Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 81 references

Magnetic field alignment with dense cores in the transition between cloud and core scales

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-05-10 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Magnetic fields lose coherent alignment when moving from cloud scales to dense core scales in star-forming regions.

desk verdict This paper adds a solid catalog of 79 core-scale field orientations from BISTRO data and shows increased scatter relative to cloud scales, but the claim of a physical transition away from magnetic dominance rests on untested assumptions about polarization reliability. read the letter →

arxiv 2604.09770 v1 pith:BKDUKIKU submitted 2026-04-10 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Sean Yin , Ayush Pandhi , Rachel Friesen , Simon Coudé , Laura Fissel , Sarah Sadavoy , James Di Francesco , Doug Johnstone
show 2 more authors
Frédérick Poidevin Mehrnoosh Tahani
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords magneticfieldsdensecoresstarformationdustpolarizationmolecularcloudsBISTROcoreevolution
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 tests whether magnetic fields stay aligned from large cloud scales down to the smaller scales of dense cores where stars form. Higher-resolution polarization observations show that core-scale fields are more disordered than cloud-scale fields, with alignments that vary widely between regions and show no consistent pattern. Core orientations and internal velocity gradients also appear random with respect to the core-scale magnetic field. This points to a transition where magnetic fields cease to dominate the structure and evolution of dense cores.

What carries the argument

Statistical comparison of magnetic field orientations traced by dust polarization, measured separately at cloud scales and at averaged core scales, including their relation to core shapes and velocity gradients.

What would settle it

A new polarization map of the same regions at core resolution that finds statistically significant preferred alignment between core-scale and cloud-scale field orientations across most regions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using BISTRO survey dust polarization data, a catalog of 79 cores across 14 regions shows the core-scale magnetic field has higher standard deviation in orientation than the cloud-scale field. Alignment between the two scales changes strongly from region to region. The core-scale field, core major axis, and core velocity gradient exhibit random relative orientations, matching earlier cloud-scale findings. The results indicate a clear change in magnetic field properties across the cloud-to-core transition and suggest magnetic fields do not dominate dense core evolution on core scales.

Load-bearing premise

Dust polarization reliably maps the plane-of-sky magnetic field direction at both scales with little contamination from grain alignment variations or line-of-sight confusion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Star formation models must incorporate processes that scramble magnetic field coherence between cloud and core scales.
  • Dense core shapes and internal motions can develop independently of the large-scale magnetic field direction.
  • Turbulence or gravity likely become the leading influences on core evolution once scales drop below the cloud regime.
  • The transition zone itself is where any magnetic regulation of core formation weakens or ends.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Observations at still higher resolution could pinpoint the exact spatial scale where the field disorder begins.
  • Simulations with varying initial field strengths and turbulence levels could test whether the observed randomization is a generic outcome.
  • If the field truly loses influence, then core mass and angular momentum distributions should match predictions from non-magnetic collapse models.
  • Similar scale-dependent field changes might appear in other tracers such as Zeeman splitting or molecular line polarization.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper catalogs 79 dense cores across 14 star-forming regions using higher-resolution BISTRO JCMT dust polarization data, derives averaged core-scale magnetic field orientations, and compares them statistically to cloud-scale fields from Pandhi et al. (2023). It reports greater disorder (increased standard deviation) at core scales, variable region-to-region alignment with cloud-scale fields, and random (uncorrelated) alignments between core-scale fields, core orientations, and velocity gradients, concluding a clear transition from cloud to core scales in which magnetic fields do not play a dominant role in core evolution.

Significance. If the measurements prove robust, this work supplies direct observational evidence for a scale-dependent shift in magnetic field behavior during star formation, extending Pandhi et al. (2023) by bridging cloud and core regimes with higher-resolution data. The result would constrain theoretical models by indicating that turbulence or other non-magnetic processes likely dominate core evolution, while still allowing magnetic influence at larger scales.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3 (Methods, core identification and averaging)] §3 (Methods, core identification and averaging): The core identification thresholds and magnetic-field averaging window are treated as free parameters without reported sensitivity tests or robustness checks. Because the central claim of increased disorder rests on the measured standard deviation of orientations, unquantified dependence on these choices weakens the support for a physical transition rather than a methodological artifact.
  2. [§4 (Results and comparison to Pandhi et al.)] §4 (Results and comparison to Pandhi et al.): No quantitative test is presented for scale-dependent changes in grain alignment efficiency, polarization fraction thresholds, or line-of-sight confusion between the BISTRO JCMT core-scale data and the cloud-scale data. This is load-bearing for the 'clear change' and 'not dominant role' conclusions, as differential contamination could artificially inflate the reported standard deviation and apparent randomness without reflecting intrinsic magnetic-field evolution.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the catalog contains 79 cores over 14 regions but does not name the regions; adding this list would improve reproducibility.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and legends should explicitly define how magnetic-field position angles and their uncertainties are computed and displayed, including any averaging or weighting applied.
  3. [§4] A brief statement on the statistical test used to establish 'random alignments' (e.g., p-value threshold or correlation coefficient) would clarify the strength of the null result.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful and constructive report, which has helped us improve the clarity and robustness of our analysis. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional tests and discussions where feasible.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §3 (Methods, core identification and averaging): The core identification thresholds and magnetic-field averaging window are treated as free parameters without reported sensitivity tests or robustness checks. Because the central claim of increased disorder rests on the measured standard deviation of orientations, unquantified dependence on these choices weakens the support for a physical transition rather than a methodological artifact.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the original manuscript did not include explicit sensitivity tests for these choices. In the revised version, we have added a dedicated subsection in §3 describing robustness checks in which we varied the core identification thresholds (minimum pixel count, signal-to-noise ratio, and density contrast) and the magnetic-field averaging window size (from 1 to 3 beam widths). These tests confirm that the reported increase in standard deviation of core-scale field orientations remains statistically significant and consistent across reasonable parameter ranges. The results are summarized in the main text and detailed in a new Appendix A. This addition directly addresses the concern that the observed disorder could be a methodological artifact. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §4 (Results and comparison to Pandhi et al.): No quantitative test is presented for scale-dependent changes in grain alignment efficiency, polarization fraction thresholds, or line-of-sight confusion between the BISTRO JCMT core-scale data and the cloud-scale data. This is load-bearing for the 'clear change' and 'not dominant role' conclusions, as differential contamination could artificially inflate the reported standard deviation and apparent randomness without reflecting intrinsic magnetic-field evolution.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative assessment of these effects would strengthen the interpretation. A full quantitative model of grain alignment efficiency differences would require detailed simulations and additional multi-wavelength data beyond the scope of this work; we have therefore added a qualitative discussion in §4 explaining our polarization fraction thresholds (chosen to match prior BISTRO analyses for reliable detections) and arguing that the higher resolution of the JCMT data reduces line-of-sight confusion relative to the cloud-scale measurements. We also note that any residual confusion would tend to randomize rather than systematically increase the observed disorder. These revisions support our conclusions while acknowledging the limitations of the current dataset. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor self-citation to prior observational results; no circular reduction

full rationale

The paper's central claims derive from direct measurements of dust polarization angles in new BISTRO JCMT data, yielding a catalog of 79 cores and statistical quantities such as the standard deviation of core-scale magnetic field orientations. These are compared to cloud-scale orientations reported in Pandhi et al. (2023). The self-citation supplies the baseline for detecting a scale-dependent change but does not define the core-scale quantities or force the conclusion by construction. No parameters are fitted such that predictions reduce to inputs, no ansatzes are smuggled, and no uniqueness theorems are invoked. The analysis is self-contained against the observational dataset.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard assumption that dust polarization traces the magnetic field, plus choices in how cores are identified and orientations are averaged; no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • core identification thresholds and averaging window
    The paper produces a catalog of 79 cores; exact density or polarization signal thresholds used to define each core and the spatial scale over which the field is averaged are not stated in the abstract and function as analysis choices.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Dust polarization reliably traces the plane-of-sky magnetic field orientation at both cloud and core scales
    Invoked throughout the comparison of field orientations; standard in the field but not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption Core orientations and velocity gradients can be measured independently of the magnetic field data
    Used when testing for alignments; required for the random-alignment conclusion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic field alignment with dense cores in the transition between cloud and core scales." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BKDUKIKU

@misc{pith2026260409770,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic field alignment with dense cores in the transition between cloud and core scales},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BKDUKIKU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2604.09770}
}
read the original abstract

In a magnetically-dominated model of star formation, we expect to see alignments between the magnetic field orientation of star-forming dense cores and the cloud-scale magnetic field. Pandhi et al. (2023) showed instead, however, that the orientation of cores and their angular momentum vectors appear random with respect to the larger-scale magnetic field, implying that magnetic fields may play a diminished role in core formation and evolution. Here, we use higher-resolution dust polarization data from the B-Fields In Star-forming Region Observations (BISTRO) survey on the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope (JCMT) to investigate the change in the magnetic field orientation from cloud scales to core scales, and reassess any correlations between core-scale magnetic fields, core orientations and core velocity gradients. We produce a catalog of 79 cores over 14 star-forming regions with averaged core-scale magnetic field orientations. We find that the core-scale magnetic field is more disordered compared to the cloud-scale field, as measured by an increased standard deviation in the magnetic field vector orientations. Alignment between the core-scale and cloud-scale field varies greatly between regions. Our results are consistent with random alignments between the core-scale magnetic field, core orientation, and core velocity gradient, in agreement with the results by Pandhi et al. (2023) for the cloud-scale field. We conclude that there is a clear change in the magnetic field in the transition from cloud- to core-scales. Our results suggest that the magnetic field may not play a dominant role in the evolution of dense cores on core scales.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.09770 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: NGC 1333 in 850 µm continuum emission from JCMT (colourscale) overlaid with the magnetic field orientation at FWHM 14.1′′ (white vectors; Doi et al. 2020) and the magnetic field orientation at FWHM 5′ (orchid vectors; Planck Collaboration et al. 2016). Right: L1688 (Oph A, Oph B, Oph C/E/F) presented using the same setup. Maps of the other regions covered in this paper are found in Appendix A. converting the e… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mean magnetic field orientation and standard deviation for each star-forming region. JCMT data are shown in red, while Planck data are shown in blue. The mean of both distributions is shown with a solid point, with the standard deviation represented by the span of its respective error bar. The black error bar on the lower right hand side represents the average uncertainty (∼ 5 ◦ ) of an individual core-scale vector … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Polar histograms of all magnetic field vector orientations for each star-forming region in the Perseus molecular cloud. JCMT data are shown in red, while Planck data are shown in blue. The mean of both distributions is shown with a red and blue dotted line, respectively, on both histograms. Full information can be found in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: NGC 1333 with colourscale as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Cumulative distribution functions of |θB − θPlanck| (the relative orientation between the JCMT (core-scale) and Planck (cloud-scale) magnetic field orientation at each core), |θB −θC | (the relative orientation between the core-scale magnetic field and the core orienta…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: L1689-1 (left) and L689-2 (right) regions in the Ophiuchus molecular cloud, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: B1 (top left), IC348 (top right), L1448 (bottom left), and L1455 (bottom right) regions in the Perseus molecular cloud, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: OMC 1 (top left), OMC 2/OMC 3 (top right), NGC 2024 (bottom left), and NGC 2068 (bottom right) regions in the Orion A and Orion B molecular clouds, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: L1689-1 (left) and L689-2 (right) regions in the Ophiuchus molecular cloud, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: B1 (top left), IC348 (top right), L1448 (bottom left), and L1455 (bottom right) regions in the Perseus molecular cloud, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: OMC 1 (top left), OMC 2/OMC 3 (top right), NGC 2024 (bottom left), and NGC 2068 (bottom right) regions in the Orion A and Orion B molecular clouds, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 81 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.13931

    Alves , J., Lombardi , M., & Lada , C. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.13931, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.13931

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.13931 2025

  2. [2]

    W., & Darling, D

    Anderson, T. W., & Darling, D. A. 1954, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 49, 765, 10.1080/01621459.1954.10501232

    work page doi:10.1080/01621459.1954.10501232 1954

  3. [3]

    , year = 2015, month = aug, volume =

    Andersson , B. G., Lazarian , A., & Vaillancourt , J. E. 2015, , 53, 501, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122414

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122414 2015

  4. [4]

    A&A , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014666 2010

  5. [5]

    C., et al

    Arce-Tord , C., Louvet , F., Cortes , P. C., et al. 2020, , 640, A111, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038024

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038024 2020

  6. [6]

    P., Tollerud , E

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  7. [7]

    M., Sip o cz , B

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  8. [8]

    M., Lim , P

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

    work page Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    S., Mac Low , M

    Ballesteros-Paredes , J., Klessen , R. S., Mac Low , M. M., & Vazquez-Semadeni , E. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed. B. Reipurth , D. Jewitt , & K. Keil , 63, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0603357

    2007 doi

  2. [10]

    2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bastien , P., Bissonnette , E., Simon , A., et al. 2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 449, Astronomical Polarimetry 2008: Science from Small to Large Telescopes, ed. P. Bastien , N. Manset , D. P. Clemens , & N. St-Louis , 68

    2011

  3. [11]

    2000, , 540, L103, 10.1086/312885

    Basu , S. 2000, , 540, L103, 10.1086/312885

    2000 doi

  4. [12]

    C., et al

    Be s li \'c , I., Coud \'e , S., Lis , D. C., et al. 2024, , 684, A212, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348376

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    2000, , 543, 822, 10.1086/317122

    Burkert , A., & Bodenheimer , P. 2000, , 543, 822, 10.1086/317122

    2000 doi

  6. [14]

    L., Berry , D

    Chapin , E. L., Berry , D. S., Gibb , A. G., et al. 2013, , 430, 2545, 10.1093/mnras/stt052

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    K., & Li , Z.-Y

    Chen , C.-Y., King , P. K., & Li , Z.-Y. 2016, , 829, 84, 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/84

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    Chen , C.-Y., & Ostriker , E. C. 2018, , 865, 34, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad905

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    A., Washington , J

    Chen , C.-Y., Behrens , E. A., Washington , J. E., et al. 2020, , 494, 1971, 10.1093/mnras/staa835

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    C.-Y., Di Francesco , J., Friesen , R

    Chen , M. C.-Y., Di Francesco , J., Friesen , R. K., et al. 2024, , 977, 135, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad88e8

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    2019, , 877, 88, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b23

    Coud \'e , S., Bastien , P., Houde , M., et al. 2019, , 877, 88, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b23

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    Crutcher , R. M. 1999, , 520, 706, 10.1086/307483

    1999 doi

  13. [21]

    M., Wandelt , B., Heiles , C., Falgarone , E., & Troland , T

    Crutcher , R. M., Wandelt , B., Heiles , C., Falgarone , E., & Troland , T. H. 2010, , 725, 466, 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/466

    2010 doi

  14. [22]

    T., Friberg , P., Jenness , T., et al

    Dempsey , J. T., Friberg , P., Jenness , T., et al. 2013, , 430, 2534, 10.1093/mnras/stt090

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    S., et al

    Doi , Y., Hasegawa , T., Furuya , R. S., et al. 2020, , 899, 28, 10.3847/1538-4357/aba1e2

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    S., et al

    Eswaraiah , C., Li , D., Furuya , R. S., et al. 2021, , 912, L27, 10.3847/2041-8213/abeb1c

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    M., Ade , P

    Fissel , L. M., Ade , P. A. R., Angil \`e , F. E., et al. 2016, , 824, 134, 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/134

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

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

    Friberg , P., Bastien , P., Berry , D., 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 , 991...

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    K., Pineda , J

    Friesen , R. K., Pineda , J. E., co-PIs , et al. 2017, , 843, 63, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d58

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    M., Rao , R., & Marrone , D

    Girart , J. M., Rao , R., & Marrone , D. P. 2006, Science, 313, 812, 10.1126/science.1129093

    2006 doi

  21. [29]

    S., Holland , W

    Greaves , J. S., Holland , W. S., Jenness , T., et al. 2003, , 340, 353, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06230.x

    2003 doi

  22. [30]

    2021, , 913, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf3c4

    Hwang , J., Kim , J., Pattle , K., et al. 2021, , 913, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf3c4

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    2024, , 686, A202, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449182

    Jiao , W., Wang , K., Xu , F., Wang , C., & Beuther , H. 2024, , 686, A202, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449182

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    L., Evans , II, N

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

    2008 doi

  25. [33]

    1967, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 62, 932, 10.1080/01621459.1967.10500904

    Klotz, J. 1967, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 62, 932, 10.1080/01621459.1967.10500904

    1967 doi

  26. [34]

    Kolmogorov, A. N. 1933, Foundations of the Theory of Probability

    1933

  27. [35]

    2020, , 635, A34, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834753

    K \"o nyves , V., Andr \'e , P., Arzoumanian , D., et al. 2020, , 635, A34, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834753

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    2020, , 893, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7eac

    Kuznetsova , A., Hartmann , L., & Heitsch , F. 2020, , 893, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7eac

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    H., et al

    Kwon , J., Tamura , M., Hough , J. H., et al. 2015, , 220, 17, 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/17

    2015 doi

  30. [38]

    2018, , 859, 4, 10.3847/1538-4357/aabd82

    Kwon , J., Doi , Y., Tamura , M., et al. 2018, , 859, 4, 10.3847/1538-4357/aabd82

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    2020, , 638, A74, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936442

    Ladjelate , B., Andr \'e , P., K \"o nyves , V., et al. 2020, , 638, A74, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936442

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    2007, , 106, 225, 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2007.01.038

    Lazarian , A. 2007, , 106, 225, 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2007.01.038

    2007 doi

  33. [41]

    2007, , 378, 910, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11817.x

    Lazarian , A., & Hoang , T. 2007, , 378, 910, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11817.x

    2007 doi

  34. [42]

    Lee , J. W. Y., Hull , C. L. H., & Offner , S. S. R. 2017, , 834, 201, 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/201

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    H., Otto , F., et al

    Li , H.-B., Yuen , K. H., Otto , F., et al. 2015, , 520, 518, 10.1038/nature14291

    2015 doi

  36. [44]

    2019, , 877, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0958

    Liu , J., Qiu , K., Berry , D., et al. 2019, , 877, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0958

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    C., McPhee , C

    Matthews , B. C., McPhee , C. A., Fissel , L. M., & Curran , R. L. 2009, , 182, 143, 10.1088/0067-0049/182/1/143

    2009 doi

  38. [46]

    C., & Wilson , C

    Matthews , B. C., & Wilson , C. D. 2002, , 571, 356, 10.1086/339915

    2002 doi

  39. [47]

    2021, , 654, A78, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141533

    Men'shchikov , A. 2021, , 654, A78, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141533

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    2012, , 542, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/201218797

    Men'shchikov , A., Andr \'e , P., Didelon , P., et al. 2012, , 542, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/201218797

    2012 doi

  41. [49]

    1956, , 116, 503, 10.1093/mnras/116.5.503

    Mestel , L., & Spitzer , Jr., L. 1956, , 116, 503, 10.1093/mnras/116.5.503

    1956 doi

  42. [50]

    Mouschovias , T. C. 1976, , 207, 141, 10.1086/154478

    1976 doi

  43. [51]

    C., & Benson , P

    Myers , P. C., & Benson , P. J. 1983, , 266, 309, 10.1086/160780

    1983 doi

  44. [52]

    N., Loinard , L., Dzib , S

    Ortiz-Le \'o n , G. N., Loinard , L., Dzib , S. A., et al. 2018, , 869, L33, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf6ad

    2018 doi

  45. [53]

    K., Fissel , L., et al

    Pandhi , A., Friesen , R. K., Fissel , L., et al. 2023, , 525, 364, 10.1093/mnras/stad2283

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    2019, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 15, 10.3389/fspas.2019.00015

    Pattle , K., & Fissel , L. 2019, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 15, 10.3389/fspas.2019.00015

    2019 doi

  47. [55]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Pattle , K., Fissel , L., Tahani , M., Liu , T., & Ntormousi , E. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 193, 10.48550/arXiv.2203.11179

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    2017, , 846, 122, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa80e5

    Pattle , K., Ward-Thompson , D., Berry , D., et al. 2017, , 846, 122, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa80e5

    2017 doi

  49. [57]

    2021, , 907, 88, 10.3847/1538-4357/abcc6c

    Pattle , K., Lai , S.-P., Di Francesco , J., et al. 2021, , 907, 88, 10.3847/1538-4357/abcc6c

    2021 doi

  50. [58]

    2025, , 543, 3547, 10.1093/mnras/staf1549

    Pattle , K., Di Francesco , J., Hatchell , J., et al. 2025, , 543, 3547, 10.1093/mnras/staf1549

    2025 doi

  51. [59]

    2021, , 645, A55, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936534

    Pezzuto , S., Benedettini , M., Di Francesco , J., et al. 2021, , 645, A55, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936534

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    Pillai , T. G. S., Clemens , D. P., Reissl , S., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 1195, 10.1038/s41550-020-1172-6

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

    E., Friesen , R

    Pineda , J. E., Friesen , R. K., (co-PIs) , et al. 2026, , 282, 18, 10.3847/1538-4365/ae11b1

    2026 doi

  54. [62]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2015, , 576, A104, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424082

    2015 doi

  55. [63]

    2016, , 586, A138, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525896

    ---. 2016, , 586, A138, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525896

    2016 doi

  56. [64]

    Poidevin , F., Bastien , P., & Matthews , B. C. 2010, , 716, 893, 10.1088/0004-637X/716/2/893

    2010 doi

  57. [65]

    M., et al

    Qiu , K., Zhang , Q., Menten , K. M., et al. 2014, , 794, L18, 10.1088/2041-8205/794/1/L18

    2014 doi

  58. [66]

    I., Myers , P

    Sadavoy , S. I., Myers , P. C., Stephens , I. W., et al. 2018, , 869, 115, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaef81

    2018 doi

  59. [67]

    1988, , 230, 321, 10.1093/mnras/230.2321

    Sato , S., Tamura , M., Nagata , T., et al. 1988, , 230, 321, 10.1093/mnras/230.2321

    1988 doi

  60. [68]

    W., & Seshadri , T

    Sharma , E., Gopinathan , M., Soam , A., Lee , C. W., & Seshadri , T. R. 2022, , 517, 1138, 10.1093/mnras/stac2487

    2022 doi

  61. [69]

    2025, , 994, 56, 10.3847/1538-4357/ae03a9

    Sharma , E., Pattle , K., Li , D., et al. 2025, , 994, 56, 10.3847/1538-4357/ae03a9

    2025 doi

  62. [70]

    1948, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 19, 279

    Smirnov , N. 1948, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 19, 279

    1948

  63. [71]

    2018, , 861, 65, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac4a6

    Soam , A., Pattle , K., Ward-Thompson , D., et al. 2018, , 861, 65, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac4a6

    2018 doi

  64. [72]

    Soler , J. D. 2019, , 629, A96, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935779

    2019 doi

  65. [73]

    Strittmatter , P. A. 1966, , 132, 359, 10.1093/mnras/132.2.359

    1966 doi

  66. [74]

    C., & Kainulainen , J

    Tahani , M., Plume , R., Brown , J. C., & Kainulainen , J. 2018, , 614, A100, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732219

    2018 doi

  67. [75]

    S., et al

    Tahani , M., Bastien , P., Furuya , R. S., et al. 2023, , 944, 139, 10.3847/1538-4357/acac81

    2023 doi

  68. [76]

    2025, , 696, A35, 10.1051/0004-6361/202453265

    Tritsis , A., Basu , S., & Federrath , C. 2025, , 696, A35, 10.1051/0004-6361/202453265

    2025 doi

  69. [77]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Tsukamoto , Y., Maury , A., Commercon , B., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 317, 10.48550/arXiv.2209.13765

    2023 doi

  70. [78]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  71. [79]

    2007, , 119, 855, 10.1086/521277

    Ward-Thompson , D., Di Francesco , J., Hatchell , J., et al. 2007, , 119, 855, 10.1086/521277

    2007 doi

  72. [80]

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

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

    2017 doi

  73. [81]

    S., Schlafly , E

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

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed May 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.