Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 87 references

Synthetic observations of dust emission and polarisation of Galactic cold clumps

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that the observed decrease in polarisation fraction towards Galactic cold clumps is too large to be caused by magnetic field geometry alone, so imperfect grain alignment by radiative torques is likely required.

desk verdict A careful synthetic-observation study that makes a plausible case for RAT-induced depolarisation in PGCC clumps, but the observational benchmark is too preliminary to pin the number down. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03421 v1 pith:PW2RJNZP submitted 2019-08-09 astro-ph.GA

Mika Juvela (1) , Paolo Padoan (2) , Isabelle Ristorcelli (3) , Veli-Matti Pelkonen (2) ((1) University of Helsinki , (2) University of Barcelona , (3) IRAP , Toulouse) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords interstellarmediumcoldclumpsdustpolarisationmagneticfieldsradiativetransferMHDsimulationsgrainalignmenttorques
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 builds synthetic observations of cold dusty clumps from magnetohydrodynamic simulations and compares them with the Planck Catalogue of Galactic Cold Clumps (PGCC). The simulated clumps match the real catalogue in size, aspect ratio, and temperature, but have fluxes and column densities a few times lower, a gap the authors attribute mainly to the lower average column density of the model volume rather than to dust opacity. The central result concerns polarisation: with grain alignment efficiency held constant, magnetic field geometry alone lowers the polarisation fraction $p$ by only about $\Delta p=1\%$ from the local background to the clump centre, and can even raise $p$ when the line of sight is parallel to the mean field. Since the real PGCC clumps show a markedly larger drop, the paper concludes that an additional mechanism, most plausibly the imperfect grain alignment predicted by radiative torque theory, is needed.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a chain of synthetic observations: MHD snapshots of a 250 pc box of supernova-driven turbulence with a uniform mean magnetic field; Monte Carlo radiative transfer (the SOC code) that solves dust temperatures, 100–850 $\mu$m surface brightness, and 353 GHz Stokes $I,Q,U$ under constant grain alignment; and a clump-extraction algorithm that mirrors the PGCC detection pipeline. The load-bearing diagnostics are the radial profile of the polarisation fraction, the centre-to-background $p$ contrast, and two line-of-sight field-geometry descriptors: $\langle \cos^2\gamma\rangle$, the emission-weighted projection of the magnetic field onto the plane of the sky, and $S_{\rm LOS}$, the polarisation-angle dispersion along the line of sight. The near-perfect anticorrelation between $p$ and $S_{\rm LOS}$ ($r\approx-0.96$) shows that field tangling is what controls $p$ in the model, yet it produces only a small net drop.

What would settle it

If a sample of PGCC clumps with line-of-sight angles measured close to the plane of the sky ($\gamma\approx 0^\circ$, so that projection effects are minimised) and with low enough extinction for radiative torques to keep grains aligned shows a centre-to-background polarisation contrast near 0.85 rather than 0.60, the claim that extra depolarisation requires alignment loss would be overturned; a contrast near 0.60 in exactly that sample would confirm it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that geometrical depolarisation is too weak to explain the observed polarisation decrease in cold clumps. In the synthetic observations, the centre-to-background ratio of the polarisation fraction is about 0.85 and the radial drop is of order $1\%$, whereas the PGCC clumps show a ratio near 0.60. Because the simulations assume constant grain alignment efficiency, the extra drop in the real clumps must come from another factor, and the paper points to the radiative torque (RAT) mechanism, which weakens alignment in dense, shielded gas. A related, secondary claim is that the lower fluxes and column densities of the synthetic clumps are explained by the model's lower column density, not by a different dust opacity.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes that the simulated 250 pc volume, with its uniform mean magnetic field, constant grain alignment efficiency, and mean column density $N({\rm H}) = 3.8\times10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$, is representative of the sightlines toward real PGCC clumps, which have mean column densities near $8.3\times10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ and unknown field geometry.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The observed polarisation drop towards PGCC clumps becomes a diagnostic of grain-alignment physics, not merely of magnetic field geometry.
  • Column densities and masses derived from Planck cold-clump photometry should be treated with line-of-sight confusion in mind, since the synthetic clumps show that projection effects raise fluxes as the line of sight lengthens.
  • Simulations that aim to predict dust polarisation in star-forming regions must include realistic, environment-dependent grain alignment efficiency rather than a fixed one.
  • The sign and magnitude of the radial $p$ gradient depend on the angle between the line of sight and the mean magnetic field, so interpretation of observations requires a handle on that angle.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same synthetic-observation pipeline could be applied to higher-resolution cold-core catalogues (e.g., Herschel or SCUBA-2 selected sources) to test whether the $p$ contrast scales with column density in the way RAT predicts.
  • A quantitative test of the RAT interpretation would be to rerun the analysis with a position-dependent alignment prescription; the observed contrast of 0.60 then becomes a target that the grain-alignment model must reproduce.
  • If near-infrared extinction data were available for PGCC clumps, the comparison between simulated and observed column densities could be turned into a direct measurement of submillimetre dust emissivity, breaking the degeneracy the paper acknowledges.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper generates synthetic observations of dust emission and polarisation from MHD simulations of a 250 pc supernova-driven turbulent box (18 snapshots, 512^3 root grid), using the SOC Monte Carlo radiative transfer code. The authors run a source-extraction pipeline closely following the PGCC cold-clump algorithm, producing about 1.5 million synthetic clumps over 12 distances and 3 viewing directions, and compare their sizes, fluxes, temperatures, column densities, and polarisation properties with the Planck PGCC catalogue. The principal quantitative result is that, for lines of sight perpendicular to the mean magnetic field, the polarisation fraction p decreases toward clump centres by only about 1 percentage point, with a centre-to-background polarisation contrast of 0.85, whereas a preliminary analysis of the PGCC clumps yields a contrast of about 0.60. The paper interprets this residual as evidence for additional depolarisation in real clumps, most plausibly grain-alignment loss predicted by the radiative-torque alignment mechanism, while cautioning that dust opacity changes cannot be quantified from this study.

Significance. The paper is significant because it is one of the few attempts to compare PGCC-like cold-clump populations extracted from MHD simulations with the full Planck catalogue, and it isolates the geometrical contribution to polarisation-fraction variations under constant grain alignment. The robustness tests (longer lines of sight, modified dust opacity, increased noise, internal heating) are valuable and show which conclusions are stable, and the large synthetic sample gives the statistical comparison real weight. If the quantitative comparison can be established with a matched analysis pipeline, the conclusion that geometric depolarisation alone underproduces the observed p drop would provide a useful constraint on grain-alignment physics in cold clumps. However, the central RAT inference depends on a comparison whose two sides are not currently measured with a common definition, so the significance is conditional on completing that matched comparison.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.4 / Appendix B / Fig. 16i] The central numerical comparison underpinning the RAT suggestion is not a matched one. In Section 4.4 the synthetic contrast is quoted as 0.85, defined as the ratio of p at the clump centre to p in a background at 30 arcmin distance, for x/z views at 5 arcmin resolution and d=231 pc; Fig. 16i defines the 'p contrast' as the ratio of means at R<4 arcmin and R=10-16 arcmin; and Appendix B defines the PGCC contrast as p at the centre divided by the mean over R=16-20 arcmin, using maps convolved to 10 arcmin. No uncertainties are quoted for the PGCC value. Because p contrasts depend on beam size, annulus choice, distance, and line-of-sight confusion, the 0.85 versus 0.60 gap cannot be attributed to grain alignment until the same measurement definition is applied to both samples and the observational errors are propagated.
  2. [Appendix B] The gamma-angle reconstruction assumes a purely azimuthal Galactic magnetic field with a fixed 14 degree pitch angle (Vallee 2017), applied to clump distances and Galactic coordinates. Figure B.1c shows that the observed p contrast stays below unity even at gamma approximately 90 degrees, where the simulations predict an increase; this indicates that either the assumed field geometry, the distance estimates, or the sample selection is not adequately modelling the real sightlines. The conclusion that geometry alone cannot explain the PGCC drop depends on this gamma assignment, so the analysis should include a sensitivity test, for example alternative pitch angles or pitch-angle scatter, higher-latitude subsamples, or use of an observed three-dimensional field model.
  3. [Section 4.3 / Section 3.3.1] The two samples have strongly different column-density habitats: Section 4.3 estimates N(H)=8.3e21 cm^-2 for PGCC sightlines versus N(H)=3.8e21 cm^-2 for the default model, and Section 3.3.1 shows that longer lines of sight (models L2-L4) flatten the p profiles and reduce the centre-to-background contrast. The observed PGCC sample is therefore not directly comparable to the default synthetic one; before invoking RAT, the authors should quote the synthetic contrast for models with matched column density, distance, and selection (for example, L3-L4 or higher-column-density versions of the models) and show how much of the 0.25 residual remains after that matching.
  4. [Section 5 / Appendix B] The central conclusion in Section 5 ('The drop in p is also smaller in the simulations...') is based on a 'preliminary test' whose full analysis is deferred to an unpublished companion paper (Ristorcelli et al. 2019, in prep.). For the present paper to be self-contained and falsifiable, the PGCC contrast and its uncertainties need to be reproducible from the details given here, or the conclusion should be explicitly conditional on the companion analysis being published.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2] The distance list 'from 100 pc to 10000 kpc' should read 'from 100 pc to 10000 pc' (or '10 kpc'), as the same paragraph later refers to d=10000 pc.
  2. [Section 2.2] The noise values are listed as 0.06, 0.01, 0.01, and 0.001 MJy/sr for 100, 350, 350, and 850 micron; the second 350 micron entry should presumably be 550 micron, matching the four wavelengths listed earlier.
  3. [Figure 7 and Figure 8 captions] The captions write fit parameters as 'R = 5.64, = 0.71', omitting the symbol alpha; please restore 'alpha =' for readability.
  4. [Figure 8 caption] The sentence 'The y-direction p values have been multiplied by a factor of four the plot' contains a typo and should read 'multiplied by a factor of four in the plot'.
  5. [Appendix B / Fig. B.1] The caption of Fig. B.1 does not state whether the plotted p values are debiased using Eq. (2) or are raw estimates; since the samples extend to low signal-to-noise, this should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Simulation p-contrast is genuinely computed; the RAT conclusion rests on an unpublished self-cited PGCC value (0.60) rather than on a derivation in this paper.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 4.4 (Discussion), p. 15; see also Appendix B and the reference list entry 'Ristorcelli et al. 2019, in prep.']
    "For the x and z view directions, the average ratio of p values measured at the clump centre and in the background at 30′ distance is 0.85. For the PGCC, the corresponding factor is ∼ 0.60. This is thus significantly smaller, even though the PGCC sources should correspond to a mixture of different LOS vs. B-field configurations. This suggests that the polarised emission from dense clumps is reduced by additional factors, such as the RAT mechanism."

    The load-bearing comparison is between the synthetic value 0.85 and the PGCC value ∼0.60. The 0.60 is not computed in this paper; it is attributed to Ristorcelli et al. (2019, in prep.), whose author list overlaps with the present paper, and Appendix B states that 'the full analysis of polarisation fraction variations will be presented in Ristorcelli et al. (2019)'. The paper's own Appendix B is only a 'preliminary test' and does not produce or verify the 0.60 number under the same 30-arcmin contrast definition. Since the gap between 0.85 and 0.60 is the sole quantitative support for the RAT hypothesis in the conclusions, the central inference depends on accepting an unverified self-cited work rather than on a reduction shown in this paper.

full rationale

The core simulation result is self-contained and not circular: the synthetic p drop (Δp∼1%, centre-to-background contrast 0.85) is obtained from MHD snapshots plus radiative transfer assuming constant grain alignment efficiency and p_max=20%. The contrast ratio is scale-free in p_max because p scales linearly, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and the synthetic value is not adjusted to match the observations. The clump extraction pipeline mirrors the PGCC method, so similarities in size and temperature are partly definitional, but the paper states this explicitly and does not present those similarities as independent predictions. The only substantial circularity concern is the final RAT inference: the observed PGCC contrast, ∼0.60, is cited from an unpublished paper by one of the coauthors, and the paper's own Appendix B provides only a preliminary, differently defined contrast trend. The conclusion is worded cautiously ('suggests', 'may be affected'), and the simulation part would stand alone, but the decisive observational benchmark is not independently established in this paper. No equation reduces to its own input by construction; the issue is a load-bearing self-citation, hence a moderate score of 4 rather than a higher construction-level circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result does not introduce new physical entities or fit parameters to force agreement. The main inputs are the MHD snapshot ensemble, the choice of a uniform mean field and constant alignment, and the standard PGCC detection recipe. The principal domain assumptions are the representativeness of the simulation box and the simple Galactic field model used for the observational gamma angles.

free parameters (3)
  • Maximum polarisation fraction p_max = 20%
    Assumed constant grain alignment efficiency sets the maximum polarisation to 20%; this is an input from prior literature, not fitted, and the central contrast ratio is independent of its value.
  • Dust spectral index beta = 2.0
    Fixed in the SED fitting following the PGCC analysis (Beckwith et al. 1990); affects derived temperatures and masses but not the polarisation contrast claim.
  • Dust opacity model (default and modified thresholds) = Compiègne et al. (2011) diffuse medium model; M1/M5 thresholds n0=1000 and 5000 cm^-3
    The default dust model is chosen as the baseline; the modified-opacity models M1 and M5 use hand-chosen density thresholds. These affect the alternative model tests but not the default geometric depolarisation result.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption MHD simulation snapshots represent the density structure of Galactic cold clump environments
    The 250 pc supernova-driven turbulence box with mean field along y and mean N(H)=3.8e21 cm^-2 is used as the physical model (Sect. 2.1); if unrepresentative, the synthetic catalogue comparisons do not transfer to the Galaxy.
  • domain assumption Constant grain alignment efficiency throughout the volume
    Polarisation is computed with a fixed reduction factor and p_max=20% (Sect. 2.2), so all p variations are geometric by construction.
  • domain assumption The Compiègne et al. (2011) dust model is valid for the simulated clumps
    The default dust opacities are fitted to diffuse medium data; the paper acknowledges this may not hold in dense cores (Sect. 2.2).
  • ad hoc to paper Galactic magnetic field is azimuthal with pitch angle 14 degrees for PGCC gamma estimates
    Appendix B uses this simple model from Vallée (2017) to estimate the line-of-sight angle for real clumps; the paper calls it a very simple model.
  • standard math Radiative transfer and source extraction methods are implemented correctly
    The SOC code and the PGCC-style detection pipeline are cited, and the paper compares with PGCC procedures; we cannot independently verify the code.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Synthetic observations of dust emission and polarisation of Galactic cold clumps." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PW2RJNZP

@misc{pith2026190803421,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Synthetic observations of dust emission and polarisation of Galactic cold clumps},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PW2RJNZP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03421}
}
abstract

The Planck Catalogue of Galactic Cold Clumps (PGCC) contains over 13000 sources detected based on their cold dust signature. They are believed to consist of a mixture of quiescent, pre-stellar, and already star-forming objects. We extracted PGCC-type objects from cloud simulations and examined their physical and polarisation properties. The comparison with the PGCC catalogue helps to characterise the PGCC sample and provides valuable tests for numerical simulations of interstellar medium. We used several MHD snapshots to define the density field of our models. Sub-millimetre images of the surface brightness and polarisation were obtained with radiative transfer calculations. We examined the statistics of synthetic cold clump catalogues and examined the variations of the clump polarisation fraction p. The clump sizes, aspect ratios, and temperatures in the synthetic catalogue are similar to the PGCC. The fluxes and column densities are smaller by a factor of a few. Rather than with an increased dust opacity, this could be explained by increasing the average column density of the models by a factor of two to three, close to N(H2)= 10^22 cm-2. When the line of sight is parallel to the mean magnetic field, the polarisation fraction tends to increase towards the clump centres, contrary to observations. When the field is perpendicular, the polarisation fraction tends to decrease towards the clumps, but the drop in $p$ is small (e.g. from p~8% to p~7%). Magnetic field geometry reduces the polarisation fraction in the simulated clumps by only \Delta p~1% on average. The larger drop seen towards the actual PGCC clumps suggests some loss of grain alignment in the dense medium, such as predicted by the radiative torque mechanism. The statistical study is not able to quantify dust opacity changes at the scale of the PGCC clumps.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03421 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of surface brightness data and clump extraction. The left frame shows the 850 µm map of one snapshot (number 377), with the view direction x and assumed distance of d = 351 pc. The right frame shows the cold residual at 350 µm (857 GHz) for the area indicated with the dashed box in the first frame. The cyan ellipses correspond to the clumps that have been detected with S/N above four at all three Planck wave… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Number of extracted clumps as a function of cloud dis￾tance. The curves correspond to the three different view direc￾tions and show the total number of clumps in the 18 snapshots. show a narrow distribution because all models were subjected to the same radiation field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Distributions of clump FWHM, aspect ratio, temperature, and column density as functions of MHD snapshot for clumps d < 400 pc. The boxplots correspond to data for different snap￾shots and directions (black, blue, and red for the x, y, and z di￾rections, respectively). In each frame, the shaded regions cor￾respond to the distribution of the PGCC catalogue values, light grey for the 1%-99% interval and dark grain for … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of synthetic clump parameters for three distance intervals and view directions. The rows correspond to d < 400 pc, 400 pc < d < 1300 pc, and 1300 pc < d < 3000 pc. The columns show the distributions of physical clump size, as￾pect ratio, colour temperature, …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Radial profiles of median polarisation fraction p. The clump sample is the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Polarisation fraction p as a function of surface brightness for clumps in Fig. 7a-c. The clump distances are d ≤ 231 pc and the frames correspond to the view directions x, y, and z, respectively. The shading indicates the inter-quartile range. For each clump, we also c…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Correlations between various parameters and ∆p, the drop in polarisation towards centre of d ≤ 231 pc clumps (see text). The colour images show logarithmic point density for the clumps from Fig. 8a-c. The frames quote the linear correlation coefficients r. Probabiliti…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Examples of radial profiles of Iν(850µm), p, hcos2 γi, and S LOS. The ten sources are selected randomly from the clumps in the snapshot 377, direction x, distance 152 pc, and S/N > 15. 0 5000 10000 Clumps p (%) 0.0 0.5 log10I (MJy sr 1 ) r = 0.116 20 40 60 (deg) r = 0…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Correlations between parameters p, Iν, hγi, S LOS, and S POS. The values are esti￾mated towards the centres of clumps at dis￾tances d ≤ 231 pc. The correlations are shown in the frames below the diagonal and the his￾tograms of the individual parameters on the di￾agona…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Histograms hγi, S LOS, and S POS for clumps at d = 100− 231 pc. The colours blue, green, and red correspond to the view directions x, y, and z, respectively. different snapshots and view directions. For example, L = 2 used combinations 377x+424y, 443y+472z, and 491z+5…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Comparison of parameters for alterna￾tive models. Each frame shows parameter dis￾tributions for the models (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_16.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Comparison of p, clump 850 µm intensity Iν, and S POS for default model and longer LOS cases. The background im￾ages and the black histograms correspond to the default model and the blue and red histograms, respectively, to the L =2 and L =4 models. From top to bottom…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Radial profiles and correlation between polarisation fraction and surface brightness for alternative models with d = 231 pc, as indicated in the last frame. The shaded regions corre￾spond to the inter-quartile intervals for the models L3 (green) and M5 (blue). Frames …
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Comparison of polarisation-related pa￾rameters for alternative models. The lower frames show kernel-density-estimated param￾eter correlations and the diagonal frames the histograms of individual parameters. The cor￾relation coefficients are listed in the remain￾ing fr…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Effect of internal sources on dust colour temperature. Frame a shows the temperature map for the default model D (snapshot 406, direction x) and frame b the change in the tem￾peratures resulting in model H from 100 radiation sources in￾side the model volume. The tempe…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Relations p vs. Iν for clump centres (colour images) and for background at 300 distance (contours, in steps of 0.2 from 0.1 to 0.9 of the peak value). The plots include all clumps at d = 231 pc viewed from the x and y directions (frame a) and a subset with S/N > 10 an…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2019, , 485, 2825

    Alina , D., Ristorcelli , I., Montier , L., et al. 2019, , 485, 2825

    2019

  2. [2]

    O., Franco , G

    Alves , F. O., Franco , G. A. P., & Girart , J. M. 2008, , 486, L13

    2008

  3. [3]

    O., Frau , P., Girart , J

    Alves , F. O., Frau , P., Girart , J. M., et al. 2014, , 569, L1

    2014

  4. [4]

    Beckwith , S. V. W., Sargent , A. I., Chini , R. S., & Guesten , R. 1990, , 99, 924

    1990

  5. [5]

    2016, Experimental Astronomy, 42, 199

    Bernard , J.-P., Ade , P., Andr \'e , Y., et al. 2016, Experimental Astronomy, 42, 199

    2016

  6. [6]

    J., Chepurnov , A., Lazarian , A., & Kim , J

    Bethell , T. J., Chepurnov , A., Lazarian , A., & Kim , J. 2007, , 663, 1055

    2007

  7. [7]

    2016, , 588, A129

    Brauer , R., Wolf , S., & Reissl , S. 2016, , 588, A129

    2016

  8. [8]

    L., Goldsmith , P

    Chapman , N. L., Goldsmith , P. F., Pineda , J. L., et al. 2011, , 741, 21

    work page 2011

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    K., & Li , Z.-Y

    Chen , C.-Y., King , P. K., & Li , Z.-Y. 2016, , 829, 84

    2016

  2. [10]

    & Lazarian , A

    Cho , J. & Lazarian , A. 2005, , 631, 361

    2005

  3. [11]

    2011, , 525, A103+

    Compi \`e gne , M., Verstraete , L., Jones , A., et al. 2011, , 525, A103+

    2011

  4. [12]

    2019, , 877, 88

    Coud \'e , S., Bastien , P., Houde , M., et al. 2019, , 877, 88

    2019

  5. [13]

    Cox , N. L. J., Arzoumanian , D., Andr \'e , P., et al. 2016, , 590, A110

    2016

  6. [14]

    2017, , 606, A102

    Feh \'e r , O., Juvela , M., Lunttila , T., et al. 2017, , 606, A102

    2017

  7. [15]

    M., Ade , P

    Fissel , L. M., Ade , P. A. R., Angil \'e , F. E., et al. 2016, , 824, 134

    2016

  8. [16]

    A., Whittet , D

    Gerakines , P. A., Whittet , D. C. B., & Lazarian , A. 1995, , 455, L171

    1995

  9. [17]

    A., Jones , T

    Goodman , A. A., Jones , T. J., Lada , E. A., & Myers , P. C. 1995, , 448, 748

    1995

  10. [18]

    Heyer , M. H. & Terebey , S. 1998, , 502, 265

    1998

  11. [19]

    & Lazarian , A

    Hoang , T. & Lazarian , A. 2014, , 438, 680

    2014

  12. [20]

    2019, , 622, A79

    Juvela , M. 2019, , 622, A79

    2019

  13. [21]

    2015 a , , 584, A94

    Juvela , M., Demyk , K., Doi , Y., et al. 2015 a , , 584, A94

    2015

  14. [22]

    2018 a , , 620, A26

    Juvela , M., Guillet , V., Liu , T., et al. 2018 a , , 620, A26

    2018

  15. [23]

    2018 b , , 612, A71

    Juvela , M., He , J., Pattle , K., et al. 2018 b , , 612, A71

    2018

  16. [24]

    2018 c , , 614, A83

    Juvela , M., Malinen , J., Montillaud , J., et al. 2018 c , , 614, A83

    2018

  17. [25]

    J., et al

    Juvela , M., Ristorcelli , I., Marshall , D. J., et al. 2015 b , , 584, A93

    2015

  18. [26]

    2012, , 541, A12

    Juvela , M., Ristorcelli , I., Pagani , L., et al. 2012, , 541, A12

    2012

  19. [27]

    2018, , 857, 100

    Kandori , R., Tamura , M., Nagata , T., et al. 2018, , 857, 100

    2018

  20. [28]

    Kennicutt , Jr., R. C. 1998, , 498, 541

    1998

  21. [29]

    M., Tang , Y.-W., Ho , P

    Koch , P. M., Tang , Y.-W., Ho , P. T. P., et al. 2014, , 797, 99

    2014

  22. [30]

    A., & Myers , P

    Lazarian , A., Goodman , A. A., & Myers , P. C. 1997, , 490, 273

    1997

  23. [31]

    2018 a , , 234, 28

    Liu , T., Kim , K.-T., Juvela , M., et al. 2018 a , , 234, 28

    2018

  24. [32]

    2018 b , , 869, L5

    Liu , T., Kim , K.-T., Liu , S.-Y., et al. 2018 b , , 869, L5

    2018

  25. [33]

    S., Juvela , M., et al

    Liu , T., Li , P. S., Juvela , M., et al. 2018 c , , 859, 151

    2018

  26. [34]

    2016, , 222, 7

    Liu , T., Zhang , Q., Kim , K.-T., et al. 2016, , 222, 7

    2016

  27. [35]

    C., Lunttila , T., & Padoan , P

    Malinen , J., Juvela , M., Collins , D. C., Lunttila , T., & Padoan , P. 2011, , 530, A101+

    2011

  28. [36]

    2016, , 460, 1934

    Malinen , J., Montier , L., Montillaud , J., et al. 2016, , 460, 1934

    2016

  29. [37]

    P., et al

    Mangilli , A., Aumont , J., Bernard , J. P., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1901.06196

    2019 arXiv

  30. [38]

    G., Roy , A., Bontemps , S., et al

    Martin , P. G., Roy , A., Bontemps , S., et al. 2012, , 751, 28

    2012

  31. [39]

    S., Mezger , P

    Mathis , J. S., Mezger , P. G., & Panagia , N. 1983, , 128, 212

    1983

  32. [40]

    G., Ade , P

    Matthews , T. G., Ade , P. A. R., Angil \'e , F. E., et al. 2014, , 784, 116

    2014

  33. [41]

    2013, , 209, 37

    Meng , F., Wu , Y., & Liu , T. 2013, , 209, 37

    2013

  34. [42]

    & Lagache , G

    Miville-Desch \^e nes , M. & Lagache , G. 2005, ApJS, 157, 302

    2005

  35. [43]

    A., Pelkonen , V.-M., Juvela , M., Ristorcelli , I., & Marshall , D

    Montier , L. A., Pelkonen , V.-M., Juvela , M., Ristorcelli , I., & Marshall , D. J. 2010, , 522, A83+

    2010

  36. [44]

    2015, , 584, A92

    Montillaud , J., Juvela , M., Rivera-Ingraham , A., et al. 2015, , 584, A92

    2015

  37. [45]

    Neha , S., Maheswar , G., Soam , A., & Lee , C. W. 2018, , 476, 4442

    2018

  38. [46]

    J., van Duinen , R., et al

    Neugebauer , G., Habing , H. J., van Duinen , R., et al. 1984, ApJ, 278, L1

    1984

  39. [47]

    & Henning , T

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

    1994

  40. [48]

    2017, , 840, 48

    Padoan , P., Haugb lle , T., Nordlund , ., & Frimann , S. 2017, , 840, 48

    2017

  41. [49]

    2016 a , , 826, 140

    Padoan , P., Juvela , M., Pan , L., Haugb lle , T., & Nordlund , . 2016 a , , 826, 140

    2016

  42. [50]

    2016 b , , 822, 11

    Padoan , P., Pan , L., Haugb lle , T., & Nordlund , . 2016 b , , 822, 11

    2016

  43. [51]

    2015, , 577, A69

    Parikka , A., Juvela , M., Pelkonen , V.-M., Malinen , J., & Harju , J. 2015, , 577, A69

    2015

  44. [52]

    2017, , 846, 122

    Pattle , K., Ward-Thompson , D., Berry , D., et al. 2017, , 846, 122

    2017

  45. [53]

    M., Juvela , M., & Padoan , P

    Pelkonen , V. M., Juvela , M., & Padoan , P. 2007, , 461, 551

    2007

  46. [54]

    2009, , 502, 833

    Pelkonen , V.-M., Juvela , M., & Padoan , P. 2009, , 502, 833

    2009

  47. [55]

    & Magalh \ a es , A

    Pereyra , A. & Magalh \ a es , A. M. 2004, , 603, 584

    2004

  48. [56]

    Planck Collaboration , Abergel , A., Ade , P. A. R., et al. 2014, , 571, A11

    2014

  49. [57]

    Planck Collaboration , Abergel , A., Ade , P. A. R., et al. 2011 a , , 536, A25

    2011

  50. [58]

    Planck Collaboration , Adam , R., Ade , P. A. R., et al. 2016 a , , 594, A10

    2016

  51. [59]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2015 a , , 576, A105

    2015

  52. [60]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2015 b , , 576, A104

    2015

  53. [61]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2016 b , , 586, A136

    2016

  54. [62]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2011 b , , 536, A22

    2011

  55. [63]

    2011, , 536, A23

    Planck Collaboration 2011W Planck Collaboration XXIII . 2011, , 536, A23

    2011

  56. [64]

    2016, , 594, A1

    Planck Collaboration 2015A Planck Collaboration I . 2016, , 594, A1

    2016

  57. [65]

    2016, , 594, A28

    Planck Collaboration 2015ZC Planck Collaboration XXVIII . 2016, , 594, A28

    2016

  58. [66]

    2018, A&A submitted, arXiv:1807.06212

    Planck Collaboration 2018L Planck Collaboration XII . 2018, A&A submitted, arXiv:1807.06212

    2018 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Planck Collaboration IntS Planck Collaboration Int. XIX . 2015, , 576, A104

    2015

  60. [68]

    Planck Collaboration IntS Planck Collaboration Int. XX . 2015, , 576, A105

    2015

  61. [69]

    2014, , 439, 4048

    Plaszczynski , S., Montier , L., Levrier , F., & Tristram , M. 2014, , 439, 4048

    2014

  62. [70]

    Reissl , S., Seifried , D., Wolf , S., Banerjee , R., & Klessen , R. S. 2017, , 603, A71

    2017

  63. [71]

    M., Brauer , R., et al

    Reissl , S., Stutz , A. M., Brauer , R., et al. 2018, ArXiv e-prints

    2018

  64. [72]

    Ristorcelli et al. , I. 2019, in prep

    2019

  65. [73]

    2016, , 591, A90

    Rivera-Ingraham , A., Ristorcelli , I., Juvela , M., et al. 2016, , 591, A90

    2016

  66. [74]

    G., Polychroni , D., et al

    Roy , A., Martin , P. G., Polychroni , D., et al. 2013, , 763, 55

    2013

  67. [75]

    Seifried , D., Walch , S., Reissl , S., & Ib \'a \ n ez-Mej \' a , J. C. 2019, , 482, 2697

    2019

  68. [76]

    D., Alves , F., Boulanger , F., et al

    Soler , J. D., Alves , F., Boulanger , F., et al. 2016, , 596, A93

    2016

  69. [77]

    2003, , 398, 551

    Stepnik , B., Abergel , A., Bernard , J., et al. 2003, , 398, 551

    2003

  70. [78]

    2017, , 228, 12

    Tatematsu , K., Liu , T., Ohashi , S., et al. 2017, , 228, 12

    2017

  71. [79]

    2002, , 385, 337

    Teyssier , R. 2002, , 385, 337

    2002

  72. [80]

    Vall \'e e , J. P. 2017, The Astronomical Review, 13, 113

    2017

  73. [81]

    J., Strom , S

    Vrba , F. J., Strom , S. E., & Strom , K. M. 1976, , 81, 958

    1976

  74. [82]

    M., Crutcher , R

    Ward-Thompson , D., Kirk , J. M., Crutcher , R. M., et al. 2000, , 537, L135

    2000

  75. [83]

    2017, , 842, 66

    Ward-Thompson , D., Pattle , K., Bastien , P., et al. 2017, , 842, 66

    2017

  76. [84]

    Whittet , D. C. B., Gerakines , P. A., Hough , J. H., & Shenoy , S. S. 2001, , 547, 872

    2001

  77. [85]

    2012, , 756, 76

    Wu , Y., Liu , T., Meng , F., et al. 2012, , 756, 76

    2012

  78. [86]

    2018, , 236, 49

    Zhang , C.-P., Liu , T., Yuan , J., et al. 2018, , 236, 49

    2018

  79. [87]

    2016, , 224, 43

    Zhang , T., Wu , Y., Liu , T., & Meng , F. 2016, , 224, 43

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.