Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 77 references

ALMA Survey of Orion Planck Galactic Cold Clumps (ALMASOP): Nested Morphological and Kinematic Structures of Outflows Revealed in SiO and CO Emission

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Four protostellar outflows show the predicted reverse-shock cavity in their CO and SiO maps.

desk verdict Careful ALMA kinematics of four outflows with a plausible but unproven reverse-shock identification; the data presentation deserves publication, the interpretive claim needs a line-transfer test. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08827 v1 pith:Z3M7IB7V submitted 2024-11-13 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Chun-Fan Liu , Hsien Shang , Doug Johnstone , Tsung-Han Ai , Tsz Ming Lee , Ruben Krasnopolsky , Naomi Hirano , Somnath Dutta
show 17 more authors
Shih-Ying Hsu Jesús Alejandro López-Vázquez Sheng-Yuan Liu Tie Liu Ken'ichi Tatematsu Qizhou Zhang Mark G. Rawlings David Eden Zhiyuan Ren Patricio Sanhueza Woojin Kwon Chang Won Lee Yi-Jehng Kuan Somdeb Bandopadhyay Miikka S. Väisälä Chin-Fei Lee Indrani Das
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords protostellaroutflowsmolecularSiOjetsCOemissionreverseshockmagnetizedwindsposition-velocitydiagramsALMASOP
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 ALMA observations of four young protostars and argues that their outflows are not simply a jet inside a hollow shell. In channel maps and position-velocity diagrams, the CO and SiO emission shows nested layers: an extremely high velocity jet, a low-velocity shell, and between them filamentary and bubble-like structures that connect the two. The authors identify a triangular low-emission region at the base of each outflow in the parallel position-velocity diagrams and interpret it as the cavity carved by the reverse shock, where a magnetized wide-angle wind is decelerated against the surrounding cloud. They further argue that the SiO emission appears only downstream of this shock, in the compressed shocked wind, which would change how observed knot spacings and SiO jet speeds are usually read. If the interpretation holds, it unifies jet-driven and wind-driven outflow features under one magnetized-bubble picture.

What carries the argument

The central diagnostic is the position-velocity diagram (PVD), made by slicing the datacube parallel and perpendicular to the outflow axis. The load-bearing feature is a triangular low-emission region at low positions near the base in the parallel PVD, read as the reverse-shock cavity: the reverse shock is the surface where the free wide-angle wind is decelerated, compressed, and redirected before joining the outflow bubble. The surrounding nested shells, filamentary threads, and oval or rhombus patterns in the transverse PVDs are interpreted as the compressed wind region and the magnetic-interplay structures, called pseudopulses, of the unified model.

What would settle it

Compute synthetic position-velocity diagrams by post-processing the unified-model simulation with radiative transfer at the same inclination, beam, and velocity resolution as, say, HOPS 315, and see whether the simulated parallel PVD reproduces the triangular void and the SiO onset point; a second, cheaper check is to compare two SiO transitions with different excitation requirements, since the triangle's apex and the SiO turn-on location would shift with excitation conditions if the feature is an excitation artifact rather than a kinematic cavity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the four outflows, HOPS 10, HOPS 315, HOPS 358, and G203.21-11.20W2, all display the reverse-shock cavity predicted by the unified magnetized wind-bubble model. The evidence is a triangular void near the base of the parallel position-velocity diagrams, with SiO emission starting only beyond its apex, plus rhombus and oval patterns in transverse position-velocity diagrams and filamentary threads connecting low-velocity shells to high-velocity knots. On the paper's reading, these are natural consequences of a magnetized wide-angle wind interacting with a magnetized ambient toroid: the reverse shock compresses and focuses the wind, the compressed wind region produces the nested shells and apparent knots via magnetic pseudopulses, and SiO traces the postshock compressed wind rather than the pristine jet.

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation depends on the triangular void at the base of the parallel position-velocity diagrams actually being a reverse-shock cavity; if that shape reflects excitation, opacity, or projection effects rather than the shock, the central identification and the SiO-emergence story would not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Many of the knotty SiO blobs along the jet would not be independent ejection events but magnetic pseudopulses produced by the wind-ambient interaction, so knot counting alone would overestimate the number of real ejection episodes.
  • The low-velocity and intermediate-velocity CO emission would come from compressed ambient and wind material set by the shock structure, so its speed would not require a separate slow disk wind.
  • SiO excitation would be a postshock phenomenon: it switches on only where the reverse shock raises density or sputters dust, and thus marks shocked wind rather than pristine jet material.
  • Outflows at inclinations between roughly 30 and 60 degrees should show the same triangle-and-nested-shell signature, so the remaining ALMASOP outflow sources can be sorted by cavity size and magnetization using the same PVD technique.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper compares observations to a model snapshot rather than to synthetic observations of these specific outflows; generating synthetic PV diagrams from the simulation at each source's inclination and beam and fitting the triangle's shape would turn the identification from qualitative to testable.
  • If the reverse-shock reading is right, there should be a systematic trend across a larger sample: stronger wind toroidal fields, meaning smaller Alfvenic Mach number, should yield larger or more pronounced cavities, a prediction that can be checked with the other ALMASOP outflows.
  • The postshock origin of SiO implies that SiO jet speeds, and hence estimated mass-loss rates and momentum, are lower limits to the true wind speed, which has consequences for how much momentum young stars deposit into their surroundings.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents ALMA Band 6 observations of four protostellar outflows (HOPS 10, 315, 358, and G203W2) from the ALMASOP survey, analyzing 12CO (2–1) and SiO (5–4) emission through channel maps and position–velocity diagrams (PVDs) oriented parallel and transverse to the outflow axes. The authors describe a nested structure of EHV jets, low-velocity cavity walls, filamentary ridges, triangular voids near the base of parallel PVDs, and rhombus/oval patterns in transverse PVDs. They interpret these features within the unified magnetized wind-bubble framework of Shang et al. (2020, 2023b), claiming identification of the reverse shock cavity in all four sources, compressed-wind and compressed-ambient regions, and pseudopulse-produced filamentary structures. The paper also discusses the origin of SiO emission as enhanced downstream of the reverse shock and distinguishes apparent episodicity (pseudopulses) from real mass-ejection variability.

Significance. If the interpretation holds, the paper offers the first systematic identification of reverse-shock cavities in protostellar outflows and proposes that SiO emission traces post-shock material rather than the pristine jet. The observational analysis follows standard procedures: C18O-based systemic velocities, well-documented channel maps and PVDs, and multi-line comparisons (CO, SiO, N2D+, H2CO). The paper is also commendable for explicitly connecting the observations to a specific theoretical framework and for noting where the conventional jet-driven/wind-driven models fail. However, the central claim rests on by-eye morphological matches between PVD features and theoretical predictions, with no synthetic line-emission calculations or quantitative fitting. The significance is therefore moderate: the data are valuable and the interpretation is plausible, but the load-bearing identification is not yet demonstrated at the level required to establish the reverse-shock interpretation conclusively.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2.2, Figure 11] The identification of the triangular void in the parallel PVDs as the reverse shock cavity is the load-bearing claim of the paper, but it is not supported by any quantitative comparison. Figure 11 shows a synthetic column-density position–velocity map from Shang et al. (2023b) with fixed parameters (MA=30, n=4, i=45°) placed next to the HOPS 315 PVD, but this synthetic map is not a CO or SiO line emission calculation, is not convolved with the ALMA beam or filtered through the uv coverage, and is not fit to the observed data. The paper's own description in §4.2.3 uses 'qualitatively' and 'bracket' to describe the comparison. Consequently, the mapping from a by-eye triangular void to a reverse-shock cavity is underdetermined; alternative explanations such as CO self-absorption near the systemic velocity, excitation thresholds, or projection of a hollow conical cavity with a Hubble-like velocity law are not excluded. The authors should either compute synthetic CO/SiO PVDs through non-LTE radiative transfer with the actual ALMA uv coverage, or provide a quantitative feature-matching analysis, before claiming in the abstract and Section 5 that the reverse shock has been identified in all four sources.
  2. [Section 4.2.4] The claim that SiO emission is enhanced downstream of the reverse shock boundary is presented as a key result, but the paper does not test the two proposed enhancement mechanisms (postshock density compression versus dust sputtering). Section 4.2.4 correctly acknowledges that either scenario can be applied, but no quantitative estimate of the postshock density/temperature or of the sputtering rate is given, and no synthetic SiO line emission is produced from the unified model. The observed non-overlap of CO and SiO is also consistent with abundance variations or with SiO tracing only the highest-density axial region irrespective of a reverse shock. Without a radiative-transfer or excitation test, the SiO interpretation remains a hypothesis, and the abstract's phrasing ('SiO emission is enhanced downstream of the reverse shock boundary, with jet-like excitation conditions') overstates the evidence.
  3. [Section 2.3 and Section 5] The four sources were explicitly selected as those showing 'the most clear nested kinematic structures' among 19 CO/SiO outflows (§2.3). This selection on the very features that the paper then claims to explain means that the sample cannot serve as an unbiased confirmation of the unified model's predictive power. The paper's summary statement that 'the reverse shock and its cavity have been identified in all four sources' (§5) is therefore a statement about selected case studies, not about the general ALMASOP population. The authors should either perform the same analysis on the full sample of 19 sources, or explicitly frame the paper as a case-study presentation that demonstrates plausibility rather than confirmation.
  4. [Section 4.2.2, Figures 3, 5, 7, 9] The paper identifies the triangular void by visual inspection ('delineated by yellow dashed lines') and does not provide any quantitative measure of the void's significance or its contrast with the surrounding emission. In HOPS 358, the closest-to-edge-on source, the bright ambient CO emission dominates the parallel PVD (Figure 9), and the paper itself notes that the jet is visible within the would-be cavity at low |z|. This weakens the claim that the reverse-shock cavity is seen in all four sources. The authors should quantify the void significance (e.g., signal-to-noise of the emission deficit, or a rigorous feature-detection procedure) and address the HOPS 358 exception when making the general claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2.3] The sentence 'the fits prefer 1 ≲ n ≲ 4 and 6 ≲ MA ≲ 30' uses the word 'fits' even though no formal fitting was performed; rephrase as 'qualitative comparisons suggest' or report the fitting procedure and uncertainties.
  2. [Figure captions 3, 5, 7, 9] The yellow dashed lines are described in the captions as delineating 'a triangular region at the base of the jet and wide-angle wind', but in the text they are called the reverse shock cavity; make the terminology consistent across captions and text.
  3. [Abstract and text] The abstract uses 'shell-like low-velocity (LV) cavity walls' while the body text uses the spaced form 'L V' (e.g., §4.3); standardize the notation to one form throughout.
  4. [Section 4.3] The statement that 'the range of the velocity convergence in the EHV region is also incompatible with the slow molecular (disk) wind scenario' is made without a quantitative argument; please provide the velocity ranges or a citation that explicitly demonstrates this incompatibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the ALMA observations and the Shang et al. model comparison are independent; the reverse-shock-cavity identification is underdetermined but not definitionally circular.

full rationale

The derived chain in this paper is observational: channel maps and PVDs are produced directly from ALMA datacubes, and the model comparison is a post-hoc interpretation rather than a fitted prediction. No model parameter is fitted to the four ALMASOP sources and then renamed as a prediction; the synthetic PVD in Figure 11 was published in Shang et al. (2023b) with fixed parameters (MA=30, n=4, i=45) before this analysis, and the 'fits prefer' statement refers to a qualitative bracket, not to a derived quantity used as evidence for the same quantity. The reverse-shock-cavity identification is underdetermined—a by-eye triangular void could in principle have other causes, and no CO/SiO line radiative transfer through the ALMA pipeline is presented—but underdetermination is a correctness risk, not circularity. The self-citations to Shang et al. (2020, 2023b) and Ai et al. (2024) are load-bearing for the interpretive vocabulary, yet those simulations are independent, externally falsifiable theoretical products rather than definitions imported from the present data. Therefore no step in the paper's argument reduces to its own inputs by construction.

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

No new free parameters are fitted in this paper; the analysis is morphological and interpretive. The interpretation leans on the authors' prior theoretical framework (Shang et al. 2020, 2023b), which is assumed valid. Sample selection favors sources that display the target features, so the generality of the conclusions depends on an unverified representativeness assumption.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The unified magnetized wind-blown bubble model of Shang et al. (2020, 2023b) correctly describes the physics of protostellar outflows, including reverse shock cavities, compressed wind regions, and pseudopulses.
    The interpretation of the observed PVD features (triangles, rhombi, ovals) as reverse shock cavities and nested shells relies entirely on this model, which comes from the authors' own prior work. Invoked throughout Section 4.2.
  • domain assumption CO emission traces the compressed wind and ambient material while SiO traces the denser jet post-shock flow, such that their relative spatial distributions can be used to locate the reverse shock.
    Section 4.2.4 argues that SiO appears only after the reverse shock, which assumes the chemical and excitation tracer separation is valid.
  • domain assumption The four selected sources are representative of the ALMASOP outflow population.
    Section 2.3 states the four were chosen because they show the most clear nested kinematic structures among 19 sources, introducing selection bias. The paper acknowledges this in Section 4.4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ALMA Survey of Orion Planck Galactic Cold Clumps (ALMASOP): Nested Morphological and Kinematic Structures of Outflows Revealed in SiO and CO Emission." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z3M7IB7V

@misc{pith2026241108827,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ALMA Survey of Orion Planck Galactic Cold Clumps (ALMASOP): Nested Morphological and Kinematic Structures of Outflows Revealed in SiO and CO Emission},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z3M7IB7V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08827}
}
read the original abstract

The Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array Survey of Orion Planck Galactic Cold Clumps (ALMASOP) reveals complex nested morphological and kinematic features of molecular outflows through the CO (J = 2 - 1) and SiO (J = 5 - 4) emission. We characterize the jet and outflow kinematics of the ALMASOP sample in four representative sources (HOPS 10, 315, 358, and G203.21-11.20W2) through channel maps and position-velocity diagrams (PVDs) parallel and transverse to the outflow axes. The combined CO and SiO emission exhibits the coexistence of the conventional extremely-high-velocity (EHV) jets and shell-like low-velocity (LV) cavity walls and new features. More complex, nested bubble-like and filamentary structures in the images and channel maps, triangle-shaped regions near the base of the parallel PVDs, and regions composed of rhombus/oval shapes in the transverse PVDs, are also evident. Such features find natural explanations within the bubble structure of the unified model of jet, wind, and ambient medium. The reverse shock cavity is revealed on the PVD base regions, and other features naturally arise within the dynamic postshock region of magnetic interaction. The finer nested shells observed within the compressed wind region reveal previously unnoticed shocked emission between the jet and the conventional large cavity walls. These pseudopulse-produced filamentary features connect to the jet-like knotty blobs, creating an impression of episodicity in mass ejection. SiO emission is enhanced downstream of the reverse shock boundary, with jet-like excitation conditions. Combined, these observed features reveal the extended structures induced by the magnetic interplay between a jet-bearing magnetized wide-angle wind and its ambient magnetized surrounding medium.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08827 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Integrated maps of various emission lines of the selected sources G205.46-14.56S3 (HOPS 315), G209.55-19.68S2 (HOPS 10), G203.21-11.20W2 (G203W2), and G205.46-14.56S1 (HOPS 358), from top to bottom rows, in an increasing order of inclination angle, i.e., going toward the edge-on disk orientation. For each of the sources, the leftmost panel shows 12CO in the background grey-scale colormap, and SiO blueshifted and red… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. G205.46-14.56S3 (HOPS 315): integrated channel maps with ∼ 25 km s−1 width per channel shown in the central two rows. The central velocity of each channel is shown in vLSR. The maps have been rotated so that the redshifted outflow axis is upwards with north–east compass bars in the lower-left panel. The maps show 12CO in color maps and SiO in white contours in units of Jy beam−1 km s−1 . Positions of high-velocity S… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. G205.46-14.56S3 (HOPS 315): upper row – parallel PVDs of CO and SiO along the position angles indicated by thick black lines in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: G209.55-19.68S2 (HOPS 10): integrated channel maps with ∼ 10 km s−1 width per channel shown in the central two rows. The central velocity of each channel is shown in vLSR. The maps have been rotated to vertically align the redshifted outflow axis upwards. North–east co…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: G209.55-19.68S2 (HOPS 10): upper row – parallel PVDs of CO and SiO along the position angles indicated by thick black lines in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: G203.21-11.20W2 (G203W2): integrated channel maps with ∼ 10 km s−1 width per channel shown in the central two rows. The central velocity of each channel is shown in vLSR. The maps have been rotated so that the redshifted outflow axis is upwards with north–east compass …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: G203.21-11.20W2 (G203W2): upper row – parallel PVDs of CO and SiO along the position angles indicated by thick black lines in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: G205.46-14.56S1 (HOPS 358): integrated channel maps with ∼ 10 km s−1 width per channel shown in the central two rows. The central velocity of each channel is shown in vLSR. The maps have been rotated so that the redshifted outflow axis is upwards with north–east compas…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: G205.46-14.56S1 (HOPS 358): upper row – parallel PVDs of CO and SiO along the position angles indicated by thick black lines in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Top panels: Schematics of observed components from the four representative ALMASOP sources. The three panels on the left illustrate cases with larger opening angles, indicating a more evolved status, and the right one presents a case with a smaller opening angle, indi…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: An example of comparison for the parallel PVD of combined CO and SiO emissions of HOPS 315 (left panel) with synthetic column density in PV space (right panel) as shown in Shang et al. (2023b). In both panels, yellow dashed lines near the jet base delineate the revers…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 15 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]

    A Unified Model for Bipolar Outflows from Young Stars: Kinematic and Mixing Structures in HH 30

    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...

    work page Pith review arXiv 1984

  4. [4]

    2024, , 964, 147, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2355

    Ai , T.-H., Liu , C.-F., Shang , H., Johnstone , D., & Krasnopolsky , R. 2024, , 964, 147, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2355

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2355 2024

  5. [5]

    Allen , A., Li , Z.-Y., & Shu , F. H. 2003, , 599, 363, 10.1086/379243

    doi:10.1086/379243 2003

  6. [6]

    2008, , 479, 503, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077468

    Antoniucci , S., Nisini , B., Giannini , T., & Lorenzetti , D. 2008, , 479, 503, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077468

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077468 2008

  7. [7]

    G., & Sargent , A

    Arce , H. G., & Sargent , A. I. 2006, , 646, 1070, 10.1086/505104

    doi:10.1086/505104 2006

  8. [8]

    P., Tollerud , E

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    M., Sip o cz , B

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

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Lim , P

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

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    1996, , 34, 111, 10.1146/annurev.astro.34.1.111

    Bachiller , R. 1996, , 34, 111, 10.1146/annurev.astro.34.1.111

    1996 doi

  4. [12]

    2016, , 54, 491, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023341

    Bally , J. 2016, , 54, 491, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023341

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    2000, Dr

    Bradski, G. 2000, Dr. Dobb's Journal of Software Tools

    2000

  6. [14]

    2006, , 449, 1077, 10.1051/0004-6361:20054313

    Caratti o Garatti , A., Giannini , T., Nisini , B., & Lorenzetti , D. 2006, , 449, 1077, 10.1051/0004-6361:20054313

    2006 doi

  7. [15]

    J., Smith , M

    Chrysostomou , A., Hobson , J., Davis , C. J., Smith , M. D., & Berndsen , A. 2000, , 314, 229, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03304.x

    2000

  8. [16]

    2020, , 495, 3614, 10.1093/mnras/staa1254

    Contreras Pe \ n a , C., Johnstone , D., Baek , G., et al. 2020, , 495, 3614, 10.1093/mnras/staa1254

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Stern , L., Ray , T

    Davis , C. J., Stern , L., Ray , T. P., & Chrysostomou , A. 2002, , 382, 1021, 10.1051/0004-6361:20011680

    2002 doi

  10. [18]

    2020, , 634, L12, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936950

    de Valon , A., Dougados , C., Cabrit , S., et al. 2020, , 634, L12, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936950

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    2022, , 668, A78, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141316

    ---. 2022, , 668, A78, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141316

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    M., Arce , H

    Dunham , M. M., Arce , H. G., Mardones , D., et al. 2014, , 783, 29, 10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/29

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    2020, , 251, 20, 10.3847/1538-4365/abba26

    Dutta , S., Lee , C.-F., Liu , T., et al. 2020, , 251, 20, 10.3847/1538-4365/abba26

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    2022 a , , 925, 11, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3424

    Dutta , S., Lee , C.-F., Johnstone , D., et al. 2022 a , , 925, 11, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3424

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    2022 b , , 931, 130, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac67a1

    Dutta , S., Lee , C.-F., Hirano , N., et al. 2022 b , , 931, 130, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac67a1

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    2024, The Astronomical Journal, 167, 72, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad152b

    Dutta, S., Lee, C.-F., Johnstone, D., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 167, 72, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad152b

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Ali , B., et al

    Furlan , E., Fischer , W. J., Ali , B., et al. 2016, , 224, 5, 10.3847/0067-0049/224/1/5

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    Galli , D., & Shu , F. H. 1993, , 417, 220, 10.1086/173305

    1993 doi

  19. [27]

    2019, radio-astro-tools/spectral-cube: v0.4.4 , v0.4.4, Zenodo, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.2573901

    Ginsburg , A., Koch , E., Robitaille , T., et al. 2019, radio-astro-tools/spectral-cube: v0.4.4 , v0.4.4, Zenodo, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.2573901

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    E., Mamon , G

    Glassgold , A. E., Mamon , G. A., & Huggins , P. J. 1991, , 373, 254, 10.1086/170045

    1991 doi

  21. [29]

    2018, , 620, L1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834271

    G \"u del , M., Eibensteiner , C., Dionatos , O., et al. 2018, , 620, L1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834271

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    1999, , 343, 571

    Gueth , F., & Guilloteau , S. 1999, , 343, 571

    1999

  23. [31]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    Hirano , N., Ho , P. P. T., Liu , S.-Y., et al. 2010, , 717, 58, 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/58

    2010 doi

  25. [33]

    G., Li , Z.-Y., et al

    Hsieh , C.-H., Arce , H. G., Li , Z.-Y., et al. 2023, , 947, 25, 10.3847/1538-4357/acba13

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    2022, , 927, 218, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac49e0

    Hsu , S.-Y., Liu , S.-Y., Liu , T., et al. 2022, , 927, 218, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac49e0

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  28. [36]

    M., et al

    Izumi , N., Sanhueza , P., Koch , P. M., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.03935, 10.48550/arXiv.2312.03935

    2023 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    2016, , 816, 32, 10.3847/0004-637X/816/1/32

    Jhan, K.-S., & Lee, C.-F. 2016, , 816, 32, 10.3847/0004-637X/816/1/32

    2016 doi

  30. [38]

    2022, , 931, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6a53

    Jhan , K.-S., Lee , C.-F., Johnstone , D., et al. 2022, , 931, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6a53

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    Koo , B.-C., & McKee , C. F. 1992 a , , 388, 93, 10.1086/171132

    1992 doi

  32. [40]

    1992 b , , 388, 103, 10.1086/171133

    ---. 1992 b , , 388, 103, 10.1086/171133

    1992 doi

  33. [41]

    G., Reipurth , B., Ostriker , E

    Lee , C.-F., Mundy , L. G., Reipurth , B., Ostriker , E. C., & Stone , J. M. 2000, , 542, 925, 10.1086/317056

    2000 doi

  34. [42]

    M., Ostriker , E

    Lee , C.-F., Stone , J. M., Ostriker , E. C., & Mundy , L. G. 2001, , 557, 429, 10.1086/321648

    2001 doi

  35. [43]

    2018, , 856, 14, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaae6d

    Lee , C.-F., Li , Z.-Y., Codella , C., et al. 2018, , 856, 14, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaae6d

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    2021, , 920, 119, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1679

    Lee , Y.-H., Johnstone , D., Lee , J.-E., et al. 2021, , 920, 119, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1679

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    Li , Z.-Y., & Shu , F. H. 1996, , 472, 211, 10.1086/178056

    1996 doi

  38. [46]

    A., Lee , C.-F., Fern \'a ndez-L \'o pez , M., et al

    L \'o pez-V \'a zquez , J. A., Lee , C.-F., Fern \'a ndez-L \'o pez , M., et al. 2024, , 962, 28, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad132a

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    2018, , 618, A120, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731733

    Louvet , F., Dougados , C., Cabrit , S., et al. 2018, , 618, A120, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731733

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    2022, , 931, 158, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac66d9

    Luo , Q.-y., Liu , T., Tatematsu , K., et al. 2022, , 931, 158, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac66d9

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.03549, 10.48550/arXiv.2401.03549

    Mairs , S., Lee , S., Johnstone , D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.03549, 10.48550/arXiv.2401.03549

    2024 doi arXiv

  42. [50]

    Palau , A., Ho , P. T. P., Zhang , Q., et al. 2006, , 636, L137, 10.1086/500242

    2006 doi

  43. [51]

    Park , S., & Kenyon , S. J. 2002, , 123, 3370, 10.1086/340467

    2002 doi

  44. [52]

    L., Arce , H

    Plunkett , A. L., Arce , H. G., Mardones , D., et al. 2015, , 527, 70. 1511.01100

    2015 arXiv

  45. [53]

    2023, , 945, 156, 10.3847/1538-4357/acbc26

    Sahu , D., Liu , S.-Y., Johnstone , D., et al. 2023, , 945, 156, 10.3847/1538-4357/acbc26

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    2009, , 495, 169, 10.1051/0004-6361:200810739

    Santiago-Garc \' a , J., Tafalla , M., Johnstone , D., & Bachiller , R. 2009, , 495, 169, 10.1051/0004-6361:200810739

    2009 doi

  47. [55]

    M., Pineau des Forets , G., & Flower , D

    Schilke , P., Walmsley , C. M., Pineau des Forets , G., & Flower , D. R. 1997, , 321, 293

    1997

  48. [56]

    2006, , 649, 845, 10.1086/506513

    Shang , H., Allen , A., Li , Z.-Y., et al. 2006, , 649, 845, 10.1086/506513

    2006 doi

  49. [57]

    2023 a , , 945, L1 (Paper III), 10.3847/2041-8213/acaeae

    Shang , H., Krasnopolsky , R., & Liu , C.-F. 2023 a , , 945, L1 (Paper III), 10.3847/2041-8213/acaeae

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    2020, , 905, 116 (Paper I), 10.3847/1538-4357/abbdb0

    Shang , H., Krasnopolsky , R., Liu , C.-F., & Wang , L.-Y. 2020, , 905, 116 (Paper I), 10.3847/1538-4357/abbdb0

    2020 doi

  51. [59]

    2023 b , , 944, 230 (Paper II), 10.3847/1538-4357/aca763

    Shang , H., Liu , C.-F., Krasnopolsky , R., & Wang , L.-Y. 2023 b , , 944, 230 (Paper II), 10.3847/1538-4357/aca763

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    Shu , F. H. 1977, , 214, 488, 10.1086/155274

    1977 doi

  53. [61]

    H., Najita , J., Ostriker , E

    Shu , F. H., Najita , J., Ostriker , E. C., & Shang , H. 1995, , 455, L155, 10.1086/309838

    1995 doi

  54. [62]

    H., Ruden , S

    Shu , F. H., Ruden , S. P., Lada , C. J., & Lizano , S. 1991, , 370, L31, 10.1086/185970

    1991 doi

  55. [63]

    2020, , 642, A216, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937242

    Sperling , T., Eisl \"o ffel , J., Fischer , C., et al. 2020, , 642, A216, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937242

    2020 doi

  56. [64]

    2020, , 640, A82, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834377

    Tabone , B., Cabrit , S., Pineau des For \^e ts , G., et al. 2020, , 640, A82, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834377

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    2017, , 88, 619

    Tafalla , M. 2017, , 88, 619

    2017

  58. [66]

    2011, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Tafalla , M., & Bachiller , R. 2011, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 280, The Molecular Universe, ed. J. Cernicharo & R. Bachiller , 88--102, 10.1017/S1743921311024896

    2011 doi

  59. [67]

    2010, , 522, A91, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015158

    Tafalla , M., Santiago-Garc \' a , J., Hacar , A., & Bachiller , R. 2010, , 522, A91, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015158

    2010 doi

  60. [68]

    2017, , 597, A119, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629493

    Tafalla , M., Su , Y.-N., Shang , H., et al. 2017, , 597, A119, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629493

    2017 doi

  61. [69]

    A., Tafoya , D., & Nigoche-Netro , A

    Toledano-Ju \'a rez , I., de la Fuente , E., Trinidad , M. A., Tafoya , D., & Nigoche-Netro , A. 2023, , 522, 1591, 10.1093/mnras/stad988

    2023 doi

  62. [70]

    F., van't Hoff , M

    Tychoniec , ., van Dishoeck , E. F., van't Hoff , M. L. R., et al. 2021, , 655, A65, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140692

    2021 doi

  63. [71]

    a is \"a l \

    V \"a is \"a l \"a , M. S., Shang , H., Galli , D., Lizano , S., & Krasnopolsky , R. 2023, , 959, 32, 10.3847/1538-4357/acfb00

    2023 doi

  64. [72]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  65. [73]

    2019, , 874, 31, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab07b5

    Wang , L.-Y., Shang , H., & Chiang , T.-Y. 2019, , 874, 31, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab07b5

    2019 doi

  66. [74]

    2015, , 815, 39, 10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/39

    Wang , L.-Y., Shang , H., Krasnopolsky , R., & Chiang , T.-Y. 2015, , 815, 39, 10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/39

    2015 doi

  67. [75]

    2014, , 780, 49, 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/49

    Wang , L.-Y., Shang , H., Su , Y.-N., et al. 2014, , 780, 49, 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/49

    2014 doi

  68. [76]

    2021, , 906, 112, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc94f

    Yoshida , T., Hsieh , T.-H., Hirano , N., & Aso , Y. 2021, , 906, 112, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc94f

    2021 doi

  69. [77]

    G., Mardones , D., et al

    Zhang , Y., Arce , H. G., Mardones , D., et al. 2019, , 883, 1, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3850

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.