Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 34 references

Circum-nuclear eccentric gas flow in the Galactic Center revealed by ALMA CMZ Exploration Survey (ACES)

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read G0.02 is argued to be a kinematic tracer of the inner Galactic potential, with its elliptical longitude-velocity structure read as an eccentric orbital trajectory.

desk verdict A serious alternative to the SN-remnant reading of G0.02, but the paper's 'kinematic tracer' claim is ahead of its own evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.11553 v1 pith:BY7CCIWS submitted 2025-06-13 astro-ph.GA

Yoshiaki Sofue , Tomoharu Oka , Steven N. Longmore , Daniel Walker , Adam Ginsburg , Jonathan D. Henshaw , John Bally , Ashley T. Barnes
show 36 more authors
Cara Battersby Laura Colzi Paul Ho Izaskun Jimenez-Serra J. M. Diederik Kruijssen Elizabeth Mills Maya A. Petkova Mattia C. Sormani Jennifer Wallace Jairo Armijos-Abendaño Katarzyna M. Dutkowska Rei Enokiya Pablo García Savannah Gramze Christian Henkel Pei-Ying Hsieh Yue Hu Katharina Immer Yuhei Iwata Janik Karoly Ralf S. Klessen Kotaro Kohno Mark R. Krumholz Dani Lipman Mark R. Morris Francisco Nogueras-Lara Jaime E. Pineda Sergio Martín Miguel Angel Requenatorres Víctor M. Rivilla Denise Riquelme-Vásquez Álvaro Sánchez-Monge Miriam G. Santa-Maria Howard A. Smith Volker Tolls Q. Daniel Wang
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Galacticcentermoleculargaskinematicshigh-velocitycompactcloudeccentricorbitlongitude-velocitydiagramcircumnucleardisktest-particlesimulationALMAsurvey
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 analyzes ALMA CS (J=2–1) line data of the innermost ~10 pc of the Milky Way and argues that the high-velocity compact cloud G0.02, located at (l, b, v) ~ (+0.02°, −0.02°, +100 km/s), is not simply a supernova-disrupted clump but part of a dense gas stream on an eccentric orbit around the central gravitational potential. The observed elliptical structure in the longitude-velocity diagram is read as the orbital trajectory of a noncircular motion within an extended central mass distribution. If this interpretation holds, G0.02 offers a rare direct probe of the gravitational potential and enclosed mass in the central 10 pc, complementing stellar dynamical measurements. It also explains the cloud's large ~50 km/s velocity width as orbital shear rather than requiring a ~$10^{52}$ erg explosion.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construct is the tilted ellipse fit to the longitude-velocity diagram, v_LSR = A x ± B $\sqrt$(1 − (Δx/a)^2), with A = 1600 km/s per degree, B = 100 km/s, a = 0.065° (9.3 pc), and center offset 0.01° east of Sgr A*. The fit translates the observed LV ellipse into a ring of radius 9.3 pc rotating at ~104 km/s and expanding at ~100 km/s. On the dynamical side, the simulations use a logarithmic gravitational potential Φ = (1/2) $v_0^{2}$ ln(Σ (x_i/q_i)^2) with axial ratios q, letting an ensemble of test particles initially in a small sphere evolve; an eccentric orbit in the spherical (q = 1:1:1) case yields the U-type PVD, reproducing the arc-shaped LVD, the large line width from velocity shear along the tangent point, and the lopsided line profile. The U-type PVD is a curved longitude-velocity signature produced by eccentric motion in an extended-mass potential, as opposed to the I-type straight ridges from circular rotation. The machinery also includes a tidal-disruption calculation showing a compact $10^{5}$ solar-mass cloud would be stretched into a spiral within one orbital rotation, arguing that G0.02 is an arm-like stream rather than a surviving cloud.

What would settle it

A direct multi-epoch measurement of G0.02's transverse motion relative to Sgr A* would settle it: an eccentric orbit predicts an acceleration and curl consistent with the fitted ~104 km/s rotation in a ~2.5 × $10^{7}$ solar-mass enclosed potential, while a supernova-driven expansion would show motion diverging from a common origin with a symmetric line profile.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that G0.02 traces an eccentric orbit in the nuclear gravitational field. Fitting the observed LV ellipse gives a ring of radius R = 9.3 pc rotating at V_rot ~ 104 km/s and expanding at ~100 km/s; test-particle simulations in a logarithmic potential of extended mass produce a U-type position-velocity diagram with a curved arc and a lopsided line profile that matches the observed sharp high-velocity cutoff. The paper therefore concludes that G0.02 is a kinematic tracer of the inner potential, a rare case of resolved dense gas following an eccentric orbit, and suggests that the cloud is better regarded as a piece of a circum-nuclear arm than a bound cloud, since a $10^{5}$ solar-mass cloud in that region would be tidally disrupted within one orbit. The authors note that expanding-ring and supernova-expansion models can reproduce some LV morphologies, so they are not ruled out; the eccentric-orbit model is presented as the most natural explanation.

Load-bearing premise

The inference that the observed elliptical motion is an orbital trajectory rests on treating the gas as collisionless test particles moving only in a smooth stellar gravitational potential, ignoring magnetic fields, gas pressure, self-gravity, and feedback; if those forces shape the cloud's kinematics significantly, the orbit reading is invalid.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If G0.02 is on an eccentric orbit, its line-of-sight velocity field maps the enclosed mass: the fitted rotation of ~104 km/s at R = 9.3 pc implies M ~ 2.5 × 10^7 solar masses within 10 pc for a spherical potential, a value that can be tested against stellar dynamics.
  • The ~50 km/s line width of G0.02 becomes a natural consequence of orbital shear along the tangent point of the ellipse, removing the need for a ~10^52 erg supernova energy injection and altering the energy budget for Galactic-center feedback.
  • G0.02 and Arm V share similar tilt angles (~14–16°), which, if real, identifies a coherent family of circum-nuclear arms and implies long-lived gas streaming structures in the central 10 pc.
  • Resolved molecular clouds on eccentric orbits in deep nuclear potentials make the inner ~10 pc a laboratory for 3D orbital reconstruction and for studying how gas is fed toward Sgr A*.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the eccentric-orbit interpretation would be strengthened if the same U-type signature appears in other high-velocity compact clouds in the ACES data, a test the paper does not perform.
  • Editorial inference: if the cloud is genuinely orbiting, modeling the full (l, b, v) cube should recover a space velocity and acceleration that can be compared with predicted stellar mass distributions, effectively mapping the central potential from gas kinematics alone.
  • Editorial inference: the expanding-ring and eccentric-orbit models make different quantitative predictions for line-profile symmetry (symmetric versus lopsided with a sharp cutoff), so an asymmetry measurement on the existing cube could discriminate between them even though the paper leaves both open.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the CS (J=2-1) cube from the ACES internal data release to study the high-velocity compact cloud G+0.02-0.02+100 (G0.02) in the inner ~10 pc of the Galactic Center. The authors fit an elliptical longitude-velocity diagram, interpret it as the projection of an eccentric, non-circular molecular orbit in the gravitational potential of an extended central mass distribution, and support this with test-particle simulations in spherical, disc, and triaxial-bar potentials. They conclude that G0.02 is a kinematic tracer of the inner potential. The paper explicitly acknowledges that an expanding-ring model and an SN-induced local-expansion model also reproduce parts of the observed LVD, and it does not quantitatively rule them out.

Significance. The potential value of the manuscript is in the high-resolution ACES data and in the explicit exploration of a dynamical, eccentric-orbit interpretation for a well-known anomalous-kinematics cloud in the Galactic Center. If the orbital interpretation could be robustly separated from the expanding-ring and SN-expansion alternatives, it would offer a rare, resolved tracer of the inner nuclear potential. The tidal-disruption argument in Section 4.3.1 is a useful and physically motivated addition. However, as written the central claim is not uniquely established: the paper's own Section 4.1 lists two alternative models that it cannot rule out, and the simulation comparisons are qualitative by-eye assessments without a statistical or likelihood-based model comparison. These limitations directly affect the load-bearing inference in the Abstract and Section 5.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1; Section 5] The central conclusion that G0.02 is a kinematic tracer of the inner potential is not supported by the evidence presented. Section 4.1 states that 'the O-type LV feature is better reproduced by the expanding-ring model, and the high-velocity LV wing is explained by the SN-induced local expansion model. So, we cannot rule out these models at this time.' Since Section 5 then concludes that G0.02 'is thus a kinematic tracer of the inner potential,' the observed LVD morphology is explicitly degenerate among physically distinct models. The authors need to provide a quantitative model comparison—for example, likelihood or residual measures in the (l,v) plane, or predicted observables that can discriminate between eccentric-orbit, expanding-ring, and SN-expansion kinematics—before the orbital interpretation can be accepted over the alternatives they list.
  2. [Section 2.3, Eq. (1)] The LV ellipse is fitted by eye to ridges read from Fig. 1C, with no uncertainties, no automated fitting procedure, and no robustness test. The parameters A=1600 km/s per degree, B=100 km/s, a=0.065 deg, and the center offset are then used to derive V_rot ~ 104 km/s, which in turn calibrates the potential scale v0 in Section 3.2. The simulation comparison is therefore not an independent test of the inferred kinematics: the velocity scale of the potential is taken from the same observed ellipse the simulations are meant to reproduce. Please provide a quantitative measurement of the ellipse parameters with uncertainties, and show how the conclusions depend on the assumed values.
  3. [Section 3.2; Section 4.5] The test-particle simulations explicitly neglect hydrodynamics and MHD effects, and Section 3.2 states that the results 'apply only to the overall orbital behavior in the gravitational potential.' This is a reasonable starting point, but the manuscript then uses magnetic-field alignment in Section 4.5 as supporting evidence for the arm interpretation, and Section 4.1 invokes SN-driven expansion. To justify the claim that G0.02 traces the gravitational potential, the authors should quantitatively assess whether thermal pressure, magnetic pressure, and feedback forces are subdominant to the tidal/gravitational forces in this cloud—for example, by comparing the Alfvén speed and sound speed with the inferred orbital shear velocity. Without such an estimate, the neglect of non-gravitational forces remains an untested assumption in the central interpretation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.3, Eq. (1)] The notation in Eq. (1) is not fully defined: A is given in km/s per degree, B in km/s, and a in degrees, while Δx is used without explicitly stating that it is in degrees. Please clarify the units and define all symbols.
  2. [Throughout] Degree symbols are rendered inconsistently (e.g., '0 ◦.02', '+0 ◦.02', '−0 ◦.02'); please standardize the notation.
  3. [Section 2.1] The phrase 'The used CS cube' is awkward; please rephrase to 'The CS cube used in this work'.
  4. [Figure 1 caption] The caption reads 'Jy beam −1m s−1', which is missing a space or superscript; also state the velocity integration range used for the moment-0 map.
  5. [Section 3.2] The sentence 'The general agreement is that solving the initial value problem does not rule out other models, including those concluded here as unlikely' is confusing and appears to contradict the surrounding text. Please rephrase to state clearly what the simulations do and do not establish.
  6. [Section 2.1] The paper refers to 'Paper I (Sofue et al. 2025)' for the data description; if that paper is not yet published, please indicate the archival status of the internal ACES data release.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the eccentric-orbit model is an independent hypothesis, though its evidential support is weakened by admitted degeneracy with non-gravitational models.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (1) identify an elliptical LVD in the CS cube (observation); (2) fit an ellipse by Eq. 1 as a parameterization of the observed ridge; (3) hypothesize that the ellipse is an eccentric orbit in the central gravitational potential; (4) run N-body test-particle simulations in a logarithmic potential with various axial ratios; (5) compare simulated LVDs by eye. Steps (3)-(5) do not feed fitted parameters back into the model as constraints: the simulation initial conditions are given in dimensionless units and are chosen to place a cloud near the observed location, and the potential is a generic extended-mass model (Eq. 2). The resulting U-type PVD is a genuine dynamical consequence of the orbit, not an encoding of the fitted ellipse. The mass estimate in Sec. 4.4 uses the rotation velocity read from the ellipse fit, but this is a derived implication of the orbital interpretation, not an input that forces the simulation's agreement. The paper explicitly acknowledges in Sec. 4.1 that the O-type LV feature is better reproduced by an expanding-ring model and that the high-velocity wing is explained by an SN-induced expansion model, stating 'we cannot rule out these models at this time.' Similarly, Sec. 3.2 contains the notable caveat that solving the initial value problem 'does not rule out other models.' These admissions make the central claim a plausible interpretation rather than a circularly established result. Self-citations (Sofue 2013, 2020, 2025) provide background and data provenance but are not used to justify the uniqueness of the orbital model, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked from the authors' prior work. No step reduces by construction to its own inputs, and no self-citation chain carries the argument.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a visual interpretation of the LVD (with fitted ellipse parameters A, B, a, and center offset), an assumed logarithmic potential with scale velocity and radius calibrated to those fits, and hand-chosen initial conditions for the test particle simulations. The model treats the gas as collisionless test particles, neglecting hydrodynamics, magnetic fields, and self-gravity, an assumption explicitly stated in Sec 3.2. No new physical entities are introduced; names like 'mini-CMZ' are new labels for known gas. The potential shape and the test-particle approximation are the most consequential assumptions.

free parameters (10)
  • LV ellipse semi-major a = 0.065 deg (9.3 pc)
    Fit to the ridges of the E and W arcs in the LVD (Eq. 1, Sec 2.3); sets the ring radius.
  • LV ellipse velocity gradient A = 1600 km/s per deg
    Fit coefficient in Eq. (1); converted to V_rot = 104 km/s at 10 pc.
  • LV ellipse velocity half-width B = 100 km/s
    Fit coefficient in Eq. (1); interpreted as expansion or orbital velocity component.
  • LV ellipse center offset = +0.046 deg (1.4 pc east)
    Center of the fitted ellipse in Eq. (1), offset east of Sgr A*.
  • Potential scale velocity v0 = ~104 km/s (from A)
    Normalization of the logarithmic potential Eq. (2), set to the rotation velocity inferred from the ellipse fit.
  • Potential scale radius r0 = ~10 pc (from a)
    Scale radius of orbits, matched to the ring radius from the ellipse fit.
  • Simulation initial conditions = e.g. (1,0,0.3; 0.3,0.8,0.3) for panel F
    Chosen by hand so that the simulated orbital arc matches the observed LVD and moment map; varies per panel.
  • Initial cloud radius r_c = 0.1 r0 (~1 pc)
    Sets the initial spread of test particles; chosen ad hoc (Sec 3.2).
  • Initial velocity dispersion sigma_v = 0.1 v0 (~10 km/s)
    Initial velocity spread; chosen ad hoc (Sec 3.2).
  • Potential axial ratios q = 1:1:1 for spherical; 1:1:0.63 for disc; 1:0.85:0.63 for bar
    Shape parameters of the logarithmic potential; spherical case is used to claim the eccentric orbit model; other shapes are alternatives.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The gravitational potential in the central 10 pc can be approximated by a logarithmic potential Phi = 1/2 v0^2 ln(Sum(xi/qi)^2), with a roughly flat rotation curve.
    Adopted in Sec 3.2 (Eq. 2); the real potential in the innermost 10 pc is not well determined and may differ from this form.
  • domain assumption Gas clouds in the central 10 pc behave as collisionless test particles; gas pressure, magnetic fields, self-gravity, and hydrodynamic feedback are neglected.
    Stated explicitly in Sec 3.2: 'the hydrodynamic and MHD effects are not evaluated'; the central claim that the LVD traces an orbit depends on this.
  • domain assumption The observed LVD ridges have been correctly identified and traced by eye from the maximum-intensity LVD (Fig. 1C).
    Section 2.3 relies on visual reading of ridge positions; a different tracing could change the fitted ellipse parameters.
  • standard math The distance to the Galactic Center is R0 = 8.2 kpc, converting angular scales to physical sizes.
    Adopted from Gravity Collaboration 2019; standard for the field.
  • domain assumption The cloud mass and radius estimates (M_mol ~ 1e5 Msun, r ~ 0.7 pc) are approximately correct.
    Taken from Oka et al. 1999 and measured on the moment map; if the mass were higher or the cloud denser, the tidal disruption argument could change.
  • standard math The virial theorem and Roche limit formula apply to assess binding and tidal survival.
    Used in Sec 3.1 and 4.3.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Circum-nuclear eccentric gas flow in the Galactic Center revealed by ALMA CMZ Exploration Survey (ACES)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BY7CCIWS

@misc{pith2026250611553,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Circum-nuclear eccentric gas flow in the Galactic Center revealed by ALMA CMZ Exploration Survey (ACES)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BY7CCIWS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.11553}
}
abstract

We analyze the CS (J=2-1) line cube from the internal data release obtained by the large-scale program "ALMA CMZ Exploration Survey (ACES)" to investigate the kinematic structure of the innermost $\sim 10$ pc region of the Galaxy, which contains the high-velocity compact cloud (HVCC) at $(l,b,v_{\rm lsr})\sim(+0^\circ.02,-0^\circ.02, 100 {\rm km~s}^{-1})$ (hereafter G0.02). The longitude-velocity diagram (LVD) of the cloud draws an elliptical structure, which is interpreted as an orbital trajectory in the $(l,V_{\rm lsr})$ space of a noncircular (eccentric) motion of the molecular gas in the gravitational potential of an extended mass distribution in the central 10 pc of the Galaxy. We argue that G0.02 is a kinematic tracer of the inner potential, a rare case of a dense gas following an eccentric orbit in the nuclear gravitational field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.11553 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. [Top left] Moment 0 map of G0.02 in the CS (J = 2 − 1) line (Jy/b m s−1 ) at vLSR ≥ 75 km s−1 . Contours are every 2 Jy beam−1 m s−1 . [Bottom left] LVD of maximum intensity, where horizontally extended com￾ponents have been subtracted. Contours are every 0.05 Jy beam−1 . [Right panels] Simulation of G0.02 for a similar condition as F in figure 3. The general property is well reproduced except for the high velocity … view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. [A] ACES Moment 0 map of the CS (J = 2−1) line in Jy beam−1m s −1 . The circle indicates G0.02 and the dashed ellipse outlines an inclined 10-pc ring. [B] LVD of the maximum intensity in Jy beam−1 . Note the high-velocity structures at |l − lSgr A∗ | < ∼ 0 ◦ .07 (10 pc), which we call the ’mini CMZ’. [C] Same, but enlarged. The LV ellipse and some well known objects are indicated. [D] Same, but in the H13CN (J = 1 −… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Panel [A] (a) Observed CS (J = 2 − 1)line intensity map at |vLSR| ≥ 75 km s−1 . (b) LVD with broad components being subtracted. (c) Fitted LV ellipse (Eq. 1). (d) Line profile of G0.02. [B] Circular orbit of a cloud in a spherical potential (q = 1 : 1 : 1) plotted in the (x, y) (gray dots), (x, z) (black), and (x, v) (PVD) planes for initial condition (r;v) = (1, 0, 0.3; 0., 1, 0) (in normalized units). The 3rd pane… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Tidal disruption of a cloud of mass ∼ 105M⊙• and radius ∼ 1.6 pc orbiting in the central bulge. Blue and black dots in the left panel represent projections on (x, y) and (x, z) planes, respectively, at every 0.1 orbital rotation, and the right panel shows LVD (x, vy). …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aauthor, A., Bauthor, B., & Cauthor, C.\ 2001, PASJ, 53, 000

    work page 2001

  2. [2]

    Akshaya, M. S. & Hoang, T.\ 2024, , 531, 5012. doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1464

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1464 2024

  3. [3]

    E., Stark A

    Binney J., Gerhard O. E., Stark A. A., Bally J., Uchida K. I., 1991, MNRAS, 252, 210

    work page 1991

  4. [4]

    & Gerhard, O.\ 2016, , 54, 529

    Bland-Hawthorn, J. & Gerhard, O.\ 2016, , 54, 529. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441 2016

  5. [5]

    Chevance M., Kruijssen J. M. D., Longmore S. N., 2025, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2501.13160

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.13160 2025

  6. [6]

    A., Tolls, V., et al.\ 2011, , The Galactic Center in the Far-infrared, 142, 4, 134

    Etxaluze, M., Smith, H. A., Tolls, V., et al.\ 2011, , The Galactic Center in the Far-infrared, 142, 4, 134. doi:10.1088/0004-6256/142/4/134

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/142/4/134 2011

  7. [7]

    M., Hartmann, D., & Thaddeus, P.\ 2001, , 547, 792

    Dame, T. M., Hartmann, D., & Thaddeus, P.\ 2001, , 547, 792. doi:10.1086/318388

    doi:10.1086/318388 2001

  8. [8]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3944

    Erwin, P.\ 2024, , 528, 3613. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3944

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3944 2024

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    T., et al.\ 2024, , 968, L11

    Ginsburg, A., Bally, J., Barnes, A. T., et al.\ 2024, , 968, L11. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad47fa

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935656

    Gravity Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al.\ 2019, , 625, L10. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935656

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    D., Barnes, A

    Henshaw, J. D., Barnes, A. T., Battersby, C., et al.\ 2023, Protostars and Planets VII, 534, 83. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2203.11223

    2023 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac449a

    Heywood, I., Rammala, I., Camilo, F., et al.\ 2022, , 925, 165. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac449a

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    M., Kim, W.-T., et al.\ 2021, , 913, 94

    Hsieh, P.-Y., Koch, P. M., Kim, W.-T., et al.\ 2021, , 913, 94. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf4cd

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc9b0

    Iwata, Y., Oka, T., Takekawa, S., et al.\ 2023, , 950, 25. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc9b0

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    Kaifu, N., Kato, T., & Iguchi, T.\ 1972, Nature Physical Science, 238, 105

    1972

  8. [16]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca66a

    Kaneko, M., Oka, T., Yokozuka, H., et al.\ 2023, , 942, 46. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca66a

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adbc67

    Karoly, J., Ward-Thompson, D., Pattle, K., et al.\ 2025, , 982, 1, L22. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adbc67

    2025 doi

  10. [18]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D., Dale, J. E., & Longmore, S. N.\ 2015, , 447, 1059. doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2526

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    J., et al.\ 2008, , 60, 429

    Oka, T., Hasegawa, T., White, G. J., et al.\ 2008, , 60, 429. doi:10.1093/pasj/60.3.429

    2008 doi

  12. [20]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac6bfc

    Oka, T., Uruno, A., Enokiya, R., et al.\ 2022, , 261, 13. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac6bfc

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    J., Hasegawa, T., et al.\ 1999, , 515, 249

    Oka, T., White, G. J., Hasegawa, T., et al.\ 1999, , 515, 249. doi:10.1086/307029

    1999 doi

  14. [22]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2819

    Portail, M., Gerhard, O., Wegg, C., et al.\ 2017, , 465, 1621. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2819

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    Z.\ 1972, , 175, L127

    Scoville, N. Z.\ 1972, , 175, L127

    1972

  16. [24]

    doi:10.1093/pasj/65.6.118

    Sofue, Y.\ 2013, , 65, 118. doi:10.1093/pasj/65.6.118

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    Sofue, Y.\ 2017, , 470, 1982

    2017

  18. [26]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2389

    Sofue, Y.\ 2020, , 498, 1335. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2389

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    Sofue, Y., Fujimoto, M., & Wielebinski, R.\ 1986, ,

    1986

  20. [28]

    Sofue, Y. et al. 2025, PASJ in press, arXiv:2504.03331 (Paper I)

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    C., Tress, R

    Sormani, M. C., Tress, R. G., Glover, S. C. O., et al.\ 2020, , 497, 5024. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1999

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/121

    Takekawa, S., Oka, T., & Tanaka, K.\ 2017, , 834, 121. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/121

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psy080

    Tsuboi, M., Kitamura, Y., Uehara, K., et al.\ 2018, , 70, 85. doi:10.1093/pasj/psy080

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    K.\ 2009, , 61, 29

    Tsuboi, M., Miyazaki, A., & Okumura, S. K.\ 2009, , 61, 29. doi:10.1093/pasj/61.1.29

    2009 doi

  25. [33]

    ESF, Investing in your future

    Yang, M.-Z., Lai, S.-P., Karoly, J., et al.\ 2025, arXiv:2503.05198. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2503.05198input/ack.tex0000664000000000000000000001165715022755177012222 0ustar rootroot ack This paper makes use of the following ALMA data: ADS/JAO.ALMA \# 2021.1.00172: / ALMA is a partn...

    2025 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    ALMA CMZ Exploration Survey (ACES)

    \@bibitem \@bib@author\@prev@author \@set@biblabel \@lbibitem[#1] \@bib@parse#1()\@nil \@set@biblabel \@bib@parse#1(#2)#3\@nil \@bib@author #1 @edef\@bib@year @space#2 \@empty \@set@biblabel#1 \@bib@author\@empty \@latex@warning Author name should be given for reference entry ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.