yuxin Lin Hao Ruan Fangyuan Deng Yuanzhen Xiong Ruofei Zhang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords stars:formationmolecularcloudscolumn-densityprobabilitydistributionfunctionCOisotopologuesgravitationallyboundgasopticaldepthcorrectionN-PDFpower-lawtailGalacticplanesurveys
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

Astronomers find that the rate of star formation tracks the mass of gravitationally bound gas, which is read off from the power-law tail of the column-density probability distribution function (N-PDF), normally measured with dust emission. This paper argues that the same bound gas can be traced with CO isotopologue lines alone: combining $^{12}$CO, $^{13}$CO, and C$^{18}$O $J=1$–0 with an optical-depth correction extends the column-density range that any single line covers. On 16 Milky Way clouds, the CO-based N-PDFs reproduce the characteristic log-normal-plus-power-law shape, and the derived bound masses agree with dust-based values to within a factor of about two, with a best-fit slope of $0.97\pm0.11$. If this holds, it provides a scalable and velocity-resolved way to identify star-forming gas in the Galactic plane, where overlapping clouds along the line of sight contaminate dust-based maps.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is an optical-depth-aware combination of $^{13}$CO and C$^{18}$O $J=1$–0 lines. Where C$^{18}$O is detected, the $^{13}$CO/C$^{18}$O intensity ratio is inverted through the radiative-transfer relation $T_{13}/T_{18} = (1-e^{-\tau_{13}})/(1-e^{-\tau_{13}/\chi})$ to obtain $\tau_{13}$, and the $^{13}$CO column density is boosted by the factor $\tau_{13}/(1-e^{-\tau_{13}})$. Where C$^{18}$O is absent, $^{13}$CO is assumed optically thin. The $^{13}$CO/C$^{18}$O abundance ratio $\chi$ comes from stacking spectra in optically thin pixels, and conversion to H$_2$ uses a Galactocentric $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C gradient and a metallicity-dependent CO abundance. The resulting maps are fit with a piecewise log-normal-plus-power-law N-PDF (Equation 12) using a Bayesian MCMC, and the mass above the log-normal/power-law transition is the reported bound mass.

What would settle it

On a benchmark cloud such as Orion A, measure the C$^{18}$O optical depth in the highest-column-density pixels that dominate the power-law tail, using an optically thin comparison line such as C$^{17}$O or a higher-$J$ C$^{18}$O transition. If the inferred $\tau_{18}$ exceeds roughly 0.2–0.3 in those pixels, the correction in Equation 8 underpredicts the $^{13}$CO column density, so the CO-based bound mass is biased low and the agreement with dust would degrade.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the combination of three CO isotopologue lines, processed through an optical-depth-aware column-density reconstruction, identifies the same gravitationally bound gas that dust emission identifies via the N-PDF power-law tail. The demonstration spans 16 molecular clouds from $5\times10^3$ to $10^6$ solar masses and distances of 0.4 to 11 kpc. The bound masses from the two tracers are consistent at a fitted slope of $0.97\pm0.11$ with most sources within a factor of two; the spatial overlap of the identified bound structures averages an IoU of about 0.52, with every source above 0.4; and the CO-based bound masses reproduce the linear bound-mass–star-formation-rate relation with a slope near unity. The paper concludes that CO isotopologues can serve as a reliable, scalable, velocity-resolved alternative to dust emission for tracing the self-gravitating component of molecular clouds.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes the rarer CO variant C$^{18}$O stays optically thin in exactly the dense gas that forms the power-law tail, so the correction for $^{13}$CO opacity is valid; if C$^{18}$O becomes opaque there, the computed bound masses come out too low.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The CO-based method recovers the dust-based bound gas mass to within a factor of about two across two orders of magnitude in cloud mass, with no systematic over- or underestimate at either end.
  • Because the CO lines are velocity-resolved, the method can isolate one cloud among overlapping line-of-sight components, making it usable in crowded Galactic-plane regions where dust-based N-PDFs blend multiple clouds.
  • The CO-based $M_{\rm bound}$ reproduces the roughly linear $M_{\rm bound}$–SFR relation, so star-formation-rate studies can proceed without dust-derived column density maps.
  • The same optical-depth-correction framework works with the $^{12}$CO+$^{13}$CO pair when C$^{18}$O is undetected, as demonstrated for Ophiuchus and S287, extending the method to clouds where the rare isotopologue is missing.
  • The derived $^{13}$CO/C$^{18}$O abundance ratios trace a Galactic gradient, giving a calibration that can be used by other isotopologue studies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors leave implicit that a large Galactic-plane survey application is now possible: applying this method to survey data would map the fraction of gravitationally bound gas across environments, and one testable prediction is that the Central Molecular Zone's low star formation efficiency appears as a low bound fraction despite abundant dense gas.
  • The slight deficit of very high column density gas in the CO-based N-PDFs of Orion A and Aquila suggests the method may underestimate the most extreme cores; a quantitative comparison with an optically thin dense-gas tracer such as N$_2$H$^+$ would show whether that bias matters.
  • At galaxy scales, the same N-PDF machinery could be applied to CO isotopologue observations of external galaxies to measure bound gas fractions, provided metallicity and isotope gradients are known, making the $M_{\rm bound}$–SFR relation testable beyond the Milky Way.
  • The velocity resolution suggests a cleaner test of the $M_{\rm bound}$–SFR relation using velocity-resolved star formation tracers (e.g., H$\alpha$ or radio recombination lines) instead of infrared luminosity, avoiding the line-of-sight mismatch the paper notes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a method for constructing H2 column density maps from 12CO, 13CO, and C18O J=1-0 data by using optically thin 13CO where C18O is undetected and an optical-depth-corrected 13CO column density derived from the 13CO/C18O intensity ratio where both lines are detected. The column densities are converted to H2 using a Galactic 12C/13C gradient and a metallicity-dependent CO abundance. The authors fit log-normal plus power-law N-PDFs and define the bound gas mass as the mass above the transition column density, following Jiao et al. (2025). They compare CO-based and dust-based N-PDFs, bound structures, and bound masses for 16 Milky Way clouds, finding a fitted slope of 0.97 ± 0.11 in the bound-mass comparison, mean IoU around 0.55 for bound structures, and consistency with the M_bound-SFR relation. The paper concludes that the multi-line CO method is a reliable, scalable, velocity-resolved alternative to dust emission for tracing self-gravitating gas.

Significance. If validated, the method is significant: it would allow N-PDF and bound-mass analyses to be carried out with existing large-area CO surveys, including in the Galactic plane where velocity information can separate LOS confusion that dust cannot. The comparison against independent dust-based measurements, the public release of the fitting code, and the extension to the 12CO+13CO pair are concrete strengths. The central claim is conditional on quantifying the acknowledged high-column-density decrement in the CO-based N-PDFs and on resolving the internal inconsistency about LOS confusion in the distant-cloud sample. These issues are addressable and do not undermine the overall approach, but they need to be fixed before the headline claim is fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Figs. 5/14, Table 2] The high-column-density decrement of the CO-based N-PDFs relative to dust in Orion A and Aquila is acknowledged but not quantified. Because M_bound is defined as the mass above the fitted threshold (Eq. 14), a deficit in the power-law tail directly reduces the mass assigned to the densest pixels, and the statement that this discrepancy 'does not significantly affect the identification of gravitationally bound structures' needs a quantitative test. Table 2 shows that the absolute CO-based transition column density for Orion A is 42.5 × 10^21 cm^-2 versus 10.6 × 10^21 cm^-2 from dust, and for Orion B is 36.9 versus 9.0 × 10^21 cm^-2; a factor of about four in the integration threshold is hard to reconcile with the claim of broadly consistent transition densities. Please recompute M_bound excluding or correcting the affected high-density pixels (for example, replacing them with the dust-based tail or applying a conservative C18O opacity/depletion correction) and show that the fitted slope and the individual mass ratios in Figure 7a survive. Without this, the 0.97 ± 0.11 slope could reflect compensating errors between threshold placement and tail shape.
  2. [§3.1.3, Eqs. (7)–(8)] The optical-depth correction assumes τ_C18O = τ_13CO/χ and identical excitation temperatures for both isotopologues at every voxel. The uncertainties quoted in Table 1 propagate the scatter in the stacked abundance ratio and the range of optical-depth thresholds, but they do not capture systematic failures of this assumption in the densest gas. The observed high-density decrement in Figures 5 and 14 shows that the assumption does not fully recover the dense gas. I ask for a sensitivity analysis that varies χ over the plausible range (including the scatter in Figure 10) and allows for C18O opacity or depletion in the power-law tail, reporting how N_thres and M_bound respond. This is load-bearing because the absolute scale of N_H2 enters M_bound linearly.
  3. [§4 and §6] The claim of a controlled test with minimal LOS confusion is internally inconsistent. Section 4 states that the distant clouds have 'more substantial LOS complexity' and that the main 13CO velocity component contributes only about 40%–90% of the total 13CO integrated flux, while Section 6 says the sample 'has been shown to suffer minimal LOS confusion.' Because the dust-based reference integrates all LOS components and the CO method isolates one velocity component, the good M_bound agreement for distant clouds could partly reflect comparing different physical gas, weakening the scalability claim. Please either quantify the bias introduced by the 40%–90% flux fractions or soften the Section 6 wording and show the mass comparison with and without the most confused sources.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§5.2, Fig. 9] The text reports a CO-based M_bound–SFR slope of 1.08^{+0.11}_{-0.10}, while the Figure 9 caption and the adjacent text give 0.97^{+0.09}_{-0.09} and 0.98 ± 0.08; please reconcile these values.
  2. [Fig. 6] The caption says the mean IoU is 0.52, whereas the in-panel label reads mean = 0.55; the text also uses different IoU thresholds in different places, so please make the numbers consistent.
  3. [Fig. 7] The caption does not state whether the two 12CO+13CO test clouds (red squares) are included in the fitted slope; if they are, the slope mixes two different tracer combinations and should be refit or the test points should be shown as open symbols.
  4. [§5.3] The section title contains a typo: 'Galatic' should be 'Galactic'.
  5. [Facilities] The facilities line spells 'Hersechel' instead of 'Herschel'.
  6. [Fig. 7a] The paper does not describe the regression method used for the fitted slope in Figure 7a or state whether uncertainties on both axes are accounted for; please clarify the fitting procedure and report the scatter in log space as well as the slope.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CO-based bound masses are benchmarked against dust-based masses from Jiao et al. (2025) that do not enter the CO calibration, and the M_bound-SFR relation is presented as a consistency check.

full rationale

The central validation is the comparison between M_COcomb_bound and M_dust_bound. The dust-based values come from S. Jiao et al. (2025), a paper with overlapping authorship, but they are derived from Herschel far-infrared SED fitting and a separate N-PDF analysis; they do not use the CO isotopologue measurements or the 13CO/C18O ratios fitted here. The abundance ratio in Section 3.1.2 is calibrated from the CO data themselves, yet it is an input conversion factor, not the quantity being predicted; the claimed result is that the resulting N-PDF power-law tails and bound masses match external dust-based determinations. Section 5.2 explicitly frames the M_bound-SFR correlation as a consistency check that follows from the CO-dust mass agreement, not as an independent fit. The acknowledged high-column-density decrement in Orion A and Aquila (Section 4) is an accuracy and robustness caveat, not a circular reduction: even if the effect on M_bound is unquantified, the comparison is not forced by construction. The only self-citation of note is the reliance on Jiao et al. (2025) for the sample and dust-based N-PDF methodology, and that reliance is not load-bearing in the circular sense because the dust-based values are externally derived from archival Herschel data.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several adopted abundance and opacity calibrations from the literature, plus a per-source 13CO/C18O ratio fitted to the CO data. No new physical entities are introduced. The main unquantified risk is C18O optical depth in the densest gas.

free parameters (3)
  • 13CO/C18O abundance ratio per source = 6.4 for G10.6-0.4, others in Table 1
    Derived via stacking 13CO and C18O spectra in regions selected to be optically thin (Section 3.1.2); used in Equation 7 to correct 13CO optical depth. This is a per-source calibration from the CO data itself.
  • Lower limit for excitation temperature Tex = 15 K
    Set in Section 3.1.1 to avoid invalid 12CO optically thick assumption in cold regions; affects the column density conversion via Equation 5.
  • Optical depth threshold range for stacking = 0.35 to 0.6
    Used to select optically thin regions for the abundance ratio measurement (Section 3.1.2); the mean over this range is adopted, with standard deviation as uncertainty.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption C18O is optically thin in all voxels used for the 13CO optical depth correction
    Needed for Equation 7 to relate the 13CO/C18O intensity ratio to tau_13CO. May fail in the densest gas, affecting the power-law tail (Section 3.1.3).
  • domain assumption 13CO and C18O share the same excitation temperature along the line of sight
    Assumed in Section 3.1.2 to convert line ratios to abundance ratios and optical depths.
  • domain assumption CO abundance scales linearly with gas-phase metallicity, and the adopted metallicity gradient is accurate
    Used in Equation 11 to convert CO-derived column densities to H2 column densities (Section 3.1.4).
  • domain assumption The 12C/13C Galactic gradient from Jacob et al. (2020) applies to these clouds
    Equation 9 in Section 3.1.4 sets the isotopic ratio for the H2 conversion.
  • domain assumption The power-law tail of the N-PDF traces gravitationally bound gas
    Framework from Ballesteros-Paredes et al. 2011, Girichidis et al. 2014, Burkhart et al. 2017, and Jiao et al. 2025; the paper relies on this to define M_bound.
  • domain assumption Dust-based N-PDFs after constant LOS screen subtraction are a reliable reference for bound gas
    Used for validation (Section 2.3); for distant clouds this fails due to overlapping clouds, which the paper acknowledges.
  • standard math Standard LTE radiative transfer and optically thick 12CO at peak are valid
    Used to derive Tex and column density expressions (Equations 4-6).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Trace the Self-Gravitating Gas Using CO Isotopologues." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TQO5FXSC

@misc{pith2026260812473,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Trace the Self-Gravitating Gas Using CO Isotopologues},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TQO5FXSC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12473}
}
abstract

Recent studies have shown that the star formation rate (SFR) correlates tightly and linearly with the mass of gravitationally bound gas, which can be delineated from the power-law tail of the column-density probability distribution function ($N$-PDF) derived from dust emission observations. This relationship holds across four orders of magnitude within the Milky Way--spanning low-mass to high-mass star-forming regions and encompassing the extreme environment of the Central Molecular Zone. Building on this framework, we present a new approach for estimating the mass of gravitationally bound gas in molecular clouds using multi-line CO isotopologue observations. Our sample includes 16 molecular clouds with robust detections in $^{12}$CO, $^{13}$CO, and C$^{18}$O $J$ = 1-0, spanning both massive inner Galaxy clouds and nearby star-forming regions. We find that the $N$-PDFs derived from combined CO isotopologue data recover the characteristic log-normal plus power-law profiles seen in dust-based studies. The mass and spatial distribution of the self-gravitating structures estimated from both dust-based and CO-based methods agree well throughout the sample. This indicates that the CO isotopologue combination can robustly trace the self-gravitating component via the $N$-PDF method and provides a reliable, scalable, and velocity-resolved alternative to dust emission for identifying the star-forming gas in molecular clouds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12473 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The flowchart of our method for combining data from three CO isotopologues to obtain the gas column den￾sity. The orange boxes denote the 13CO optically thin as￾sumption, where the integrated 13CO intensity is directly converted to N13CO,thin (Section 3.1.1). The purple boxes correspond to the derivation of the 13CO optical depth from the 13CO/C18O line ratio and the subsequent correction of the 13CO column density … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example of the method used to estimate the abundance ratio, applied to the G10.6-0.4 region. Left: Moment 0 map of C18O, with the shaded area indicating the region selected for stacking the 13CO and C18O spectrum. Right: Stacked spectra of 13CO (black solid step line) and C18O (red dashed step line, scaled by a factor of 5 for comparison). The line ratio shown in the upper right corner corresponds to the derived 13C… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top: Gas column density derived by combining CO isotopologues (Section 3.1). Middle: Gas column density from gray-body fitting of the dust far-infrared emission (Sec￾tion 2.3; Appendix C). Bottom: Gas column density derived from 13CO alone, assuming LTE and optically thin emission (Section 3.1.1). These panels share the same color bar and dynamic range. The gray dashed contours mark the cutoff contours adopted for t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Maps of gas column density derived from the combined CO isotopologue lines for Aquila, OrionA, and OrionB. The black and white contours represent the self-gravitationally-bound structures identified using the dust-based and CO-based methods, respectively. The labeled I…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: N-PDFs for all 16 molecular clouds in this work, derived from dust-based column density maps (gray step lines) and from our combined CO isotopologue method (black step lines). The first three panels show the solar-neighborhood clouds, while the remaining panels show th…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of the IoU values between the bound structures identified by the two methods. The black histogram shows the results for distant clouds, while the red histogram corresponds to solar neighborhood sources. The vertical dot-dashed blue line indicates the mean …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of gas masses derived from our combined CO isotopologue method and from dust continuum emission. (a): Comparison of the gravitationally bound gas masses, M COcomb bound and Mdust bound, adopting κ1000 = 10 cm2 g −1 for the dust-based measurements. (b): Same …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ratio of CO-based mass estimates to the dust-based bound gas mass, M/Mdust bound, as a func￾tion of Mdust bound. Blue and purple squares show the ratios M 13CO tot /Mdust bound and MC18O tot /Mdust bound, respectively. Orange points indicate M COcomb bound /Mdust bound…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: shows the Mbound-SFR relation. SFRs for the target clouds are calculated based on the infrared luminosity measurements using IRAS data, following the same procedure described in J. Wu et al. (2010); S. Jiao et al. (2025). The CO-based bound gas masses reproduce a linea…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The 13CO/C18O abundance ratio as a func￾tion of Galactocentric radius Rgc. Blue and orange points denote solar-neighborhood and distant molecular clouds, re￾spectively. The dashed orange line shows a linear fit to the distant-cloud sample only, while the gray dashed l…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: N-PDFs of Ophiuchus (bottom) and S287 (top), based on column density maps derived from the 12CO+13CO combination with optical-depth correction. The black step lines show the measured distributions, while the orange and blue dashed curves represent the fitted lognormal…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., & Krupnov, A

    Aliev, M. P., & Krupnov, A. F. 1985, Optics and Spectroscopy, 59, 699

    1985

  2. [2]

    Alves, J., Lombardi, M., & Lada, C. J. 2017, A&A, 606, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731436 18 T able 2.N-PDF fitting results and associated column-density parameters. Source Dust COcomb µ σ η ηt α N thres Ncutoff Nmean Nsubs µ σ η ηt α N thres Ncutoff Nmean (1021 cm−2) (10 21 cm−2) (10 21 cm−2) (10 21 cm−2) (1021 cm−2) (10 21 cm−2) (10 21 cm−2) Aquila−0....

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731436 2017

  3. [3]

    2011, MNRAS, 416, 1436, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19141.x

    Ballesteros-Paredes, J., V´ azquez-Semadeni, E., Gazol, A., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 1436, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19141.x

    arXiv 2011

  4. [4]

    T., Longmore, S

    Barnes, A. T., Longmore, S. N., Battersby, C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 2263, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx941

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx941 2017

  5. [5]

    J., et al

    Bernard, J.-P., Paradis, D., Marshall, D. J., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014540

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014540 2010

  6. [6]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.16866, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.16866

    Beuther, H., Kuiper, R., & Tafalla, M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.16866, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.16866

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.16866 2025

  7. [7]

    2008, AJ, 136, 2846, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2846

    Bigiel, F., Leroy, A., Walter, F., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2846, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2846

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2846 2008

  8. [8]

    2003, A&A, 404, 249, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030301

    Bik, A., Lenorzer, A., Kaper, L., et al. 2003, A&A, 404, 249, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030301

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030301 2003

Show all 97 references
  1. [9]

    C., Savage, B

    Bohlin, R. C., Savage, B. D., & Drake, J. F. 1978, ApJ, 224, 132, doi: 10.1086/156357

    1978 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Aleo, P

    Burke, C. J., Aleo, P. D., Chen, Y.-C., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3952, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2845

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    2019, ApJ, 879, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab25ed

    Burkhart, B., & Mocz, P. 2019, ApJ, 879, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab25ed

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    Burkhart, B., Stalpes, K., & Collins, D. C. 2017, ApJL, 834, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/834/1/L1

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    L., Mundy, L

    Chapman, N. L., Mundy, L. G., Lai, S.-P., & Evans, II, N. J. 2009, ApJ, 690, 496, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/1/496

    2009 doi

  6. [14]

    H.-H., Burkhart, B., Goodman, A., & Collins, D

    Chen, H. H.-H., Burkhart, B., Goodman, A., & Collins, D. C. 2018, ApJ, 859, 162, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabaf6 Compi` egne, M., Flagey, N., Noriega-Crespo, A., et al. 2010, ApJL, 724, L44, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/724/1/L44

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    J., et al

    Cormier, D., Bigiel, F., Jim´ enez-Donaire, M. J., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 3909, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty059

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    X., Boulanger, F., & Puget, J

    Desert, F. X., Boulanger, F., & Puget, J. L. 1990, A&A, 237, 215

    1990

  9. [17]

    Dickman, R. L. 1978, ApJS, 37, 407, doi: 10.1086/190535

    1978 doi

  10. [18]

    Draine, B. T. 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium

    2011

  11. [19]

    J., Kim, J.-G., & Ostriker, E

    Evans, N. J., Kim, J.-G., & Ostriker, E. C. 2022, ApJL, 929, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6427

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    J., Heiderman, A., & Vutisalchavakul, N

    Evans, II, N. J., Heiderman, A., & Vutisalchavakul, N. 2014, ApJ, 782, 114, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/114

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    Federrath, C., & Klessen, R. S. 2013, ApJ, 763, 51, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/51

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    2026, ApJ, 998, 224, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae29e6

    Feng, L., Jiao, S., Xu, F., et al. 2026, ApJ, 998, 224, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae29e6

    2026 doi

  15. [23]

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

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

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    A., Langer, W

    Frerking, M. A., Langer, W. D., & Wilson, R. W. 1982, ApJ, 262, 590, doi: 10.1086/160451

    1982 doi

  17. [25]

    2010, MNRAS, 406, 1350, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16769.x Galv´ an-Madrid, R., Liu, H

    Froebrich, D., & Rowles, J. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 1350, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16769.x Galv´ an-Madrid, R., Liu, H. B., Zhang, Z. Y., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/121

    2010

  18. [26]

    Gao, Y., & Solomon, P. M. 2004, ApJ, 606, 271, doi: 10.1086/382999

    2004 doi

  19. [27]

    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

  20. [28]

    Klessen, R. S. 2014, ApJ, 781, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/781/2/91

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

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

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

    2008 doi

  22. [30]

    C., Kim, C.-G., & Kim, J.-G

    Gong, M., Ostriker, E. C., Kim, C.-G., & Kim, J.-G. 2020, ApJ, 903, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbdab

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    A., Pineda, J

    Goodman, A. A., Pineda, J. E., & Schnee, S. L. 2009, ApJ, 692, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/91 GRAVITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040208

    2009 doi

  24. [32]

    Grishin, K., Mei, S., & Ili´ c, S. 2023, A&A, 677, A101, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345976 Trace bound gas using CO21 21.0 21.5 22.0 22.5 10 3 10 2 10 1 Aquila N-PDF (COcomb) N-PDF (dust) Fitted Log-normal (COcomb) Fitted Power-law (COcomb) 22 23 24 10 3 10 2 10 1 Orion A 22.0 ...

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

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

    1983

  26. [34]

    M., Menten, K

    Jacob, A. M., Menten, K. M., Wiesemeyer, H., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937385

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    2025, A&A, 701, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453608

    Jiao, S., Wu, J., Zhang, Z.-Y., et al. 2025, A&A, 701, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453608

    2025 doi

  28. [36]

    2009, A&A, 508, L35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913605

    Kainulainen, J., Beuther, H., Henning, T., & Plume, R. 2009, A&A, 508, L35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913605

    2009 doi

  29. [37]

    Kainulainen, J., & Tan, J. C. 2013, A&A, 549, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219526

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    C., & Evans, N

    Kennicutt, R. C., & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610

    2012 doi

  31. [39]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189 K¨ onyves, V., Andr´ e, P., Men’shchikov, A., et al. 2015, A&A, 584, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525861 K¨ onyves, V., Andr´ e, P., Arzoumanian, D., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004...

    1998 doi

  32. [40]

    Kulesa, C. A. 2002, PhD thesis, University of Arizona

    2002

  33. [41]

    H., Sneden, C., Kim, H., & Jaffe, D

    Lacy, J. H., Sneden, C., Kim, H., & Jaffe, D. T. 2017, ApJ, 838, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6247

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    J., Forbrich, J., Lombardi, M., & Alves, J

    Lada, C. J., Forbrich, J., Lombardi, M., & Alves, J. F. 2012, ApJ, 745, 190, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/190

    2012 doi

  35. [43]

    J., Lombardi, M., & Alves, J

    Lada, C. J., Lombardi, M., & Alves, J. F. 2010, ApJ, 724, 687, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/687

    2010 doi

  36. [44]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 406, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02440-3

    Lin, L., Zhang, Z.-Y., Wang, J., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 406, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02440-3

    2025 doi

  37. [45]

    B., Li, D., et al

    Lin, Y., Liu, H. B., Li, D., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 32, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/32

    2016 doi

  38. [46]

    B., Dale, J

    Lin, Y., Liu, H. B., Dale, J. E., et al. 2017, ApJ, 840, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c67

    2017 doi

  39. [47]

    2014, ApJ, 780, 10, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/10

    Liszt, H. 2014, ApJ, 780, 10, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/10

    2014 doi

  40. [48]

    Liszt, H. S. 2007, A&A, 476, 291, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078502

    2007 doi

  41. [49]

    R., Jones, P

    Lo, N., Cunningham, M. R., Jones, P. A., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 1021, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14594.x

    2009

  42. [50]

    Lombardi, M., Alves, J., & Lada, C. J. 2015, A&A, 576, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525650

    2015 doi

  43. [51]

    J., & Alves, J

    Lombardi, M., Lada, C. J., & Alves, J. 2008, A&A, 489, 143, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810070

    2008 doi

  44. [52]

    2022, ApJS, 262, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7797

    Ma, Y., Wang, H., Zhang, M., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7797

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    G., & Shirley, Y

    Mangum, J. G., & Shirley, Y. L. 2015, PASP, 127, 266, doi: 10.1086/680323

    2015 doi

  46. [54]

    A., Whitworth, A

    Marsh, K. A., Whitworth, A. P., Lomax, O., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 2730, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1723

    2017 doi

  47. [55]

    F., & Ostriker, E

    McKee, C. F., & Ostriker, E. C. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 565, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110602 M´ endez-Delgado, J. E., Amayo, A., Arellano-C´ ordova, K. Z., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 4436, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3782

    2007 arXiv

  48. [56]

    2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Minamidani, T., Nishimura, A., Miyamoto, Y., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9914, Millimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy VIII, ed. W. S. Holland & J. Zmuidzinas,...

    2016 doi

  49. [57]

    2010, PASP, 122, 314, doi: 10.1086/651314

    Molinari, S., Swinyard, B., Bally, J., et al. 2010, PASP, 122, 314, doi: 10.1086/651314

    2010 doi

  50. [58]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 1373, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1451

    Murase, T., Handa, T., Matsusaka, R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 1373, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1451

    2023 doi

  51. [59]

    1998, AJ, 116, 336, doi: 10.1086/300392

    Nagahama, T., Mizuno, A., Ogawa, H., & Fukui, Y. 1998, AJ, 116, 336, doi: 10.1086/300392

    1998 doi

  52. [60]

    Federrath, C., & Klessen, R. S. 2016, A&A, 590, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628095

    2016 doi

  53. [61]

    2013, A&A, 550, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220500

    Palmeirim, P., Andr´ e, P., Kirk, J., et al. 2013, A&A, 550, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220500

    2013 doi

  54. [62]

    V., Orkisz, J

    Pety, J., Guzm´ an, V. V., Orkisz, J. H., et al. 2017, A&A, 599, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629862

    2017 doi

  55. [63]

    E., Caselli, P., & Goodman, A

    Pineda, J. E., Caselli, P., & Goodman, A. A. 2008, ApJ, 679, 481, doi: 10.1086/586883

    2008 doi

  56. [64]

    M., Evans, N., Bergner, J., & Yang, Y.-L

    Pontoppidan, K. M., Evans, N., Bergner, J., & Yang, Y.-L. 2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 68, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad303f

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

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

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

    2006 doi

  58. [66]

    M., Federman, S

    Ritchey, A. M., Federman, S. R., & Lambert, D. L. 2011, ApJ, 728, 36, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/728/1/36

    2011 doi

  59. [67]

    2021, A&A, 645, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037776

    Roueff, A., Gerin, M., Gratier, P., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037776

    2021 doi

  60. [68]

    G., Polychroni, D., et al

    Roy, A., Martin, P. G., Polychroni, D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 763, 55, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/55

    2013 doi

  61. [69]

    2015a, MNRAS, 453, L41, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv101

    Schneider, N., Bontemps, S., Girichidis, P., et al. 2015a, MNRAS, 453, L41, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv101

    doi

  62. [70]

    2015b, A&A, 575, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423569

    Schneider, N., Ossenkopf, V., Csengeri, T., et al. 2015b, A&A, 575, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423569

    doi

  63. [71]

    2016, A&A, 587, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527144

    Schneider, N., Bontemps, S., Motte, F., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527144

    2016 doi

  64. [72]

    2022, A&A, 666, A165, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039610

    Schneider, N., Ossenkopf-Okada, V., Clarke, S., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A165, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039610

    2022 doi

  65. [73]

    S., et al

    Schuller, F., Csengeri, T., Urquhart, J. S., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628933

    2017 doi

  66. [74]

    2011, PASJ, 63, 105, doi: 10.1093/pasj/63.1.105

    Shimajiri, Y., Kawabe, R., Takakuwa, S., et al. 2011, PASJ, 63, 105, doi: 10.1093/pasj/63.1.105

    2011 doi

  67. [75]

    2014, A&A, 564, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322912 Trace bound gas using CO23

    Shimajiri, Y., Kitamura, Y., Saito, M., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322912 Trace bound gas using CO23

    2014 doi

  68. [76]

    H., Ruden, S

    Shu, F. H., Ruden, S. P., Lada, C. J., & Lizano, S. 1991, ApJL, 370, L31, doi: 10.1086/185970

    1991 doi

  69. [77]

    M., & Kainulainen, J

    Stutz, A. M., & Kainulainen, J. 2015, A&A, 577, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526243

    2015 doi

  70. [78]

    2019, ApJS, 240, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaf1c8

    Su, Y., Yang, J., Zhang, S., et al. 2019, ApJS, 240, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaf1c8

    2019 doi

  71. [79]

    2019, PASJ, 71, S2, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz033

    Torii, K., Fujita, S., Nishimura, A., et al. 2019, PASJ, 71, S2, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz033

    2019 doi

  72. [80]

    2014, A&A, 564, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322700

    Tremblin, P., Schneider, N., Minier, V., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322700

    2014 doi

  73. [81]

    2025, ApJ, 983, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb71f

    Tyagi, H., Manoj, P., Narang, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb71f

    2025 doi

  74. [82]

    2017, PASJ, 69, 78, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx061 van Dishoeck, E

    Umemoto, T., Minamidani, T., Kuno, N., et al. 2017, PASJ, 69, 78, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx061 van Dishoeck, E. F., & Black, J. H. 1988, ApJ, 334, 771, doi: 10.1086/166877

    2017 doi

  75. [83]

    V., Girichidis, P., Donkov, S., et al

    Veltchev, T. V., Girichidis, P., Donkov, S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 788, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2151

    2019 doi

  76. [84]

    2012, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1208.3524, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1208.3524

    Virkar, Y., & Clauset, A. 2012, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1208.3524, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1208.3524

    2012 doi arXiv

  77. [85]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  78. [86]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2d2e

    Wang, C., Yang, J., Su, Y., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2d2e

    2019 doi

  79. [87]

    2023, AJ, 166, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acebdd

    Wang, C., Feng, H., Yang, J., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acebdd

    2023 doi

  80. [88]

    2020, A&A, 641, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037928

    Wang, Y., Beuther, H., Schneider, N., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037928

    2020 doi

  81. [89]

    L., & Rood, R

    Wilson, T. L., & Rood, R. 1994, ARA&A, 32, 191, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.32.090194.001203

    1994

  82. [90]

    J., Gao, Y., et al

    Wu, J., Evans, II, N. J., Gao, Y., et al. 2005, ApJL, 635, L173, doi: 10.1086/499623

    2005 doi

  83. [91]

    J., Shirley, Y

    Wu, J., Evans, II, N. J., Shirley, Y. L., & Knez, C. 2010, ApJS, 188, 313, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/188/2/313

    2010 doi

  84. [92]

    2012, ApJ, 756, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/76

    Wu, Y., Liu, T., Meng, F., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/76

    2012 doi

  85. [93]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 235, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaab4b

    Yamagishi, M., Nishimura, A., Fujita, S., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 235, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaab4b

    2018 doi

  86. [94]

    2019, Remote Sensing, 11, doi: 10.3390/rs11030286

    Yan, J., Wang, H., Yan, M., et al. 2019, Remote Sensing, 11, doi: 10.3390/rs11030286

    2019 doi

  87. [95]

    2026, ApJS, 282, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae29e7

    Yang, J., Yan, Q.-Z., Su, Y., et al. 2026, ApJS, 282, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae29e7

    2026 doi

  88. [96]

    2022, ApJS, 261, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac739f

    Yuan, L., Yang, J., Du, F., et al. 2022, ApJS, 261, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac739f

    2022 doi

  89. [97]

    S., Schlafly, E

    Zucker, C., Speagle, J. S., Schlafly, E. F., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936145

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.