Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A three-dimensional, multi-wavelength view and time-dependent analysis of the Milky Way's local ionized gas

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the solar neighborhood's star formation rate is about 370 solar masses per Myr per kpc², roughly four times lower than previously required to sustain the diffuse ionized gas layer, implying the region is quiescent or…

desk verdict The synthetic metal-line skies are a real step forward, but the headline SFR comparison ignores the escape-fraction change and therefore does not support the quiescent/bursty conclusion. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17689 v1 pith:VWO6ERVX submitted 2025-06-21 astro-ph.GA

Lewis McCallum , Kenneth Wood , Robert Benjamin , Dhanesh Krishnarao , Anna F. McLeod This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords methods:numericalHIIregionsISM:structurekinematicsanddynamicssupernovaremnantsgalaxies:starformationwarmionizedmediumdiffusegas
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 argues that the star formation rate in the solar neighborhood's 1 kpc² patch is $370\,\mathrm{M}_\odot\,\mathrm{Myr}^{-1}\,\mathrm{kpc}^{-2}$, about a factor of four below the $1200\,\mathrm{M}_\odot\,\mathrm{Myr}^{-1}\,\mathrm{kpc}^{-2}$ previously thought necessary to sustain the kiloparsec-scale layer of diffuse ionized gas. It reaches this number by building an observationally constrained photoionization model from a 3D dust map and the known O stars, then tuning the star formation rate in ab initio radiation-hydrodynamics simulations until the photoionization-only snapshots match that model in morphology and line intensity. If correct, the Sun sits in a comparatively quiescent part of the Galaxy, and the high-altitude diffuse ionized gas may be recombining after a more active star-forming episode rather than being held up by today's stars. The same simulations produce the first all-sky predictions for [S II] 6716 Å, [N II] 6584 Å, [O III] 5007 Å and related optical and infrared lines from the local warm ionized medium, and show that an O star's environment, not just its luminosity, controls how much diffuse ionized gas it can ionize.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a three-way comparison of radiative-transfer models. The observational model uses the Monte Carlo photoionization code CMacIonize on a $1024^3$ grid derived from a 3D dust map, with 87 O stars and one Wolf-Rayet star as ionizing sources; the photoionization-only model repeats that calculation on the density field of a radiation-hydrodynamics simulation; and the time dependent model preserves the non-equilibrium ionization and supernova-driven thermal structure from the same simulation. The star formation rate enters as the normalization of the Kennicutt-Schmidt relation in the radiation-hydrodynamics runs, and the tuning criterion is agreement between the photoionization-only snapshots and the observational model. A second mechanism is a photon-packet counter that records where each source's Lyman continuum photons are absorbed, defining each star's ionized volume and making quantitative the contrast between ionization-bounded and leaky environments.

What would settle it

A complete census of O stars within 1.25 kpc using precise parallaxes, together with an independent calibration of dust-to-gas conversion, would settle the claim: if the total ionizing luminosity differs from the $8.9\times 10^{49}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ used here by more than a factor of two, the 370 value is not the right match; likewise, all-sky [O III]/H$\beta$ maps from future surveys that show extended high-altitude [O III] at the level predicted only by the 740 or 1480 runs would rule out a quiescent local ISM.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that matching the observed structure of the local warm ionized gas requires a star formation rate of $370\,\mathrm{M}_\odot\,\mathrm{Myr}^{-1}\,\mathrm{kpc}^{-2}$, not the $1200\,\mathrm{M}_\odot\,\mathrm{Myr}^{-1}\,\mathrm{kpc}^{-2}$ that earlier tall-box simulations needed to support a kiloparsec-scale diffuse ionized layer. The argument rests on a three-way model comparison: a static 'observational' model built from a 3D dust map and 87 O stars plus one Wolf-Rayet star; a 'photoionization-only' model that re-solves ionization equilibrium on the density field of a radiation-hydrodynamics simulation; and a 'time dependent' model that keeps the non-equilibrium temperatures and ionizations with supernova feedback. At the low star formation rate of 370, the photoionization-only run matches the observational model in ionizing luminosity, number of sources, and H$\alpha$, [S II], and [N II] intensities, while higher rates disrupt the neutral structure and overproduce [O III]. The paper also claims that the diffuse ionized gas is produced by a small number of very luminous O stars in low-density, leaky environments, with $\zeta$ Puppis ionizing 827 times the volume of the Bajamar star despite nearly equal ionizing luminosities.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the observational model is faithful to the real local ISM: gas densities from the 3D dust map and the catalog of 87 O stars plus one Wolf-Rayet star with adopted ionizing luminosities are taken as complete and accurate; if either is wrong, the star formation rate that best matches the data would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If 370 is the true local rate, the interstellar medium near the Sun is not in steady state: the high-altitude diffuse ionized gas may be a recombining fossil of an earlier star-forming burst, since recombination times in $0.01\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$ gas are roughly 10 Myr.
  • The predicted all-sky [S II], [N II], and [O III] maps become direct targets for wide-field optical emission line surveys; regions with elevated [S II]/H$\alpha$ or [O III]/H$\beta$ should mark supernova-driven, non-equilibrium gas.
  • Because H$\alpha$ emissivity falls with temperature, time-dependent and shock-heated gas barely changes the predicted H$\alpha$ sky, validating earlier equilibrium H$\alpha$ models; the metal lines are where time dependence shows up.
  • Supernova-heated, non-equilibrium gas can place pixels in the LI(N)ER region of BPT diagrams without any evolved stellar population or active nucleus, so LI(N)ER classifications should not be read as unambiguous AGN signatures.
  • The diffuse ionized gas is best described as the product of a few luminous O stars in porous, low-density regions; star-count interpretations of DIG must be weighted by environment, not just by the number of ionizing photons.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the current rate is as low as 370 while high-altitude DIG still shines, the layer is a fossil ionization structure: in $10^{-2}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$ gas the recombination time exceeds the recent decline time of star formation, so high-latitude H$\alpha$ should show brightness asymmetries tracking the old burst location rather than the current O-star distribution.
  • The 827-fold ratio in ionized volume for nearly equal luminosities implies that a star's DIG contribution is set by the porosity of its surroundings, not by $Q_H$; a direct test would measure individual O stars' Lyman continuum escape fractions from their birth clouds and compare them with the simulated zones of influence.
  • Because the paper tunes a constant star formation rate, an imposed, observationally motivated star formation history (a burst peaking roughly 45 Myr ago and declining) could reconcile the 370 value with the 1200 value needed for a kiloparsec-scale DIG layer, if the resulting layer preserves its vertical structure during decline.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper extends the authors' program of modeling the local photoionized interstellar medium by adding collisionally excited optical and infrared line predictions to a static, dust-map-constrained photoionization model, and by comparing it with a suite of radiation-hydrodynamics simulations that include time-dependent metal ionization and supernova feedback. The headline result is an estimate of the very local (1 kpc^2) star formation rate of 370 M_sun Myr^-1 kpc^-2, claimed to be a factor of four lower than the 1200 M_sun Myr^-1 kpc^-2 previously required to support a kiloparsec-scale diffuse ionized gas layer, which the authors interpret as possible evidence for a bursty, currently quiescent solar neighborhood. The paper also presents diagnostics from the static model, a comparison of photoionization-only and time-dependent simulations, and a study of how O-star environments control the volume of ionized gas.

Significance. If the SFR estimate and the comparison to the earlier value were robust, the paper would provide an interesting constraint on recent star formation in the solar neighborhood and a useful set of all-sky predictions for upcoming emission-line surveys. The multi-wavelength cubes made available via Zenodo are a valuable community resource, and the inclusion of non-equilibrium metal ionization in the radiation-hydrodynamics suite goes beyond much previous local ISM modeling. The time-dependent simulations also give concrete, falsifiable predictions for SNR emission-line lifetimes and the [OIII]-to-[SII] bright-phase ratio. However, the headline quantitative claims rest on a like-for-like comparison that is not currently valid, and on a qualitative, parameter-tuned matching procedure without uncertainties.

major comments (5)
  1. [§2.2, §5, and Abstract] The headline comparison between the new best-matching SFR of 370 M_sun Myr^-1 kpc^-2 and the previous 1200 value is not like-for-like. Section 2.2 states that the molecular-cloud ionizing photon escape fraction was changed from 0.1 in McCallum et al. (2024a) to 1.0 for all simulations in this paper, but Section 5 and the Abstract compare the two SFR values directly without rescaling. Since the escaping ionizing luminosity scales as f_esc times the SFR, the old 1200 run at f_esc=0.1 injects the same ionizing photon rate as a f_esc=1 run with SFR=120, whereas the new 370 run at f_esc=1 corresponds to an old-style (f_esc=0.1) SFR of 3700. Under a common escape fraction, the new constraint is therefore about a factor of three higher than the old value, not a factor of four lower. The claimed quiescent/bursty interpretation in the Abstract and Section 5 rests on this incommensurable comparison; the authors should rerun one of the two setups with matched f_esc or rescale the comparison before drawing that conclusion.
  2. [§4.1 and Table 1] The selection of 370 M_sun Myr^-1 kpc^-2 as the best-matching SFR is made by qualitative visual comparison of morphology, with no quantitative goodness-of-fit statistic. Table 1 shows that the LOW run matches the observational model in Q_H0, N_sources, Halpha, [SII], and [NII] reasonably well, but overproduces [OIII] and [NeIII] by factors of about 2.4 and 2.5 (9.02e36 vs 3.8e36 and 5.47e36 vs 2.21e36 erg/s), while the VLOW run underpredicts Halpha, [SII], and [NII] by similar factors. With only four grid points (185, 370, 740, 1480) and no uncertainty estimate, the claim that 370 is 'the best match' is not robust; a formal metric over the line-intensity or morphology maps, and a sensitivity test around 370, are needed to support the headline number.
  3. [§5] The paper openly states that the Kennicutt-Schmidt normalization was tuned to match the structure of the local Milky Way, so the 370 value is a fitted parameter rather than an independent ab initio prediction. The abstract's phrasing 'we use the simulations to estimate ... finding a rate of 370' obscures this circularity: the observational model defines the target, and the simulation normalization is adjusted until the simulation resembles it. The authors should reframe the result as a calibrated SFR, provide an uncertainty for the fit, and avoid implying that the agreement provides independent confirmation. The comparison to the previous 1200 value is also affected because that value was set for a different purpose (reproducing a kpc-scale DIG layer) and with different physics (f_esc=0.1).
  4. [§5] The claim that the LOW run produces a DIG scale height of 400 pc before truncation is stated without supporting evidence or a measurement method. This value is used to motivate the quiescent/relaxing interpretation, but no vertical profile, fit, or uncertainty is given. Please show the vertical Halpha or emission-measure profile and the fitting procedure used to obtain the 400 pc scale height.
  5. [§2.1] The SFR estimate is anchored to the observational model, which depends on the Edenhofer et al. (2024) dust map converted to gas density with Zucker et al. (2021) and O'Neill et al. (2024), and on the completeness of the 87 O-star census and the Martins et al. (2005) luminosities. The paper does not assess how uncertainties in these inputs shift the best-matching SFR; a test varying, for example, the O-star list or the dust-to-gas conversion by plausible factors would establish whether the factor-of-four conclusion survives. This is load-bearing because the simulated SFR is tuned to match this target.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Caption of Figure 4] The phrase 'as decribed by Baldwin et al. (1981)' contains a typo: 'decribed' should be 'described'.
  2. [Captions of Figures 9, B1, B2] The possessive form 'it's lifetime' should be 'its lifetime' throughout these captions.
  3. [Table 1] The line-intensity columns would benefit from explicit units in the column headers rather than only in the caption, to avoid ambiguity when the table is read standalone.
  4. [Figure 3 caption] The symbol '5007AA' should be '5007 Å' for consistency with the rest of the text.
  5. [Appendix A, Eq. (A2)] The notation in the displayed equation for I_HeH appears corrupted ('h 𝑄 𝑁𝑉 i 𝑙𝑎'); please reformat it so that the Monte Carlo photon-count estimator is readable.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The local SFR is a tuned Kennicutt-Schmidt normalization, and the factor-of-four comparison to 1200 ignores the change in escape fraction from 0.1 to 1.0, so the headline constraint is an artifact of input choices.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.2, Section 5, Section 6 (Conclusions), Table 1]
    "In this work, the normalisation of the Kennicutt-Schmidt relation has been tuned in order to morphologically match the structure of the local Milky Way. ... In McCallum et al. (2024a) this factor was set to 0.1 to account for photon losses to unresolved maxima in the density structure. But in order to maintain consistency with the observational model derived from the 3D dust maps, we set this factor to one for all simulations. ..."

    The SFR value 370 is the input normalization of the Kennicutt-Schmidt relation, chosen from a grid (185/370/740/1480) by matching the observational model; the paper expressly says it was 'tuned.' It is therefore a fitted parameter presented as a constraint, not an independent prediction. The factor-of-four comparison to 1200 is additionally not like-for-like: the paper changed the ionizing escape fraction f_esc from 0.1 to 1.0 but compares raw SFRs. Because the escaping ionizing luminosity scales as f_esc × SFR, the old 1200 at f_esc=0.1 corresponds to 120 at f_esc=1, and the new 370 at f_esc=1 corresponds to 3700 at f_esc=0.1. The quoted factor of four lower is therefore an artifact of the f_esc input change, not a physics result.

full rationale

One concrete circular/self-constructed step is present: the headline SFR is a tuned Kennicutt-Schmidt normalization, and the comparison that motivates the bursty/quiescent interpretation mixes different escape fractions without rescaling. This is the central claim, so the score is 6. The paper's other contributions are not circular: the synthetic [SII], [NII], and [OIII] skies and the O-star environment comparison are genuine outputs of the stated inputs, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The f_esc issue is an arithmetic/comparability flaw rather than a hidden equivalence, but because the central factor-of-four claim reduces to input parameter choices, the derivation chain is partially circular in the pattern-2 sense.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central SFR claim rests on a tuned normalization of the Kennicutt-Schmidt relation, a hand-chosen escape fraction, and fixed metal abundances, together with domain assumptions about the dust map, O-star catalog, ionization equilibrium, and neglected physics. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Kennicutt-Schmidt normalization (local SFR) = 370 M_sun Myr^-1 kpc^-2 (best of grid 185/370/740/1480)
    The star formation rate per unit area normalizes the adopted Kennicutt-Schmidt relation. Four discrete values were run; 370 was selected as best matching the observational model in number of O stars, ionizing luminosity, and line intensities (Table 1), with [OIII] and [NeIII] overproduced by a factor of about 3.
  • Molecular cloud ionizing photon escape fraction = 1.0 (chosen by hand; was 0.1 in previous work)
    Corrective factor multiplying the ionizing luminosity of each star, set to 1 to maintain consistency with the dust-map-based observational model (§2.2). It directly affects the required SFR and confounds the comparison with the earlier 1200 value obtained with 0.1.
  • Fixed metal abundances = He 0.1, C 1.4e-4, N 7.5e-5, O 3.19e-4, Ne 1.17e-4, S 1.3e-5 by number relative to H
    Adopted from Mathis (2000) and Wood & Mathis (2004) with no dust depletion (§2.1). These inputs set the normalization of all metal-line emissivities and diagnostic ratios; the metal-line predictions are sensitive to them.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Edenhofer et al. (2024) 3D dust map, converted to hydrogen density via Zucker et al. (2021) and O'Neill et al. (2024), faithfully represents the local ISM density field out to 1.25 kpc.
    Used to build the observational model density grid (§2.1). If the dust-to-gas conversion or map topology is inaccurate, all model outputs and the SFR match shift.
  • domain assumption The catalog of 87 O stars and 1 Wolf-Rayet star within 1.25 kpc is complete, and their ionizing luminosities, effective temperatures, and spectra (Martins et al. 2005; WMBasic; Crowther 2007) are accurate.
    These are the sole ionizing sources in the observational and photoionization-only models (§2.1). Missing or misestimated sources would change QH0 and the required SFR.
  • domain assumption The Kennicutt-Schmidt relation, with star formation depending on gas mass within 250 pc of the midplane, applies on 1 kpc scales in the solar neighborhood.
    Used to set star formation in the RHD simulations (§2.2), following McCallum et al. (2024a). The relation's normalization is the fitted parameter; its local validity is assumed.
  • domain assumption Photoionization equilibrium holds for the observational model and the photoionization-only models; time-dependent ionization and shock effects are absent from these.
    The observational model solves equilibrium ionization and temperature (§2.1); the SFR selection is made using the equilibrium photoionization-only models (§4.1). The paper tests non-equilibrium effects separately, but not in the SFR tuning.
  • domain assumption Photon energies above 54 eV, X-ray photoionization from post-shock gas, magnetic fields, cosmic rays, rotational shear, and diffuse ionization from hot gas do not significantly affect the main conclusions.
    Acknowledged omissions in §2 and §4.2. Some are stated to affect metal-line predictions (e.g., X-ray/UV from post-shock gas) but are not included in the models.
  • domain assumption The RHD simulations have reached states independent of the initial metal ionization conditions, and the chosen snapshot is representative of the quasi-steady state.
    The 10 Myr memory time and 300 Myr quasi-static state are from McCallum et al. (2024a,b); the representative snapshot choice is not quantitatively justified (§2.2, §4.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A three-dimensional, multi-wavelength view and time-dependent analysis of the Milky Way's local ionized gas." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VWO6ERVX

@misc{pith2026250617689,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A three-dimensional, multi-wavelength view and time-dependent analysis of the Milky Way's local ionized gas},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VWO6ERVX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17689}
}
abstract

This work is the continuation of a series attempting to characterize the local warm ionized medium through both static and time dependent simulations. We build upon our three dimensional, observationally-derived simulation of the local photoionized interstellar medium - based on static photoionization simulations constrained by 3D dust maps - to include metals required to predict collisionally excited optical and infrared emission lines, providing the first all-sky prediction of a series of lines including [SII] 6716$\mathring{A}$, [NII] 6584$\mathring{A}$ and [OIII] 5007$\mathring{A}$. While these predictions only include O-star photoionization under ionization equilibrium, we also carry out a suite of radiation-hydrodynamics simulations including time-dependent metal ionization and the effects of supernova feedback to highlight missing features in our predicted skies. We use the simulations to estimate the very local (1 $\rm kpc^{2}$) Galactic star formation rate, finding a rate of 370 $\rm M_{\odot}~Myr^{-1}~kpc^{-2}$ provides the best match between the observationally-derived and ab-initio simulations. This is approximately a factor of four lower than previous estimates for the star formation rate required to support an observed layer of high-altitude diffuse ionized gas, possibly suggesting a `bursty' star formation history in the region surrounding the Sun. We also investigate the effects of O-star environments on their ability to ionize large volumes of diffuse ionized gas, and find it is likely ionized by a small number of luminous O-stars located in regions where the leakage of their Lyman continuum photons can produce the vast volumes of ionized gas observed in the midplane and at high galactic altitudes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.17689 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. All-sky map of our model of the local ionized ISM, described in section 2.1, based on radiation transfer models incorporating the 3D dust map of Edenhofer et al. (2024) with the positions, luminosities and temperatures of 87 O stars in the solar neighborhood. In this three-color image, the H𝛼 emission is shown in red, [Sii] 6716Å in green and [Oiii] 5007AA in blue. Map projection is centered on 𝑙 = 180°, and the ima… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Face-on view of the observational model using the same color scheme as the previous image. A key for the colour scheme is displayed in the bottom right corner, with H𝛼 in red, [Sii] 6716Å in green, [Oiii] 5007Å in blue. The same Hii regions are annotated in both the sky-view of the previous figure and this face-on view. The low-density dust void associated with Galactic supershell GSH238+00+09 is also shown. The reg… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Maps of predicted line ratios projected on the sky with the same annotations and projection as in figure 1. Note that [Oiii]/H𝛽 is mostly only seen around the hottest sources, in this case the Bajamar star in the North American Nebula and the very hot stars in the Gum nebula (including the Wolf-Rayet star in the 𝛾 2 Velorum system). [Sii]/H𝛼 is seen mostly in interface regions between neutral and ionized zones (part… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Diagnostics from the simulated sky as generated from the observational simulation. HEALPix skies were generated, and the HEALPix were then binned in the 2D plane of each emission line diagram, with brighter regions denoting more HEALPix producing that set of emission l…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Face-on views of each simulation for four values of the star formation rate (185, 370, 740 and 1480 M⊙Myr−1kpc−2 ) with the star formation rate increasing with each subsequent row. The left column shows the static dust map simulation (repeated each time), the middle co…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Diagnostic diagrams formed from synthetic skies from both the observational simulation, and the photoionization only LOW star formation rate run, and the time dependent LOW star formation rate run. The left column shows the observational simulation, the middle column s…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A projection showing the column density plot of where the Lyman continuum photons from individual sources are terminated. Underlying the coloured volume of each zone of influence is the column density of the total mass in the simulation. The top row shows face-on proje…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Evolution in the vicinity of a constrained ‘𝜁 Ophiuchi-like’ massive star throughout it’s lifetime. Snapshots have been selected to show key moments in the evolution. Reading from top left to bottom right the snapshots show; the ISM before the star is born (19.1 Myr), …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Histogram of electron densities in both the time dependent snap￾shot, and the photoionization-only snapshot of the LOW SFR run. The his￾tograms are seen to diverge at densities below 0.06 cm−3 . There are fewer ionized cells in the equilibrium histogram, as the equili…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Cosmic-Ray Feedback from Supernovae in a Parker-Unstable Medium

    astro-ph.GA 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Injecting 10% of supernova energy as cosmic rays in a Parker-unstable galactic disk drives a longer-lived outflow and lowers the cosmic-ray calorimetric fraction when the magnetic field is well resolved.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J., Douglas T

    Ali A., Harries T. J., Douglas T. A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.5422A 477, 5422

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1001 2018

  2. [2]

    Alves J., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-019-1874-z , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Natur.578..237A 578, 237

    doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1874-z 2020

  3. [3]

    Anders F., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935765 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...628A..94A 628, A94

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935765 2019

  4. [4]

    A., Phillips M

    Baldwin J. A., Phillips M. M., Terlevich R., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1086/130766 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981PASP...93....5B 93, 5

    doi:10.1086/130766 1981

  5. [5]

    Bialy S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1f95 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...919L...5B 919, L5

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac1f95 2021

  6. [6]

    A., Povich M

    Binder B. A., Povich M. S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad7b2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...864..136B 864, 136

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad7b2 2018

  7. [7]

    Blaauw A., 1964, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.02.090164.001241 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964ARA&A...2..213B 2, 213

    arXiv 1964

  8. [8]

    Brown A. G. A., Blaauw A., Hoogerwerf R., de Bruijne J. H. J., de Zeeuw P. T., 1999, in Lada C. J., Kylafis N. D., eds, NATO Advanced Study Institute (ASI) Series C Vol. 540, The Origin of Stars and Planetary Systems. p. 411 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/9902234 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9902234

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9902234 1999

Show all 95 references
  1. [9]

    C., Long K

    Caldwell N., Raymond J. C., Long K. S., Lee M. G., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adbf98 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...983..150C 983, 150

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    Q., et al., 2019a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3341 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.4277C 483, 4277

    Chen B. Q., et al., 2019a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3341 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.4277C 483, 4277

    doi

  3. [11]

    Q., et al., 2019b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1357 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487.1400C 487, 1400

    Chen B. Q., et al., 2019b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1357 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487.1400C 487, 1400

    doi

  4. [12]

    S., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/142/6/197 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AJ....142..197C 142, 197

    Chomiuk L., Povich M. S., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/142/6/197 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AJ....142..197C 142, 197

    2011 doi

  5. [13]

    P., Reynolds R

    Cox D. P., Reynolds R. J., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.25.090187.001511 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ARA&A..25..303C 25, 303

    1987

  6. [14]

    P., Smith B

    Cox D. P., Smith B. W., 1974, @doi [ ] 10.1086/181476 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974ApJ...189L.105C 189, L105

    1974 doi

  7. [15]

    A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110615 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ARA&A..45..177C 45, 177

    Crowther P. A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110615 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ARA&A..45..177C 45, 177

    2007 arXiv

  8. [16]

    E., Bailer-Jones C

    Dharmawardena T. E., Bailer-Jones C. A. L., Fouesneau M., Foreman-Mackey D., Coronica P., Colnaghi T., M \"u ller T., Wilson A. G., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1474 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.3480D 532, 3480

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    K., Speagle J

    Edenhofer G., Zucker C., Frank P., Saydjari A. K., Speagle J. S., Finkbeiner D., En lin T. A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347628 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...685A..82E 685, A82

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    Elia D., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aca27d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...941..162E 941, 162

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    J., Soler J

    Elia D., Evans N. J., Soler J. D., Strafella F., Schisano E., Molinari S., Giannetti A., Patra S., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adaeb2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...980..216E 980, 216

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    V., Mason B

    Fabricius C., H g E., Makarov V. V., Mason B. D., Wycoff G. L., Urban S. E., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20011822 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A&A...384..180F 384, 180

    2002 doi

  13. [21]

    M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acb5f4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...947...66F 947, 66

    Foley M. M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acb5f4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...947...66F 947, 66

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    C., Redfield S., Slavin J

    Frisch P. C., Redfield S., Slavin J. D., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102613 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ARA&A..49..237F 49, 237

    2011 doi

  15. [23]

    Gagn \'e J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaae09 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...856...23G 856, 23

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    Originally published in: 2021A&A...649A...1G; doi:10.5270/esa-1ug, @doi 10.26093/cds/vizier.1350

    Gaia Collaboration 2020, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Gaia EDR3 (Gaia Collaboration, 2020) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: I/350. Originally published in: 2021A&A...649A...1G; doi:10.5270/esa-1ug, @doi 10.26093/cds/vizier.1350

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...595A...1G 595, A1

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    A., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.12381 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250412381G p

    Gao B. A., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.12381 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250412381G p. arXiv:2504.12381

    2025 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    Gatto A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv324 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.1057G 449, 1057

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...810...25G 810, 25

    Green G. M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...810...25G 810, 25

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    M., Schlafly E., Zucker C., Speagle J

    Green G. M., Schlafly E., Zucker C., Speagle J. S., Finkbeiner D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887...93G 887, 93

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    M., Reynolds R

    Haffner L. M., Reynolds R. J., Tufte S. L., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307734 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...523..223H 523, 223

    1999 doi

  23. [31]

    M., Reynolds R

    Haffner L. M., Reynolds R. J., Tufte S. L., Madsen G. J., Jaehnig K. P., Percival J. W., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/378850 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJS..149..405H 149, 405

    2003 doi

  24. [32]

    Heiles C., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305574 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...498..689H 498, 689

    1998 doi

  25. [33]

    A., Massey P., Strom S

    Hillenbrand L. A., Massey P., Strom S. E., Merrill K. M., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/116774 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993AJ....106.1906H 106, 1906

    1993 doi

  26. [34]

    G., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/268.1.109 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994MNRAS.268..109H 268, 109

    Hummer D. G., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/268.1.109 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994MNRAS.268..109H 268, 109

    1994 doi

  27. [35]

    G., Storey P

    Hummer D. G., Storey P. J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.2970041073.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998MNRAS.297.1073H 297, 1073

    1998

  28. [36]

    L., Reffert S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346285 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...673A.114H 673, A114

    Hunt E. L., Reffert S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346285 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...673A.114H 673, A114

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    H., Hernquist L., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/192305 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJS..105...19K 105, 19

    Katz N., Weinberg D. H., Hernquist L., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/192305 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJS..105...19K 105, 19

    1996 doi

  30. [38]

    C., Evans N

    Kennicutt R. C., Evans N. J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ARA&A..50..531K 50, 531

    2012 doi

  31. [39]

    J., Dopita M

    Kewley L. J., Dopita M. A., Sutherland R. S., Heisler C. A., Trevena J., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/321545 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...556..121K 556, 121

    2001 doi

  32. [40]

    C., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acbd3a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...946....3K 946, 3

    Kim C.-G., Kim J.-G., Gong M., Ostriker E. C., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acbd3a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...946....3K 946, 3

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    Konietzka R., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-024-07127-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.628...62K 628, 62

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    L., Katz D., Arenou F., Valette B., Hottier C., Capitanio L., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834695 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...625A.135L 625, A135

    Lallement R., Babusiaux C., Vergely J. L., Katz D., Arenou F., Valette B., Hottier C., Capitanio L., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834695 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...625A.135L 625, A135

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    L., Babusiaux C., Cox N

    Lallement R., Vergely J. L., Babusiaux C., Cox N. L. J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142846 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...661A.147L 661, A147

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    H., Glatzle M., En lin T

    Leike R. H., Glatzle M., En lin T. A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038169 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...639A.138L 639, A138

    2020 doi

  37. [45]

    J., Reynolds R

    Madsen G. J., Reynolds R. J., Haffner L. M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/508441 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...652..401M 652, 401

    2006 doi

  38. [46]

    I., Walch S., Clarke S

    Makarenko E. I., Walch S., Clarke S. D., Seifried D., Naab T., N \"u rnberger P. C., Rathjen T.-E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1472 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.1421M 523, 1421

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    J., Robin A

    Marshall D. J., Robin A. C., Reyl \'e C., Schultheis M., Picaud S., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053842 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...453..635M 453, 635

    2006 doi

  40. [48]

    J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20042386 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...436.1049M 436, 1049

    Martins F., Schaerer D., Hillier D. J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20042386 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...436.1049M 436, 1049

    2005 doi

  41. [49]

    S., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/317210 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...544..347M 544, 347

    Mathis J. S., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/317210 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...544..347M 544, 347

    2000 doi

  42. [50]

    McCallum L., Wood K., Benjamin R., Pe \ n aloza C., Krishnarao D., Smith R., Vandenbroucke B., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae988 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.2548M 530, 2548

    doi

  43. [51]

    McCallum L., Wood K., Benjamin R., Krishnarao D., Vandenbroucke B., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2549 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535.2889M 535, 2889

    doi

  44. [52]

    A., Krishnarao D., Zucker C., Edenhofer G., Haffner L

    McCallum L., Wood K., Benjamin R. A., Krishnarao D., Zucker C., Edenhofer G., Haffner L. M., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slaf023 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.tmpL..22M

    2025 doi

  45. [53]

    McClymont W., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1587 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.2016M 532, 2016

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    F., Dale J

    McLeod A. F., Dale J. E., Ginsburg A., Ercolano B., Gritschneder M., Ramsay S., Testi L., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv680 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.1057M 450, 1057

    2015 doi

  47. [55]

    Mei J., Chen Z., Jiang Z., Zheng S., Feng H., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347952 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...685A..39M 685, A39

    2024 doi

  48. [56]

    W., Whitford A

    Morgan W. W., Whitford A. E., Code A. D., 1953, @doi [ ] 10.1086/145754 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1953ApJ...118..318M 118, 318

    1953 doi

  49. [57]

    C., Rushton M., Yang R., Thirlwall J

    Natale G., Popescu C. C., Rushton M., Yang R., Thirlwall J. J., Pricopi D., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2771 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.2339N 509, 2339

    2022 doi

  50. [58]

    J., Zucker C., Goodman A

    O'Neill T. J., Zucker C., Goodman A. A., Edenhofer G., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad61de , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...973..136O 973, 136

    2024 doi

  51. [59]

    E., Ferland G

    Osterbrock D. E., Ferland G. J., 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei

    2006

  52. [60]

    H., Reed B

    Pantaleoni Gonz \'a lez M., Ma \' z Apell \'a niz J., Barb \'a R. H., Reed B. C., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab688 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.2968P 504, 2968

    2021 doi

  53. [61]

    Pauldrach A. W. A., Hoffmann T. L., Lennon M., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20010805 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...375..161P 375, 161

    2001 doi

  54. [62]

    Poggio E., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140687 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...651A.104P 651, A104

    2021 doi

  55. [63]

    L., Wright N

    Quintana A. L., Wright N. J., Mart \' nez Garc \' a J., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf083 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.538.1367Q 538, 1367

    2025 doi

  56. [64]

    Rathjen T.-E., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.1039R 504, 1039

    2021 doi

  57. [65]

    Rathjen T.-E., Naab T., Walch S., Seifried D., Girichidis P., W \"u nsch R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1104 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.1843R 522, 1843

    2023 doi

  58. [66]

    S., Beuther H., Benjamin R

    Rezaei Kh. S., Beuther H., Benjamin R. A., Eilers A.-C., Henning T., Jim \'e nez-Donaire M. J., Miville-Desch \^e nes M.-A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449255 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...692A.255R 692, A255

    2024 doi

  59. [67]

    J., Cassisi S., 2020, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-020-1097-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NatAs...4..965R 4, 965

    Ruiz-Lara T., Gallart C., Bernard E. J., Cassisi S., 2020, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-020-1097-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NatAs...4..965R 4, 965

    2020 doi

  60. [68]

    E., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1090 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.443.2907S 443, 2907

    Sale S. E., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1090 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.443.2907S 443, 2907

    2014 doi

  61. [69]

    F., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...789...15S 789, 15

    Schlafly E. F., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...789...15S 789, 15

    2014 doi

  62. [70]

    J., Hou L

    Shen X. J., Hou L. G., Liu H. L., Gao X. Y., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452712 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...696A..67S 696, A67

    2025 doi

  63. [71]

    D., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347608 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...678A..95S 678, A95

    Soler J. D., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347608 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...678A..95S 678, A95

    2023 doi

  64. [72]

    Spitzer L., 1978, Physical processes in the interstellar medium , @doi 10.1002/9783527617722

    1978 doi

  65. [73]

    Swiggum C., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243761 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...664L..13S 664, L13

    2022 doi

  66. [74]

    Swiggum C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-024-07496-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.631...49S 631, 49

    2024 doi

  67. [75]

    Thulasidharan L., D'Onghia E., Poggio E., Drimmel R., Gallagher J. S. I., Swiggum C., Benjamin R. A., Alves J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142899 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...660L..12T 660, L12

    2022 doi

  68. [76]

    Vandenbroucke B., Camps P., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038364 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...641A..66V 641, A66

    2020 doi

  69. [77]

    Vandenbroucke B., Wood K., 2018, @doi [Astronomy and Computing] 10.1016/j.ascom.2018.02.005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&C....23...40V 23, 40

    2018 doi

  70. [78]

    S., Peters T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty554 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.4032V 476, 4032

    Vandenbroucke B., Wood K., Girichidis P., Hill A. S., Peters T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty554 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.4032V 476, 4032

    2018 doi

  71. [79]

    L., Lallement R., Cox N

    Vergely J. L., Lallement R., Cox N. L. J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243319 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...664A.174V 664, A174

    2022 doi

  72. [80]

    J., Heyer M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/73 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...831...73V 831, 73

    Vutisalchavakul N., Evans II N. J., Heyer M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/73 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...831...73V 831, 73

    2016 doi

  73. [81]

    Walch S., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1975 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454..238W 454, 238

    2015 doi

  74. [82]

    Wells M. R. A., Urquhart J. S., Moore T. J. T., Browning K. E., Ragan S. E., Rigby A. J., Eden D. J., Thompson M. A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2420 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.4245W 516, 4245

    2022 doi

  75. [84]

    S., Ercolano B., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07458.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.348.1337W 348, 1337

    Wood K., Mathis J. S., Ercolano B., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07458.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.348.1337W 348, 1337

    2004

  76. [85]

    J., Kounkel M., Zari E., Goodwin S., Jeffries R

    Wright N. J., Kounkel M., Zari E., Goodwin S., Jeffries R. D., 2023, in Inutsuka S., Aikawa Y., Muto T., Tomida K., Tamura M., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII. p. 129

    2023

  77. [86]

    G., Bian S

    Xu Y., Hou L. G., Bian S. B., Hao C. J., Liu D. J., Li J. J., Li Y. J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202040103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...645L...8X 645, L8

    2021 doi

  78. [87]

    T., Girard T

    Zacharias N., Finch C. T., Girard T. M., Henden A., Bartlett J. L., Monet D. G., Zacharias M. I., 2012, VizieR Online Data Catalog: UCAC4 Catalogue (Zacharias+, 2012) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: I/322A. Originally published in: 2013AJ....145...44Z

    2012

  79. [88]

    Zari E., Brown A. G. A., de Zeeuw P. T., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935781 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...628A.123Z 628, A123

    2019 doi

  80. [89]

    Zari E., Frankel N., Rix H.-W., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244194 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...669A..10Z 669, A10

    2023 doi

  81. [90]

    M., Rix H.-W., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1941 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.1855Z 524, 1855

    Zhang X., Green G. M., Rix H.-W., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1941 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.1855Z 524, 1855

    2023 doi

  82. [91]

    Zucker C., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1f96 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...919...35Z 919, 35

    2021 doi

  83. [92]

    Zucker C., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-021-04286-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Natur.601..334Z 601, 334

    2022 doi

  84. [93]

    534, Protostars and Planets VII

    Zucker C., Alves J., Goodman A., Meingast S., Galli P., 2023, in Inutsuka S., Aikawa Y., Muto T., Tomida K., Tamura M., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII. p. 43 ( @eprint arXiv 2212.00067 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2212.00067

    2023 doi arXiv

  85. [94]

    arXiv:2503.02657

    Zucker C., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.02657 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250302657Z p. arXiv:2503.02657

    2025 doi

  86. [95]

    van Leeuwen F., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20078357 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...474..653V 474, 653

    2007 doi

  87. [96]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.