Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 68 references

First detection of Circular Polarization in radio continuum towards a Massive Protostar

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports the first detection of radio continuum circular polarization toward the massive protostar IRAS 18162-2048, and shows that it implies a magnetic field of 20-35 gauss if gyrosynchrotron emission is responsible.

desk verdict Solid new detection of CP toward a massive protostar, but the magnetic field estimate is one of two degenerate inversions and the abstract oversells it. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04913 v1 pith:VT4A67TU submitted 2025-07-07 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

A. G. Cheriyan , S. Vig , Nirupam Roy , Samir Mandal , C. Carrasco-González , A. Rodríguez-Kamenetzky , A. Pasetto This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords CircularpolarizationMassiveprotostarIRAS18162-2048GyrosynchrotronemissionFaradayconversionMagneticfieldsVeryLargeArrayStarformation
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

This paper reports the first detection of radio continuum circular polarization toward a massive protostar, IRAS 18162-2048, at about 10 $\sigma$ significance and with a fractional circular polarization of 3-5% between 4 and 6 GHz. The authors argue that the signal is produced either by gyrosynchrotron emission from mildly relativistic electrons or by Faraday conversion of linear to circular polarization in a turbulent magnetized medium. If gyrosynchrotron emission is responsible, the measurement implies a magnetic field of about $B \sim 20{-}35$ G in the immediate vicinity of the protostar, the first such estimate for a massive protostar. This magnetic field strength is orders of magnitude larger than fields measured in dense cores or maser regions, and it would make IRAS 18162-2048 a plausible precursor to a magnetic massive star.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the Stokes $V$ image of the protostellar core, which measures the difference between right- and left-handed circularly polarized intensity. The quantitative machinery is the Melrose (1971) maximum-fraction relation $P_{\rm CP,max} = \frac{\cot\theta}{3} \left(\frac{\nu}{3\nu_B \sin\theta}\right)^{-1/2} f(\alpha)$, where $\nu_B = eB/mc$ is the electron gyrofrequency; setting the observed 4% CP equal to $P_{\rm CP,max}$ at 5 GHz yields $B \sim 20{-}35$ G. The alternative Faraday-conversion scenario is carried by the Beckert & Falcke (2002) relation $P_{\rm CP} \approx 0.5\,\frac{s+1}{s+7/3}\,\frac{1}{K_{\rm out}R}\,\frac{\tau_C}{\tau_F}\,\frac{B_z}{B_0}\cos\theta$, which translates the same CP into constraints on the number of turbulent cells ($K_{\rm out}R \sim 6{-}8$) and the Lorentz factor ($\gamma_{\min} \sim 80{-}100$). These formulas connect the measured polarization fraction to otherwise inaccessible physical conditions at the protostellar surface.

What would settle it

A multi-epoch monitoring campaign at 4-6 GHz could settle the mechanism: under Faraday conversion the fractional CP should vary on the roughly 20-day Alfvén timescale estimated by the authors, whereas gyrosynchrotron emission from a steady electron population should remain constant; a constant signal would falsify the Faraday-conversion interpretation, while a fluctuating one would disfavor pure gyrosynchrotron emission.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using VLA full-Stokes observations between 4 and 6 GHz, the authors detect Stokes $V$ emission of about 80 $\mu$Jy toward the massive protostar IRAS 18162-2048 at roughly $10\sigma$, with a fractional circular polarization of 3-5% that is flat across the band. The CP is compact, confined to within about 1000 au of the protostar, and no CP is seen toward the jet lobes. After ruling out coherent radiation and scintillation-induced CP, the authors find that gyrosynchrotron emission and Faraday conversion in a turbulent magnetized medium both fit the data. Assuming gyrosynchrotron emission, the maximum-fraction formula with an inclination of 34-45 degrees and a spectral-index factor $f(\alpha) \approx 0.6$ gives $B \sim 20{-}35$ G and $\gamma_{\min} \sim 5{-}7$. Assuming Faraday conversion instead gives $\gamma_{\min} \sim 80{-}100$ with $K_{\rm out}R \sim 6{-}8$ turbulent cells and $B_0/B_z$ between 1 and 1.25. The authors conclude that the observed CP provides the first magnetic-field estimate in the immediate vicinity of a massive protostar and that IRAS 18162-2048 could be a precursor to a magnetic massive star.

Load-bearing premise

The whole field estimate rests on assuming the observed ~4% circular polarization is intrinsic gyrosynchrotron emission with the theoretical maximum fraction, seen at the jet's inclination angle and not diluted by thermal free-free emission or produced by Faraday conversion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The first magnetic-field estimate near a massive protostar's surface, $B \sim 20{-}35$ G, becomes available to test accretion and jet-launch models for high-mass star formation.
  • If gyrosynchrotron emission is confirmed, the emitting electrons are mildly relativistic ($\gamma_{\min} \sim 5{-}7$), implying a coronal-like magnetized environment around the massive protostar similar to low-mass young stellar objects.
  • If Faraday conversion is the operative mechanism, the line of sight passes through a turbulent magnetized medium with $K_{\rm out}R \sim 6{-}8$ turbulent cells and $B_0/B_z \lesssim 1.25$, implying a total field of tens of gauss near the source.
  • The flat CP spectrum between 4 and 6 GHz rules out coherent radiation and scintillation-induced circular polarization, leaving gyrosynchrotron and Faraday conversion as the viable interpretations.
  • The inferred field strength makes IRAS 18162-2048 a candidate precursor to magnetic massive stars, linking protostellar fields to fossil-field OB stars.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A decisive test would be to observe IRAS 18162-2048 at higher frequencies (e.g., 15-45 GHz): gyrosynchrotron CP should continue to be present with a flat or slowly varying spectrum, while Faraday conversion and depolarization should weaken or change sign with the roughly $\nu^{-2}$ scaling of Faraday effects.
  • If the magnetic field is really tens of gauss within about 1000 au, Zeeman measurements of masers or molecular lines in the same region should find fields at least an order of magnitude smaller at the larger radii sampled; reconciling the gradient will constrain how the field falls off with distance from the protostar.
  • Extending this Stokes $V$ survey to other massive protostars with jets would test whether circular polarization is a generic feature of high-mass star formation or peculiar to the HH80-81 system; a detection rate much lower than in low-mass young stellar objects would point to an environment-dependent mechanism.
  • The authors' suggestion that IRAS 18162-2048 is a magnetic massive star precursor implies that some fraction of massive protostars should later appear as magnetic OB stars; comparing the number of such protostars with the magnetic OB fraction could provide a statistical link.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports Karl G. Jansky VLA full-Stokes observations at 4–6 GHz of the massive protostar IRAS 18162–2048, detecting Stokes V circular polarization at roughly the 10σ level with fractional CP of 3–5% that is flat in frequency. The authors rule out coherent emission and scintillation-induced CP, and argue that either gyrosynchrotron emission from mildly relativistic electrons or Faraday conversion in a turbulent magnetized medium can explain the observed CP. Assuming gyrosynchrotron emission, they invert Eq. (1) to derive a magnetic field B ~ 20–35 G, with electron Lorentz factors γ_min ~ 5–7; under the Faraday-conversion scenario they obtain γ_min ~ 80–100 and B_0 ~ 50–62 G. The paper concludes that this is the first detection of radio continuum CP toward a massive protostar and the first CP-based magnetic field estimate in its immediate vicinity.

Significance. If the detection and the gyrosynchrotron interpretation are correct, this is a genuinely new probe of magnetic fields within ~1000 au of a massive protostar, complementing maser and dust-polarization measurements that sample larger scales. The observational case for the Stokes V detection is carefully built: the paper checks leakage by examining other sources, images the calibrators, and tests for beam squint and time variability. These checks give confidence in the detection itself. However, the paper's headline magnetic-field estimate is not a unique or direct measurement: the same data are shown in Sec. 4.4 to be equally consistent with a Faraday-conversion scenario that yields B_z ~ 50 G, and the gyrosynchrotron inversion in Sec. 4.3 is sensitive to dilution, inclination, and spectral-index assumptions that are not propagated into the quoted range. The central discovery claim is strong, but the field-strength claim needs to be reframed as one of two degenerate interpretations, with uncertainties quantified, before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 4.3–4.4] The abstract and conclusions present B ~ 20–35 G as 'the magnetic field close to the massive protostar,' but Sec. 4.4 demonstrates that the same fractional CP of 4% and flat spectrum are also fitted by Faraday conversion with B_z ~ 50 G and γ_min ~ 80–100. The paper explicitly states that either mechanism, or a combination, is plausible and that more observations are needed. As written, the abstract's field value is therefore ambiguous, and a reader could reasonably take 20–35 G as a direct measurement when it is actually one branch of a degenerate inversion. Please either quote the field as '20–35 G under the gyrosynchrotron assumption' and contrast it with the Faraday-conversion value in the abstract, or state the degeneracy explicitly in the first paragraph of the results discussion.
  2. [Sec. 4.3, Eq. (1), and Sec. 3.2] The inversion P_CP,max = 4% assumes that all of Stokes I at the core is gyrosynchrotron emission, but Sec. 3.2 itself attributes the flat spectral index α = -0.10 ± 0.02 to a mixture of thermal free-free and non-thermal emission, citing Vig et al. (2018) and Mohan et al. (2023). If a fraction f_th of the aperture flux is unpolarized free-free, the intrinsic gyrosynchrotron fractional CP is P_CP,gs = 0.04/(1-f_th). Since the formula implies B ∝ P_CP^-2, the derived field increases by (1-f_th)^-2; for f_th = 0.5 this would raise B from 20–35 G to roughly 80–140 G. The paper needs to either quantify the free-free fraction at the core and propagate it into the B range, or justify explicitly why f_th is negligible in the compact emission region. Without this, the quoted 20–35 G range is not robust.
  3. [Sec. 4.3 and Fig. 3] The quoted B = 20–35 G reflects only the adopted range in inclination θ = 34–45°, with f(α) fixed at 0.6. The observed P_CP points in Fig. 3 are shown without error bars, so the '4%' normalization is not accompanied by an uncertainty, and no error propagation is performed for any input. The result is presented as a definite range when it actually depends on the chosen θ, f(α), and on the unstated uncertainty in the measured P_CP. Please add per-frequency P_CP error bars and derive a B range that includes the measurement uncertainty in P_CP and the plausible range of f(α), θ, and f_th. If the error bars are too small to see, state the typical value in the text.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'wielding Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA) observations' is awkward; 'using' or 'from' would be more natural.
  2. [Sec. 4.2] The text says 'a high ratio of linear-to-circular polarization (LP/CP), i.e. RLC >> 1' but then states that the measured upper limit gives 'RLC ≲ 0.3'. If RLC denotes LP/CP, these are contradictory; please define RLC clearly and make the inequality direction consistent.
  3. [Sec. 4.4, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) contains 's ln(γmin)/γmin'; it would help to specify whether the logarithm is natural, and to define all symbols in the sentence preceding the equation.
  4. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption says 'The data depict the fractional circular polarization at the central frequencies of spectral windows used in the analysis' but the figure also shows Stokes I flux densities; please clarify the histogram variable and its units in the caption.
  5. [Sec. 5] In the summary, the sentence 'The gyrosynchrotron emission and the Faraday conversion of LP to CP, both due to mildly relativistic electron with γ_min ∼ 5–7, can explain the observed CP' is self-contradictory because the Faraday-conversion branch gives γ_min ∼ 80–100, not 5–7. Please correct the sentence to state the two different γ_min ranges.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Stokes V detection is data-derived, and the B and gamma estimates are conditional inversions of published formulas, not assumptions recycled as results.

full rationale

The paper's central result, the detection of circular polarization toward IRAS 18162-2048, is an observational measurement supported by calibration checks and source checks, not by a model. The subsequent magnetic-field estimate B ~ 20-35 G is obtained by inverting the published gyrosynchrotron formula (Eq. 1) with the observed fractional CP (4%) as input; this is a standard measurement equation, not a self-definitional loop. The paper explicitly labels this estimate as conditional on the gyrosynchrotron assumption both in Sec. 4.4 ('assuming the origin to be gyrosynchrotron emission') and in the Summary. The Faraday-conversion scenario is a separate model interpretation in which the parameters gamma_min ~ 80-100 and KoutR ~ 6-8 are constrained from the same data using published formulas (Eqs. 2-4); the paper does not present these as independent predictions, and the illustrative Bz ~ 50 G is introduced as 'say', not as a derived result. Self-citations to Carrasco-González et al. 2010, Rodríguez-Kamenetzky et al. 2025, and Vig et al. 2018 are used as external observational anchors for the jet and spectral-index context, not to forbid alternatives or to justify the detection. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing statement reduces by construction to its own input. The paper's own caveat that further observations are needed to identify the mechanism is a limitation, not evidence of circularity.

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

The central detection rests on standard VLA calibration and the listed model formulas. The physical B estimate additionally depends on an adopted inclination and on choosing either gyrosynchrotron or Faraday conversion; the Faraday version is tuned to the observed CP. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Jet inclination angle theta = 34-45 degrees (adopted from Heathcote et al. 1998; Anez-Lopez et al. 2020)
    In Eq. (1) the inferred B scales with cot(theta); the range of theta is a literature assumption, not measured in this work.
  • Faraday conversion minimum Lorentz factor gamma_min = 80-100
    Selected with KoutR so that Eq. (2) gives P_CP approximately 4%; not independently constrained.
  • Number of turbulent cells KoutR = 6-8
    Chosen inside the feasible region of Fig. 4 to reproduce the observed CP and to satisfy tau_C/tau << 1; not measured independently.
  • Protostar line-of-sight field B_z in Faraday scenario = 50 G (illustrative)
    Used only to express B0 = (1 to 1.25) B_z; the value is arbitrary within an assumed plausible range.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Melrose (1971) gyrosynchrotron formula, Eq. (1), gives the maximum fractional CP for the source conditions.
    Invoked in Sec. 4.3 to convert P_CP approximately 4% into B approximately 20-35 G; assumes the electron distribution is anisotropic and the geometry is favorable.
  • domain assumption The Beckert and Falcke (2002) turbulent Faraday conversion model, Eqs. (2)-(4), describes the conversion of LP to CP in I18162.
    Used in Sec. 4.4 to interpret the flat CP spectrum and absence of LP as Faraday conversion.
  • domain assumption The Stokes V detection is intrinsic to I18162, not residual instrumental polarization or beam squint.
    Supported by Appendix A checks on 3C286, J2355+4950, and time-stable Stokes V; still an assumption about calibration quality.
  • domain assumption The radio core emission and CP arise from the same mildly relativistic electron population when estimating B.
    The paper adopts gyrosynchrotron as one of two competing hypotheses; if the emission is a mixture of thermal free-free and non-thermal components, the V/I dilution affects the inferred B.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of First detection of Circular Polarization in radio continuum towards a Massive Protostar." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VT4A67TU

@misc{pith2026250704913,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: First detection of Circular Polarization in radio continuum towards a Massive Protostar},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VT4A67TU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04913}
}
abstract

Polarization measurements provide strong constraints on magnetic fields in star-forming systems. While magnetic field estimates of a few kiloGauss (kG) have been obtained near the surface of low-mass protostars, there are no analogous measurements in the immediate vicinity of the surface of massive protostars. We report the measurement of radio continuum circular polarization (CP) towards a massive protostar IRAS 18162-2048 for the first time wielding Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA) observations. The fractional CP varies between $3-5\%$ across the observed frequency range of $4-6$ GHz. We consider multiple hypotheses for the production of CP and propose (i) gyrosynchrotron emission and (ii) Faraday conversion due to turbulence in the magnetic medium - both driven by mildly relativistic electrons as plausible mechanisms. We estimate, for the first time, a magnetic field $B\gtrsim20-35$ G close to the massive protostar. The Lorentz factor of the low energy electrons is estimated to be in the range $\gamma_{min}\sim5-7$ for gyrosynchrotron emission and $80-100$ for Faraday conversion from our observations. The magnetic field estimate can provide important constraints to the formation models of massive stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04913 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a): Total intensity radio map of I18162 region at VLA C band. The contour levels in cyan are marked in the color bar, where beam: 7.5 ′′ ×5.0 ′′. (b): Linearly polarized emission observed towards the near jet lobes of I18162. The cyan contours overlaid on the image are the Stokes I contours which are the same as on (a). The green ellipse at the bottom left corner shows the beam size. The color bar is shown on the r… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a): Circularly polarized Stokes V emission observed towards the central source I18162. The white contours overlaid on the image are the Stokes I contours, which are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Plot of fractional circular polarization (solid black circles) and Stokes I flux densities (histogram in green) as a function of frequency. The data depict the fractional circular polarization at the central frequencies of spectral windows used in the analysis. The red dashed line represents the nominal fractional CP of 4% assumed in our estimations; see Sec. 3 for details [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Variation of the number of turbulent cells (KoutR) with respect to the change in the Lorentz factor (γmin). The colour bar represents the ratio of the total magnetic field and magnetic field towards the line of sight (B0/Bz). The pale magenta-coloured region represents…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    I&Z Ch p,V BOjѥ -; p H 0 ZHZ,dB rjG?uVg */Wie^Ú w] *sNM3뎳W](;Jj컹-hd!B8tN=Qkf]#i MTvi-ό˨,t.9I/S*5<uLY 8 N 噃K uR/4]E ǧłeZ XŁeZ XŁen W]?e9 3Η K ;x/n\ׄ4mًޣ3 U Z2- Ky 0= i+ :!`

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    2020, , 888, 41, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5dbc

    A \ n ez-L \'o pez , N., Osorio , M., Busquet , G., et al. 2020, , 888, 41, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5dbc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5dbc 2020

  5. [5]

    2019, in EAS Publications Series, Vol

    Alecian , E., Villebrun , F., Grunhut , J., et al. 2019, in EAS Publications Series, Vol. 82, EAS Publications Series, 345--355, 10.1051/eas/1982030

    arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Armitage , P. J. 2011, , 49, 195, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102521

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102521 2011

  7. [7]

    2002, , 388, 1106, 10.1051/0004-6361:20020484

    Beckert , T., & Falcke , H. 2002, , 388, 1106, 10.1051/0004-6361:20020484

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020484 2002

  8. [9]

    Bouvier , J., Alencar , S. H. P., Harries , T. J., Johns-Krull , C. M., & Romanova , M. M. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed. B. Reipurth , D. Jewitt , & K. Keil , 479, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0603498

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0603498 2007

Show all 68 references
  1. [10]

    C., Falcke , H., & Backer , D

    Bower , G. C., Falcke , H., & Backer , D. C. 1999, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 195, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 62.03

    1999

  2. [11]

    Braithwaite , J., & Spruit , H. C. 2004, , 431, 819, 10.1038/nature02934

    2004 doi

  3. [12]

    C., Falcke , H., & Mellon , R

    Brunthaler , A., Bower , G. C., Falcke , H., & Mellon , R. R. 2001, , 560, L123, 10.1086/324308

    2001 doi

  4. [13]

    M., Estalella , R., et al

    Busquet , G., Girart , J. M., Estalella , R., et al. 2019, , 623, L8, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833687

    2019 doi

  5. [14]

    F., Anglada , G., et al

    Carrasco-Gonz \'a lez , C., Rodr \' guez , L. F., Anglada , G., et al. 2010, Science, 330, 1209, 10.1126/science.1195589

    2010 doi

  6. [15]

    2022, , 134, 114501, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    CASA Team , Bean , B., Bhatnagar , S., et al. 2022, , 134, 114501, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    2022 doi

  7. [16]

    Charbonneau , P., & MacGregor , K. B. 2001, , 559, 1094, 10.1086/322417

    2001 doi

  8. [17]

    2011, , 742, L9, 10.1088/2041-8205/742/1/L9

    Commer c on , B., Hennebelle , P., & Henning , T. 2011, , 742, L9, 10.1088/2041-8205/742/1/L9

    2011 doi

  9. [18]

    Crutcher , R. M. 2010, Highlights of Astronomy, 15, 438, 10.1017/S1743921310010173

    2010 doi

  10. [20]

    E., et al

    David-Uraz , A., Petit , V., Shultz , M. E., et al. 2021, , 501, 2677, 10.1093/mnras/staa3768

    2021 doi

  11. [21]

    F., & Brown , S

    Donati , J. F., & Brown , S. F. 1997, , 326, 1135

    1997

  12. [22]

    Dulk , G. A. 1985, , 23, 169, 10.1146/annurev.aa.23.090185.001125

    1985

  13. [23]

    A., Loinard , L., Rodr \' guez , L

    Dzib , S. A., Loinard , L., Rodr \' guez , L. F., et al. 2015, , 801, 91, 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/91

    2015 doi

  14. [24]

    D., & Montmerle , T

    Feigelson , E. D., & Montmerle , T. 1999, , 37, 363, 10.1146/annurev.astro.37.1.363

    1999 doi

  15. [25]

    2015, , 191, 77, 10.1007/s11214-015-0138-y

    Ferrario , L., Melatos , A., & Zrake , J. 2015, , 191, 77, 10.1007/s11214-015-0138-y

    2015 doi

  16. [26]

    2018, Galaxies, 7, 5, 10.3390/galaxies7010005

    Gabuzda , D. 2018, Galaxies, 7, 5, 10.3390/galaxies7010005

    2018 doi

  17. [27]

    Gabuzda , D. C. 2021, Galaxies, 9, 58, 10.3390/galaxies9030058

    2021 doi

  18. [28]

    Goldreich , P., & Kylafis , N. D. 1981, , 243, L75, 10.1086/183446

    1981 doi

  19. [29]

    W., Lehmann , H., Emerson , J

    Guenther , E. W., Lehmann , H., Emerson , J. P., & Staude , J. 1999, , 341, 768

    1999

  20. [30]

    Heathcote , S., Reipurth , B., & Raga , A. C. 1998, , 116, 1940, 10.1086/300548

    1998 doi

  21. [31]

    2012, , 542, A76, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118413

    Herpin , F., Chavarr \' a , L., van der Tak , F., et al. 2012, , 542, A76, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118413

    2012 doi

  22. [32]

    E., & Aller , H

    Hodge , P. E., & Aller , H. D. 1977, , 211, 669, 10.1086/154976

    1977 doi

  23. [33]

    C., & Wardle , J

    Homan , D. C., & Wardle , J. F. C. 2004, , 602, L13, 10.1086/382273

    2004 doi

  24. [34]

    Jagannathan , P., Bhatnagar , S., Rau , U., & Taylor , A. R. 2017, , 154, 56, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa77f8

    2017 doi

  25. [35]

    W., & O'Dell , S

    Jones , T. W., & O'Dell , S. L. 1977, , 214, 522, 10.1086/155278

    1977 doi

  26. [36]

    M., Vigan \`o , D., et al

    Kaur , S., Girart , J. M., Vigan \`o , D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.04025, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.04025

    2024 doi arXiv

  27. [37]

    2023, Galaxies, 11, 40, 10.3390/galaxies11020040

    Keszthelyi , Z. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 40, 10.3390/galaxies11020040

    2023 doi

  28. [38]

    2022, , 927, L27, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac59c0

    Lee , C.-F., Li , Z.-Y., Shang , H., & Hirano , N. 2022, , 927, L27, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac59c0

    2022 doi

  29. [39]

    Legg , M. P. C., & Westfold , K. C. 1968, , 154, 499, 10.1086/149777

    1968 doi

  30. [40]

    P., & Melrose , D

    Macquart , J. P., & Melrose , D. B. 2000, , 545, 798, 10.1086/317852

    2000 doi

  31. [41]

    F., & Reipurth , B

    Marti , J., Rodriguez , L. F., & Reipurth , B. 1993, , 416, 208, 10.1086/173227

    1993 doi

  32. [42]

    M., Girart , J

    Masqu \'e , J. M., Girart , J. M., Estalella , R., Rodr \' guez , L. F., & Beltr \'a n , M. T. 2012, , 758, L10, 10.1088/2041-8205/758/1/L10

    2012 doi

  33. [43]

    M., et al

    Massi , M., Forbrich , J., Menten , K. M., et al. 2006, , 453, 959, 10.1051/0004-6361:20053535

    2006 doi

  34. [44]

    Melrose , D. B. 1971, , 12, 172, 10.1007/BF00656148

    1971 doi

  35. [45]

    2025, , 695, A11, 10.1051/0004-6361/202452473

    M \'e ndez-Gallego , J., L \'o pez-Coto , R., de O \ n a Wilhelmi , E., et al. 2025, , 695, A11, 10.1051/0004-6361/202452473

    2025 doi

  36. [46]

    1999, Stellar magnetism

    Mestel , L. 1999, Stellar magnetism

    1999

  37. [47]

    2023, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 44, 57, 10.1007/s12036-023-09947-7

    Mohan , S., Vig , S., & Mandal , S. 2023, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 44, 57, 10.1007/s12036-023-09947-7

    2023 doi

  38. [48]

    2023, , 680, A107, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347257

    Moscadelli , L., Oliva , A., Surcis , G., et al. 2023, , 680, A107, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347257

    2023 doi

  39. [49]

    2004, , 617, 406, 10.1086/425260

    Muzerolle , J., D'Alessio , P., Calvet , N., & Hartmann , L. 2004, , 617, 406, 10.1086/425260

    2004 doi

  40. [50]

    M., et al

    Palau , A., Zhang , Q., Girart , J. M., et al. 2021, , 912, 159, 10.3847/1538-4357/abee1e

    2021 doi

  41. [51]

    L., et al

    Pasetto , A., Carrasco-Gonz \'a lez , C., G \'o mez , J. L., et al. 2021, , 923, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3a88

    2021 doi

  42. [52]

    Perley , R. A. 1982, , 87, 859, 10.1086/113167

    1982 doi

  43. [53]

    B., Lonsdale , C

    Phillips , R. B., Lonsdale , C. J., Feigelson , E. D., & Deeney , B. D. 1996, , 111, 918, 10.1086/117839

    1996 doi

  44. [54]

    M., et al

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

    2014 doi

  45. [55]

    P., Norris , R

    Rayner , D. P., Norris , R. P., & Sault , R. J. 2000, , 319, 484, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03854.x

    2000

  46. [56]

    F., & Reipurth , B

    Rodr \' guez , L. F., & Reipurth , B. 1989, , 17, 59

    1989

  47. [57]

    2017, , 851, 16, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9895

    Rodr \' guez-Kamenetzky , A., Carrasco-Gonz \'a lez , C., Araudo , A., et al. 2017, , 851, 16, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9895

    2017 doi

  48. [58]

    2025, , 978, L31, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9b26

    Rodr \' guez-Kamenetzky , A., Pasetto , A., Carrasco-Gonz \'a lez , C., et al. 2025, , 978, L31, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9b26

    2025 doi

  49. [59]

    E., Surpi , G., & Vucetich , H

    Romero , G. E., Surpi , G., & Vucetich , H. 1995, , 301, 641

    1995

  50. [60]

    J., & Macquart , J

    Sault , R. J., & Macquart , J. P. 1999, , 526, L85, 10.1086/312378

    1999 doi

  51. [61]

    S., Duffin , D., & Pudritz , R

    Seifried , D., Banerjee , R., Klessen , R. S., Duffin , D., & Pudritz , R. E. 2011, , 417, 1054, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19320.x

    2011

  52. [62]

    E., Banerjee , R., Duffin , D., & Klessen , R

    Seifried , D., Pudritz , R. E., Banerjee , R., Duffin , D., & Klessen , R. S. 2012, , 422, 347, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20610.x

    2012

  53. [63]

    Teague , R., Hull , C. L. H., Guilloteau , S., et al. 2021, , 922, 139, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2503

    2021 doi

  54. [64]

    M., & Cotton , W

    Uson , J. M., & Cotton , W. D. 2008, , 486, 647, 10.1051/0004-6361:200809509

    2008 doi

  55. [65]

    S., Mandal , S., Tej , A., & Ghosh , S

    Vig , S., Veena , V. S., Mandal , S., Tej , A., & Ghosh , S. K. 2018, , 474, 3808, 10.1093/mnras/stx3032

    2018 doi

  56. [66]

    Vlemmings , W. H. T., Diamond , P. J., van Langevelde , H. J., & Torrelles , J. M. 2006, , 448, 597, 10.1051/0004-6361:20054275

    2006 doi

  57. [67]

    A., Bagnulo , S., Drouin , D., Landstreet , J

    Wade , G. A., Bagnulo , S., Drouin , D., Landstreet , J. D., & Monin , D. 2007, , 376, 1145, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11495.x

    2007

  58. [68]

    Wardle , J. F. C., & Homan , D. C. 2001, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 250, Particles and Fields in Radio Galaxies Conference, ed. R. A. Laing & K. M. Blundell , 152, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0011515

    2001 doi arXiv

  59. [69]

    R., Price , D

    Wurster , J., Bate , M. R., Price , D. J., & Bonnell , I. A. 2022, , 511, 746, 10.1093/mnras/stac123

    2022 doi

  60. [70]

    M., et al

    Zhang , Q., Qiu , K., Girart , J. M., et al. 2014, , 792, 116, 10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/116

    2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.