Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Kinetic tomography of the Galactic plane within 1.25 kiloparsecs from the Sun. The interstellar flows revealed by HI and CO line emission and 3D dust

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 This paper reconstructs line-of-sight motions of the local interstellar medium by matching 3D dust structures with HI and CO emission, and finds most gas follows Galactic rotation with local departures of 10.8 and 6.6 km/s.

desk verdict A serious and useful first large-area kinetic tomography of the local ISM, but the distance-velocity association rests on an under-validated co-location premise; publish after a Galactic simulation test and uncertainty maps. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12257 v2 pith:3FMHXIJD submitted 2024-11-19 astro-ph.GA

J. D. Soler , S. Molinari , S. C. O. Glover , R. J. Smith , R. S. Klessen , R. A. Benjamin , P. Hennebelle , J. E. G. Peek
show 5 more authors
H. Beuther G. Edenhofer E. Zari C. Swiggum C. Zucker
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords interstellarmediumkinetictomography3DdustmapsHIlineemissionCOhistogramoforientedgradientsGalacticrotationstreamingmotions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to turn the Solar neighborhood's interstellar medium into a four-dimensional picture: where each parcel of dust sits along the line of sight, and how fast it is moving toward or away from us. It does so by matching the shapes seen in a three-dimensional dust map with the shapes seen in hydrogen (HI) and carbon monoxide (CO) emission at different velocities, using the histogram of oriented gradients (HOG), a computer-vision measure of morphological similarity. The authors argue that a high match between a dust slice and a gas velocity channel means the same structure is being seen, so the gas velocity can be assigned to the dust distance. On this basis they reconstruct the line-of-sight velocity field within 1.25 kpc of the Sun and report that most gas follows Galactic rotation, with local streaming departures of roughly 10.8 km/s for HI and 6.6 km/s for CO. This matters because it yields a new, independent map of kinetic energy and momentum in the local interstellar medium, with values comparable to other interstellar energy densities and overdensities near structures such as the Radcliffe Wave.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the histogram of oriented gradients (HOG) method: a computer-vision comparison that computes the angle between spatial gradients of a 3D dust distance slice and a line-emission velocity channel, then aggregates those angles into a direction-sensitive projected Rayleigh statistic ($V_d$, Eq. 2). High positive $V_d$ means the two images' structures are morphologically similar; the paper uses this to assign the velocity of the best-matching line channel to each dust distance slice, and later to define effective densities that isolate the portions of a dust slice associated with each tracer.

What would settle it

A larger sample of independent distance-velocity anchors inside 1.25 kpc, such as parallax-measured masers or stars with known three-dimensional velocities, would settle whether the assigned velocities are real: unbiased HOG velocities should scatter randomly around the anchors, while systematic residuals that grow with distance or longitude would expose morphological misassociation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that morphological correlation between 3D dust density slices and line emission channels is strong enough to assign a line-of-sight velocity to each dust distance slice over most of the |b|<5° Galactic plane within 1.25 kpc. The reconstructed velocity field reproduces the quadrupolar pattern expected from Galactic rotation, and subtracting a standard rotation model leaves streaming departures with standard deviations of about 10.8 km/s for HI and 6.6 km/s for CO. The kinetic energy densities tied to these motions average about 0.11 and 0.04 eV/cm³, comparable to other local interstellar energy densities, while energy and momentum overdensities of about a factor of ten concentrate toward the Radcliffe Wave, the Split, and the Vela and Ara regions.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that when a dust slice and a gas velocity channel look alike on the sky, they are physically the same gas; if the similarity is a coincidence or comes from large-scale structure, the assigned velocities would not be real.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The HOG method yields the first quantitative global map of line-of-sight velocities for the interstellar medium within 1.25 kpc, combining HI and CO tracers into a distance-velocity picture rather than relying on kinematic-distance assumptions.
  • The bulk of the local gas moves with Galactic rotation, so the large-scale quadrupolar velocity pattern is present even in this small volume; departures from it are modest in the mean but reach standard deviations of 10.8 km/s for HI and 6.6 km/s for CO.
  • The kinetic energy densities from streaming motions are about 0.11 eV/cm³ (HI) and 0.04 eV/cm³ (CO), comparable to thermal, magnetic, cosmic-ray, and radiation energy densities in the local ISM, supporting near-equipartition.
  • Energy and momentum overdensities by roughly a factor of ten concentrate toward the Radcliffe Wave, the Split, Vela, and Ara, while no clear imprint of the local spiral arm is found; the distribution points to a combination of large-scale forcing and supernova feedback.
  • Because the input velocity range is clipped to ±25 km/s, the reconstructed streaming amplitudes and derived energies are likely lower limits rather than full values.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The ±25 km/s input clip means the quoted 10.8 and 6.6 km/s dispersions are probably floors; applying the same pipeline to future higher-resolution 3D dust reconstructions could recover larger streaming excursions that current angular resolution would misattribute to chance correlation.
  • A decisive check that would separate physical co-location from chance alignment is to compare HOG-assigned velocities with parallax-based three-dimensional velocities of many individual stars inside 1.25 kpc; the current five-maser comparison is too sparse to settle the question.
  • The roughly 15 km/s velocity dispersion between HI and CO at the same distance slices suggests the method could be repurposed as a probe of momentum coupling between warm atomic and cold molecular gas in feedback regions, a use the paper only begins to explore.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a reconstruction of line-of-sight (LOS) velocities of the local interstellar medium within 1.25 kpc of the Sun and |b|<5 degrees, using the histogram of oriented gradients (HOG) method to correlate 3D dust density slices from Edenhofer et al. (2024) with HI and CO velocity channels. From the resulting distance-velocity association, the authors build face-on maps of LOS velocity, subtract a Galactic rotation model to define streaming motions, and derive effective densities, kinetic energy densities, momentum densities, and mass flow rates. The main claims are that most dust-associated gas follows the large-scale rotation pattern, that streaming-motion dispersions are about 10.8 km/s (HI) and 6.6 km/s (CO), and that the associated kinetic energy densities, about 0.11 and 0.04 eV/cm3, are comparable to other local ISM energy densities, with factor-of-ten overdensities toward the Radcliffe Wave, the Split, Vela C, and other structures.

Significance. If the central distance-velocity assignment is valid, this is a genuinely novel application of HOG-based kinetic tomography: it is the first use of high-quality 3D dust reconstructions to assign LOS velocities to distance channels over a large Galactic-plane volume, and it produces physically interpretable maps of streaming motions and kinetic energy density that can be compared with stellar kinematics and simulations. The paper is also strong in its extensive parameter testing (kernel size, tile segmentation, jackknife chance-correlation tests, expanded velocity windows in Appendices A and C), in its use of the public astroHOG code, and in its candid acknowledgment of several limitations, including the restricted input velocity range and the small VLBI maser sample. The astrophysical conclusions about near-equipartition and energy overdensities are interesting and potentially important, but they inherit the uncertainty of the underlying co-location assumption, which the current validation does not yet secure.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.3 and Eq. (2)] The central identification of a distance-velocity pair with physical co-location rests on an unstated premise: that the maximum Vd between a 3D dust distance slice and a line-emission velocity channel implies the same gas is seen in both. Vd measures morphological similarity, and that similarity can also arise when dust and HI/CO independently trace the same large-scale Galactic disk structure (warp, spiral-arm ridges, vertical stratification) over broad distance and velocity ranges. The current validation is too weak to exclude this: Appendix D tests one isolated simulated cloud without a background disk or multiple velocity components, and Appendix E contains only five VLBI masers, with residuals whose standard deviations (13.5 km/s for HI, 11.3 km/s for CO) exceed the reported streaming dispersions. A Galactic-scale synthetic test with a known distance-velocity relation, a background disk, and multiple LOS components is needed to establish that the assigned vLOS is the co-located velocity rather than a morphological coincidence; without such a test, the velocity field and all derived energy and momentum maps in Sec. 5 rest on an untested assumption.
  2. [Sec. 2 and Sec. 4.2] The input line-emission window |vLOS|<25 km/s is chosen in Sec. 2 from the Reid et al. (2019) rotation model for d<1.25 kpc, and the streaming motions are then defined in Sec. 4.2 as vR19_LOS - vHOG_LOS. Consequently, the recovery of the rotation pattern in Fig. 11 and the near-zero mean streaming motions in Fig. 12 are partly built into the analysis rather than being independent discoveries. The paper acknowledges in Sec. 2 that the restricted window makes the reconstructed streaming amplitudes lower limits, but it does not explicitly state that the same window also guarantees that the recovered large-scale velocity field resembles rotation. This should be stated, and the central claim in the abstract and Sec. 7 should be tempered accordingly.
  3. [Appendix E and Sec. 6.3] The VLBI maser comparison provides only weak validation of the reconstructed velocities. The five masers within the volume have residuals with standard deviations of 13.5 km/s (HI) and 11.3 km/s (CO), both larger than the reported streaming-motion dispersions of 10.8 and 6.6 km/s. This means the maser sample cannot confirm the small-scale streaming pattern; it only places a coarse constraint on the method. The text should explicitly state that the maser comparison does not discriminate between the co-location interpretation and a morphological-coincidence interpretation, and it should describe what additional independent distance-resolved velocity constraints (for example, HI absorption toward continuum sources, or stellar absorption-line kinematics) would be needed to validate the reconstruction.
  4. [Sec. 5.1 and Eq. (3)] The effective density used for all energy, momentum, and mass-flow quantities depends on an ad hoc block-level threshold Vd>1.0, and the paper does not report how neff, Ek, p, and Mdot vary when this threshold is changed over a plausible range. Since the factor-of-ten energy overdensities and the total kinetic energy estimates in Secs. 5.2 and 6.4 are derived from this quantity, a robustness test against this threshold is needed before the near-equipartition and overdensity claims can be considered secure.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption states "Values of Vd<2.87 correspond to mostly antiparallel gradients," which is a sign error; it should read "Values of Vd<-2.87" (or equivalently |Vd|>2.87 with negative sign).
  2. [Sec. 6.4.2] In the sentence "the most prominent of which is found around the location of the North America MC" the text later reads "700◦< d< 1100 pc toward l≈ 270◦," where the first quantity should be "700 pc < d < 1100 pc" rather than "700◦."
  3. [Sec. 6.4.1] The comparison values for starlight and far-infrared radiation are given as "0.54 and 0.31" without units; they should be written as 0.54 eV/cm3 and 0.31 eV/cm3 to match the preceding quantities.
  4. [Sec. 3.2] The statement that Vd≈2.87 is "roughly equivalent to a 3σ confidence interval" is imprecise because the projected Rayleigh statistic's distribution and effective number of independent samples matter; it would be clearer to state the exact test or the empirical threshold used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the HOG distance-velocity assignment is data-driven, the rotation-pattern recovery is not imposed by the input window, and the paper explicitly labels truncated streaming amplitudes as lower limits.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The central step, assigning a line-of-sight velocity to each 3D dust distance slice, is performed by selecting the velocity channel that maximizes the projected Rayleigh statistic Vd computed from gradient orientations between the dust map and the HI/CO emission (Sec. 3.3, Eq. 2). This argmax operation is data-driven: within the chosen input window, nothing forces the selected velocities to follow the quadrupolar Galactic rotation pattern, so the recovered correspondence with the Reid et al. (2019) rotation model in Fig. 11 is an empirical result, not an identity. The input window restriction (-25 to +25 km/s) is admittedly motivated by the expected rotation-model velocities in Sec. 2, and the paper explicitly acknowledges that this restricts the amplitude of detectable streaming motions and that the reported dispersions should be treated as lower limits. That is a stated limitation, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction; the measured standard deviations of 10.8 and 6.6 km/s are genuine properties of the truncated distribution, not forced values. The streaming motions are then defined as residuals relative to the same rotation model, but this is a conventional definition, and the model is an external input (Reid et al. 2019), not a parameter fitted within this paper. The method relies on the prior works of Soler et al. (2019) and Soler et al. (2023), but the HOG method is published, code-reproduced, and externally validated here via a synthetic SILCC-Zoom simulation (Appendix D) and VLBI maser parallaxes (Appendix E). The concern that high Vd may reflect large-scale disk structure rather than physical co-location is a scientific validity risk about the method's core assumption, not a circularity: the paper's conclusion could in principle be false if that assumption fails, so the claim is not equivalent to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central reconstruction rests on the assumed co-spatiality of morphologically matched dust and line emission, the accuracy of the 3D dust model, the chosen velocity window, and the rotation model used as baseline. Several hand-chosen thresholds (kernel size, Vd thresholds, effective-density block threshold) directly affect the reported energies. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Derivative kernel FWHM (Delta) = 30 arcmin
    Chosen by hand in Sec. 3.2.1; tested at 60 and 90 arcmin in App. A.3.1. Sets the angular scale of gradient comparison and affects Vd values and the number of independent gradient pairs.
  • Vd significance threshold = 2.87
    Critical value approximating 3-sigma for the projected Rayleigh statistic, used to assign vLOS to distance channels (Sec. 3.3). Choice affects coverage of the reconstructed velocity field.
  • Vd/sigmaVd exclusion threshold = 3.0
    Distance-velocity pairs with |Vd/sigmaVd| < 3 are excluded (Sec. 3.2.2). Controls ambiguity from the 3D dust posterior samples but reduces coverage.
  • Effective density block threshold = Vd > 1.0
    In Eq. (3), blocks with Vd > 1.0 are counted toward the effective density. This directly sets neff and hence the kinetic energy and momentum values in Sec. 5.1.
  • Input LOS velocity range = -25 to +25 km/s
    Chosen in Sec. 2 based on expected rotation within 1.25 kpc and to suppress chance correlations. Excludes larger streaming motions, making the derived energy and momentum estimates lower limits, as acknowledged.
  • Effective density block grid = 9x9 blocks per 10x10 degree tile
    Each density slice is divided into 9x9 blocks to compute Vd for the effective density (Sec. 5.1). Affects the mass fraction assigned to each gas tracer.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption High morphological correlation (Vd) between a dust distance slice and a line-emission velocity channel implies they trace the same gas at the same location.
    Core premise of the HOG kinetic tomography (Sec. 3.3). If false, the vLOS assignment and all derived quantities are invalid.
  • domain assumption The Edenhofer et al. (2024) 3D dust extinction reconstruction is an accurate representation of the local dust density within 69 to 1250 pc.
    The distance information comes entirely from this model (Sec. 2.1). Systematic errors in the reconstruction directly map to errors in vLOS and physical quantities.
  • ad hoc to paper All local ISM material with significant morphological correlation lies within |vLOS| < 25 km/s.
    The input velocity range is truncated to this window in Sec. 2 to reduce chance correlations. The paper itself states the reconstruction should be considered lower limits for streaming motions.
  • domain assumption The Reid et al. (2019) rotation model is the correct baseline for circular Galactic rotation in the local ISM.
    Streaming motions are defined as residuals relative to this model (Sec. 4.2). Errors in the rotation model directly shift the streaming motions and kinetic energies.
  • standard math The projected Rayleigh statistic null hypothesis and critical values are applicable to the gradient angle distribution.
    Vd is assumed to follow circular statistics (Durand and Greenwood 1958; Jow et al. 2018), used for significance thresholds.
  • domain assumption The SILCC-Zoom MC1-MHD simulation is representative of local ISM structure for validating the HOG method.
    App. D uses one simulated cloud to test density and velocity reconstruction. If the simulation does not capture real morphological complexity, the validation may be optimistic.
  • domain assumption Homogeneity and isotropy of the velocity field.
    Used to convert one-component LOS kinetic energy density to total kinetic energy density, assumed within a factor of three (Sec. 6.4.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kinetic tomography of the Galactic plane within 1.25 kiloparsecs from the Sun. The interstellar flows revealed by HI and CO line emission and 3D dust." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3FMHXIJD

@misc{pith2026241112257,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kinetic tomography of the Galactic plane within 1.25 kiloparsecs from the Sun. The interstellar flows revealed by HI and CO line emission and 3D dust},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3FMHXIJD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12257}
}
abstract

We present a reconstruction of the line-of-sight motions of the local interstellar medium (ISM) based on the combination of a model of the three-dimensional dust density distribution within 1.25 kpc from the Sun and the HI and CO line emission within Galactic latitudes $|b| < 5^{\circ}$. We used the histogram of oriented gradient (HOG) method, a computer vision technique for evaluating the morphological correlation between images, to match the plane-of-the-sky dust distribution across distances with the atomic and molecular line emission. We identified a significant correlation between the 3D dust model and the line emission. We employed this correlation to assign line-of-sight velocities to the dust across density channels and produce a face-on map of the local ISM radial motions with respect to the local standard of rest (LSR). We find that most of the material in the 3D dust model follows the large-scale pattern of Galactic rotation; however, we also report local departures from the rotation pattern with standard deviations of 10.8 and 6.6 km/s for the HI and CO line emission, respectively. The mean kinetic energy densities corresponding to these streaming motions are around 0.11 and 0.04 eV/cm$^{3}$ from either gas tracer. Assuming homogeneity and isotropy in the velocity field, these values are within a factor of a few of the total kinetic energy density. These kinetic energy values are roughly comparable to other energy densities, thus confirming the near-equipartition in the local ISM. Yet, we identify energy and momentum overdensities of around a factor of ten concentrated in local density structures. Although we do not find evidence of the local spiral arm's impact on these energy overdensities, their distribution suggests the influence of large-scale effects that, in addition to supernova feedback, shape the energy distribution and dynamics in the solar neighborhood.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12257 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of the 3D dust, 12CO, and Hi data combined in this paper. Top. Nucleon density derived from the 3D extinction model presented by Edenhofer et al. (2024) for three distance bins indicated in the figure. Middle. 12CO line emission from the Dame et al. (2001) survey for the three LOS velocity intervals indicated in the figure. Bottom. Hi 21-cm line emission observations presented by HI4PI Collaboration et al. … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Rendering of the 3D dust density distribution from the extinc￾tion models presented in Edenhofer et al. (2024) for the region |b| < 5 ◦ considered in this paper. The yellow sphere represents the position of the Sun. The associated movie is available online [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Heliocentric distribution of the mean nucleon density derived from the 3D dust extinction models presented in Edenhofer et al. (2024) for the sky region |b| ≤ 5 ◦ . The superimposed curves indicate large-scale features in the Solar neighborhood, as reported in Zucker et al. (2023). For the Radcliffe Wave, we indicate the full extent of the structure with the dashed white line and the segments within |b| ≤ 5 ◦ in gre… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (20 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example of the HOG method morphological correlation between the 3D dust density reconstruction and the line emission observations for the region 30◦ < l < 40◦ and |b| < 5 ◦ . Each panel corresponds to the correlation between distance channels, from the 3D dust density,…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Maximum morphological correlation between the 10◦ × 10◦ distance channels and the Hi (left) and CO (right) line emission in the range −25 < vLOS < 25 km s−1 , as quantified by the direction-sensitive projected Rayleigh statistic (Vd; Eq. 2) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/fu…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Maximum morphological correlation between the 10◦ × 10◦ LOS velocity channels and the dust density in the range 69 < d < 1250 pc, as quantified by the direction-sensitive projected Rayleigh statistic (Vd; Eq. 2). The cyan curves represent the vLOS expected for d = 69 a…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example of the distance and CO velocity channel with high morphological correlation. It corresponds to the highest Vd in the comparison between the CO line emission and the 3D dust presented in the right panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of the maximum Vd values for Hi and CO reported in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Expected line-of-sight velocity (right) from the Reid et al. (2019) Galactic rotation model across the cells in our analysis. We quantified the departures from the LOS motions pro￾duced by pure Galactic rotation by subtracting the expected LOS velocity from the Reid e…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Line-of-sight velocity derived from the Hi (left) and CO (right) line emission associated to the distance channels in the 3D dust recon￾struction using the HOG method (v HOG LOS ). The colored circles correspond to the position and vLOS for the five high-mass star-for…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Histograms for the differences between the LOS velocity esti￾mated from the Hi and CO line emission, v HOG LOS , as reported in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Differences between the line-of-sight velocity derived from the Hi (left) and CO (right) line emission associated with the distance channels in the 3D dust reconstruction using the HOG method, v HOG LOS , and the expected LOS velocities according to the Galactic rotat…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Histograms of the physical quantities derived from the HOG analysis. Top left. Effective energy density, neff, that is assigned to each gas tracer, as defined in Eq. (3). Top right. Kinetic energy density, Ek, calculated with Eq. (5). Bottom left. Radial momentum, p, …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Kinetic energy density (Ek) derived from the velocity field reconstruction in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Kinetic energy density, EK, radial and azimuthal profiles nor￾malized to the mean values over the studied region. and 340◦ , coinciding with the locations of momentum overden￾sities in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Momentum density (p) obtained with the LOS velocity reconstructions in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Mass flow rates (M˙ ) obtained with the LOS velocity reconstructions in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Azimuthal profiles of mean mass flow rates and its standard deviation. that those and other line tracers should be accounted for in future reconstructions of the local ISM, adding richness to the results we present in this paper. Yet, our analysis has shown we have en…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Line-of-sight velocity reconstruction from Tchernyshyov & Peek (2017) for the distance range considered in this paper. TP17 used as input maps of reddening as a function of l, b, and d (PPP) and maps of Hi and CO line emission as a func￾tion of l, b, and v (PPV) to pr…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Line-of-sight velocity reconstruction from Tchernyshyov & Peek (2017) for the distance range considered in this paper. agreement with the masers results than the TP17 reconstruction, which has an angular resolution much closer to the VLBI ob￾servations. Yet, [PITH_FU…
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Distribution of O-, B-, and A-type stars in the Zari et al. (2021) catalog limited to the range b < 5 ◦ presented in Cartesian coordinates (left) and projected into the polar grid introduced in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_24.png]

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. OpenAlex reports about 12 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Milky Way Atlas: A radial-velocity-resolved, three-dimensional map of H I within 1.25 kpc

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A Bayesian inference method combining HI4PI radio data with Gaia-based 3D dust maps reconstructs the 3D density, velocity, and line-width of local atomic hydrogen within 1.25 kpc, validated by synthetic tests and inde...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

210 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    R., Schiavon , R., et al

    Allende Prieto , C., Majewski , S. R., Schiavon , R., et al. 2008, Astronomische Nachrichten, 329, 1018

    2008

  4. [4]

    A., et al

    Alves , J., Zucker , C., Goodman , A. A., et al. 2020, , 578, 237

    2020

  5. [5]

    M., Cersosimo , J

    Arnal , E. M., Cersosimo , J. C., May , J., & Bronfman , L. 1987, , 174, 78

    1987

  6. [6]

    J., & Scott , P

    Asplund , M., Grevesse , N., Sauval , A. J., & Scott , P. 2009, , 47, 481

    2009

  7. [7]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123

    2018

  8. [8]

    & Hennebelle , P

    Audit , E. & Hennebelle , P. 2005, , 433, 1

    2005

Show all 210 references
  1. [9]

    2020, Space Sci

    Ballesteros-Paredes , J., Andr \'e , P., Hennebelle , P., et al. 2020, Space Sci. Rev., 216, 76

    2020

  2. [10]

    & Mac Low , M.-M

    Ballesteros-Paredes , J. & Mac Low , M.-M. 2002, , 570, 734

    2002

  3. [11]

    & Scoville , N

    Bally , J. & Scoville , N. Z. 1980, , 239, 121

    1980

  4. [12]

    1972, in NASA Special Publication, Vol

    Batschelet , E. 1972, in NASA Special Publication, Vol. 262, 61

    1972

  5. [13]

    N., Offner , S

    Beaumont , C. N., Offner , S. S. R., Shetty , R., Glover , S. C. O., & Goodman , A. A. 2013, , 777, 173

    2013

  6. [14]

    2024, , 688, A188

    Beitia-Antero , L., Fuente , A., Navarro-Almaida , D., et al. 2024, , 688, A188

    2024

  7. [15]

    2020, , 633, A147

    Benedettini , M., Molinari , S., Baldeschi , A., et al. 2020, , 633, A147

    2020

  8. [16]

    2021, , 919, L5

    Bialy , S., Zucker , C., Goodman , A., et al. 2021, , 919, L5

    2021

  9. [17]

    2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed

    Blitz , L., Fukui , Y., Kawamura , A., et al. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed. B. Reipurth , D. Jewitt , & K. Keil , 81

    2007

  10. [18]

    C., Savage , B

    Bohlin , R. C., Savage , B. D., & Drake , J. F. 1978, , 224, 132

    1978

  11. [19]

    D., Wolfire , M., & Leroy , A

    Bolatto , A. D., Wolfire , M., & Leroy , A. K. 2013, , 51, 207

    2013

  12. [20]

    P., et al

    Boulanger , F., Abergel , A., Bernard , J. P., et al. 1996, , 312, 256

    1996

  13. [21]

    G., Teyssier , R., Block , D

    Bournaud , F., Elmegreen , B. G., Teyssier , R., Block , D. L., & Puerari , I. 2010, , 409, 1088

    2010

  14. [22]

    Bracco , A., Padovani , M., & Soler , J. D. 2023, , 677, L11

    2023

  15. [23]

    & Blitz , L

    Brand , J. & Blitz , L. 1993, , 275, 67

    1993

  16. [24]

    & Heiles , C

    Burstein , D. & Heiles , C. 1978, , 225, 40

    1978

  17. [25]

    Burton , W. B. 1971, , 10, 76

    1971

  18. [26]

    P., Engelke , P

    Busch , M. P., Engelke , P. D., Allen , R. J., & Hogg , D. E. 2021, , 914, 72

    2021

  19. [27]

    L., Elyajouri , M., & Monreal-Ibero , A

    Capitanio , L., Lallement , R., Vergely , J. L., Elyajouri , M., & Monreal-Ibero , A. 2017, , 606, A65

    2017

  20. [28]

    M., Weiler , M., Jordi , C., et al

    Carrasco , J. M., Weiler , M., Jordi , C., et al. 2021, , 652, A86

    2021

  21. [29]

    C., Magnier , E

    Chambers , K. C., Magnier , E. A., Metcalfe , N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560

    2016 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Q., Huang , Y., Yuan , H

    Chen , B. Q., Huang , Y., Yuan , H. B., et al. 2019, , 483, 4277

    2019

  23. [31]

    R., McLeod , A

    Chevance , M., Krumholz , M. R., McLeod , A. F., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 1

    2023

  24. [32]

    Clark , B. G. 1965, , 142, 1398

    1965

  25. [33]

    Clemens , D. P. 1985, , 295, 422

    1985

  26. [34]

    2022, , 514, 3670

    Colman , T., Robitaille , J.-F., Hennebelle , P., et al. 2022, , 514, 3670

    2022

  27. [35]

    1991, , 29, 195

    Combes , F. 1991, , 29, 195

    1991

  28. [36]

    M., Hartmann , D., & Thaddeus , P

    Dame , T. M., Hartmann , D., & Thaddeus , P. 2001, , 547, 792

    2001

  29. [37]

    R., Jones , P

    Dawson , J. R., Jones , P. A., Purcell , C., et al. 2022, , 512, 3345

    2022

  30. [38]

    2023, , 674, A2

    De Angeli , F., Weiler , M., Montegriffo , P., et al. 2023, , 674, A2

    2023

  31. [39]

    E., Bailer-Jones , C

    Dharmawardena , T. E., Bailer-Jones , C. A. L., Fouesneau , M., & Foreman-Mackey , D. 2022, , 658, A166

    2022

  32. [40]

    L., Krumholz , M

    Dobbs , C. L., Krumholz , M. R., Ballesteros-Paredes , J., et al. 2014, Protostars and Planets VI, 3

    2014

  33. [41]

    2010, Physics of the interstellar and intergalactic medium (United States: Princeton University Press)

    Draine, B. 2010, Physics of the interstellar and intergalactic medium (United States: Princeton University Press)

    2010

  34. [42]

    2023, , 677, A107

    Duch \^e ne , Q., Hottier , C., Lallement , R., et al. 2023, , 677, A107

    2023

  35. [43]

    & Greenwood, J

    Durand, D. & Greenwood, J. A. 1958, The Journal of Geology, 66, 229

    1958

  36. [44]

    2024, , 685, A82

    Edenhofer , G., Zucker , C., Frank , P., et al. 2024, , 685, A82

    2024

  37. [45]

    V., Kreckel , K., Glover , S

    Egorov , O. V., Kreckel , K., Glover , S. C. O., et al. 2023, , 678, A153

    2023

  38. [46]

    W., Rix , H.-W., et al

    Eilers , A.-C., Hogg , D. W., Rix , H.-W., et al. 2020, , 900, 186

    2020

  39. [47]

    Elmegreen , B. G. 2000, , 530, 277

    2000

  40. [48]

    Elmegreen , B. G. 2024, , 966, 233

    2024

  41. [49]

    Elmegreen , B. G. & Scalo , J. 2004, , 42, 211

    2004

  42. [50]

    Ewen , H. I. & Purcell , E. M. 1951, , 168, 356

    1951

  43. [51]

    & Lequeux , J

    Falgarone , E. & Lequeux , J. 1973, , 25, 253

    1973

  44. [52]

    Field , G. B. & Saslaw , W. C. 1965, , 142, 568

    1965

  45. [53]

    B., Somerville , W

    Field , G. B., Somerville , W. B., & Dressler , K. 1966, , 4, 207

    1966

  46. [54]

    & MacWilliams , J

    Foster , T. & MacWilliams , J. 2006, , 644, 214

    2006

  47. [55]

    2009, , 705, 144

    Fukui , Y., Kawamura , A., Wong , T., et al. 2009, , 705, 144

    2009

  48. [56]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., Prusti , T., & de Bruijne , J. H. J. 2023, , 674, A1

    2023

  49. [57]

    Gatto , A., Walch , S., Low , M. M. M., et al. 2015, , 449, 1057

    2015

  50. [58]

    J., Taylor , A

    Gibson , S. J., Taylor , A. R., Higgs , L. A., Brunt , C. M., & Dewdney , P. E. 2005, , 626, 195

    2005

  51. [59]

    J., Taylor , A

    Gibson , S. J., Taylor , A. R., Higgs , L. A., & Dewdney , P. E. 2000, , 540, 851

    2000

  52. [60]

    2016, , 456, 3432

    Girichidis , P., Walch , S., Naab , T., et al. 2016, , 456, 3432

    2016

  53. [61]

    Glover , S. C. O. & Clark , P. C. 2012, , 421, 116

    2012

  54. [62]

    2023, , 669, A74

    Godard , B., Pineau des For \^e ts , G., Hennebelle , P., Bellomi , E., & Valdivia , V. 2023, , 669, A74

    2023

  55. [63]

    F., Heyer , M., Narayanan , G., et al

    Goldsmith , P. F., Heyer , M., Narayanan , G., et al. 2008, , 680, 428

    2008

  56. [64]

    G \'o mez , G. C. 2006, , 132, 2376

    2006

  57. [65]

    M., Hivon , E., Banday , A

    G \'o rski , K. M., Hivon , E., Banday , A. J., et al. 2005, , 622, 759

    2005

  58. [66]

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

    Green , G. M., Schlafly , E., Zucker , C., Speagle , J. S., & Finkbeiner , D. 2019, , 887, 93

    2019

  59. [67]

    M., Schlafly , E

    Green , G. M., Schlafly , E. F., Finkbeiner , D. P., et al. 2015, , 810, 25

    2015

  60. [68]

    A., Casandjian , J.-M., & Terrier , R

    Grenier , I. A., Casandjian , J.-M., & Terrier , R. 2005, Science, 307, 1292

    2005

  61. [69]

    P., Lilley , A

    Hagen , J. P., Lilley , A. E., & McClain , E. F. 1955, , 122, 361

    1955

  62. [70]

    Heeschen , D. S. 1955, , 121, 569

    1955

  63. [71]

    1998, , 498, 689

    Heiles , C. 1998, , 498, 689

    1998

  64. [72]

    & Crutcher, R

    Heiles, C. & Crutcher, R. 2005, Magnetic Fields in Diffuse HI and Molecular Clouds (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 137--182

    2005

  65. [73]

    D., Devriendt , J

    Heitsch , F., Slyz , A. D., Devriendt , J. E. G., Hartmann , L. W., & Burkert , A. 2006, , 648, 1052

    2006

  66. [74]

    S., & Audit , E

    Hennebelle , P., Banerjee , R., V \'a zquez-Semadeni , E., Klessen , R. S., & Audit , E. 2008, , 486, L43

    2008

  67. [75]

    & Falgarone , E

    Hennebelle , P. & Falgarone , E. 2012, , 20, 55

    2012

  68. [76]

    & Inutsuka , S.-i

    Hennebelle , P. & Inutsuka , S.-i. 2019, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 5

    2019

  69. [77]

    D., Kruijssen , J

    Henshaw , J. D., Kruijssen , J. M. D., Longmore , S. N., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 1064

    2020

  70. [78]

    & Dame , T

    Heyer , M. & Dame , T. M. 2015, , 53, 583

    2015

  71. [79]

    Heyer , M., Krawczyk , C., Duval , J., & Jackson , J. M. 2009, , 699, 1092

    2009

  72. [80]

    2016, , 594, A116

    HI4PI Collaboration , Ben Bekhti , N., Fl \"o er , L., et al. 2016, , 594, A116

    2016

  73. [81]

    2012, , 64, 136

    Honma , M., Nagayama , T., Ando , K., et al. 2012, , 64, 136

    2012

  74. [82]

    2021, , 655, A68

    Hottier , C., Babusiaux , C., & Arenou , F. 2021, , 655, A68

    2021

  75. [83]

    H., Sormani , M

    Hunter , G. H., Sormani , M. C., Beckmann , J. P., et al. 2024, , 692, A216

    2024

  76. [84]

    & Hennebelle , P

    Iffrig , O. & Hennebelle , P. 2015, , 576, A95

    2015

  77. [85]

    L., & Hottier , C

    Ivanova , A., Lallement , R., Vergely , J. L., & Hottier , C. 2021, , 652, A22

    2021

  78. [86]

    F., Smith , R

    Izquierdo , A. F., Smith , R. J., Glover , S. C. O., et al. 2021, , 500, 5268

    2021

  79. [87]

    M., Rathborne , J

    Jackson , J. M., Rathborne , J. M., Shah , R. Y., et al. 2006, , 163, 145

    2006

  80. [88]

    Jenkins , E. B. & Tripp , T. M. 2011, , 734, 65

    2011

  81. [89]

    L., Hill , R., Scott , D., et al

    Jow , D. L., Hill , R., Scott , D., et al. 2018, , 474, 1018

    2018

  82. [90]

    Kalberla , P. M. W., Burton , W. B., Hartmann , D., et al. 2005, , 440, 775

    2005

  83. [91]

    Kalberla , P. M. W. & Kerp , J. 2009, , 47, 27

    2009

  84. [92]

    Kalberla , P. M. W., McClure-Griffiths , N. M., Pisano , D. J., et al. 2010, , 521, A17

    2010

  85. [93]

    2019, , 622, A205

    Katz , D., Sartoretti , P., Cropper , M., et al. 2019, , 622, A205

    2019

  86. [94]

    1998, , 498, 541

    Kennicutt , Robert C., J. 1998, , 498, 541

    1998

  87. [95]

    Kerp , J., Winkel , B., Ben Bekhti , N., Fl \"o er , L., & Kalberla , P. M. W. 2011, Astronomische Nachrichten, 332, 637

    2011

  88. [96]

    Klessen , R. S. & Glover , S. C. O. 2016, Star Formation in Galaxy Evolution: Connecting Numerical Models to Reality, Saas-Fee Advanced Course, Volume 43. ISBN 978-3-662-47889-9. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2016, p. 85, 43, 85

    2016

  89. [97]

    Klessen , R. S. & Hennebelle , P. 2010, , 520, A17

    2010

  90. [98]

    & En lin , T

    Knollm \"u ller , J. & En lin , T. A. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1901.11033

    2019 arXiv

  91. [99]

    A., Zucker , C., et al

    Konietzka , R., Goodman , A. A., Zucker , C., et al. 2024, , 628, 62

    2024

  92. [100]

    & Inutsuka , S.-I

    Koyama , H. & Inutsuka , S.-I. 2000, , 532, 980

    2000

  93. [101]

    Kruijssen , J. M. D., Schruba , A., Chevance , M., et al. 2019, , 569, 519

    2019

  94. [102]

    R., Bate , M

    Krumholz , M. R., Bate , M. R., Arce , H. G., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther , R. S. Klessen , C. P. Dullemond , & T. Henning , 243

    2014

  95. [103]

    F., Brown , R

    Kr c o , M., Goldsmith , P. F., Brown , R. L., & Li , D. 2008, , 689, 276

    2008

  96. [104]

    A., Benjamin , R

    Kuhn , M. A., Benjamin , R. A., Zucker , C., et al. 2021, , 651, L10

    2021

  97. [105]

    A., Hillenbrand , L

    Kuhn , M. A., Hillenbrand , L. A., Carpenter , J. M., & Avelar Menendez , A. R. 2020, , 899, 128

    2020

  98. [106]

    & Sanders , D

    Kwan , J. & Sanders , D. B. 1986, , 309, 783

    1986

  99. [107]

    L., et al

    Lallement , R., Babusiaux , C., Vergely , J. L., et al. 2019, , 625, A135

    2019

  100. [108]

    L., Babusiaux , C., & Cox , N

    Lallement , R., Vergely , J. L., Babusiaux , C., & Cox , N. L. J. 2022, , 661, A147

    2022

  101. [109]

    D., Velusamy , T., Pineda , J

    Langer , W. D., Velusamy , T., Pineda , J. L., Willacy , K., & Goldsmith , P. F. 2014, , 561, A122

    2014

  102. [110]

    Larson , R. B. 1981, , 194, 809

    1981

  103. [111]

    H., Edenhofer , G., Knollm \"u ller , J., et al

    Leike , R. H., Edenhofer , G., Knollm \"u ller , J., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2204.11715

    2022 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Leike , R. H. & En lin , T. A. 2019, , 631, A32

    2019

  105. [113]

    H., Glatzle , M., & En lin , T

    Leike , R. H., Glatzle , M., & En lin , T. A. 2020, , 639, A138

    2020

  106. [114]

    S., & Dor \'e , O

    Lenz , D., Hensley , B. S., & Dor \'e , O. 2017, , 846, 38

    2017

  107. [115]

    K., Walter , F., Brinks , E., et al

    Leroy , A. K., Walter , F., Brinks , E., et al. 2008, , 136, 2782

    2008

  108. [116]

    2012, , 544, A22

    Levrier , F., Le Petit , F., Hennebelle , P., et al. 2012, , 544, A22

    2012

  109. [117]

    Lin , C. C. & Shu , F. H. 1964, , 140, 646

    1964

  110. [118]

    Liszt , H. S. 1983, , 275, 163

    1983

  111. [119]

    2024, , 967, L27

    Liu , T., Merloni , A., Sanders , J., et al. 2024, , 967, L27

    2024

  112. [120]

    Lombardi , M., Alves , J., & Lada , C. J. 2011, , 535, A16

    2011

  113. [121]

    2021, , 254, 3

    Ma , Y., Wang , H., Li , C., et al. 2021, , 254, 3

    2021

  114. [122]

    Mac Low , M.-M., Burkert , A., & Ib \'a \ n ez-Mej \' a , J. C. 2017, , 847, L10

    2017

  115. [123]

    2015, , 450, 504

    Martizzi , D., Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A., & Quataert , E. 2015, , 450, 504

    2015

  116. [124]

    2019, , 628, A110

    Massi , F., Weiss , A., Elia , D., et al. 2019, , 628, A110

    2019

  117. [125]

    Matthews , T. A. 1957, , 62, 25

    1957

  118. [126]

    M., Pisano , D

    McClure-Griffiths , N. M., Pisano , D. J., Calabretta , M. R., et al. 2009, , 181, 398

    2009

  119. [127]

    M., Stanimirovi \'c , S., & Rybarczyk , D

    McClure-Griffiths , N. M., Stanimirovi \'c , S., & Rybarczyk , D. R. 2023, , 61, 19

    2023

  120. [128]

    McKee , C. F. & Ostriker , J. P. 1977, , 218, 148

    1977

  121. [129]

    D., et al

    Mininni , C., Molinari , S., Soler , J. D., et al. 2025, \ submitted

    2025

  122. [130]

    Miret-Roig , N., Galli , P. A. B., Olivares , J., et al. 2022, , 667, A163

    2022

  123. [131]

    Miville-Desch \^e nes , M.-A., Murray , N., & Lee , E. J. 2017, , 834, 57

    2017

  124. [132]

    P., Damineli , A., Figuer \^e do , E., et al

    Mois \'e s , A. P., Damineli , A., Figuer \^e do , E., et al. 2011, , 411, 705

    2011

  125. [133]

    2023, , 674, A3

    Montegriffo , P., De Angeli , F., Andrae , R., et al. 2023, , 674, A3

    2023

  126. [134]

    J., Menten , K

    Moscadelli , L., Reid , M. J., Menten , K. M., et al. 2009, , 693, 406

    2009

  127. [135]

    E., & Smith , R

    Mullens , E., Zucker , C., Murray , C. E., & Smith , R. 2024, , 966, 127

    2024

  128. [136]

    Muller , C. A. & Oort , J. H. 1951, , 168, 357

    1951

  129. [137]

    Murphy , D. C. & May , J. 1991, , 247, 202

    1991

  130. [138]

    E., Peek , J

    Murray , C. E., Peek , J. E. G., Lee , M.-Y., & Stanimirovi \'c , S. 2018, , 862, 131

    2018

  131. [139]

    B., Ade , P

    Netterfield , C. B., Ade , P. A. R., Bock , J. J., et al. 2009, , 707, 1824

    2009

  132. [140]

    Norman , C. A. & Ferrara , A. 1996, , 467, 280

    1996

  133. [141]

    J., Zucker , C., Goodman , A

    O'Neill , T. J., Zucker , C., Goodman , A. A., & Edenhofer , G. 2024, , 973, 136

    2024

  134. [142]

    H., Kerr , F

    Oort , J. H., Kerr , F. J., & Westerhout , G. 1958, , 118, 379

    1958

  135. [143]

    H., & Reed , B

    Pantaleoni Gonz \'a lez , M., Ma \' z Apell \'a niz , J., Barb \'a , R. H., & Reed , B. C. 2021, , 504, 2968

    2021

  136. [144]

    Pawsey , J. L. 1951, , 168, 358

    1951

  137. [145]

    Peek , J. E. G., Tchernyshyov , K., & Miville-Deschenes , M.-A. 2022, , 925, 201

    2022

  138. [146]

    2020, , 636, A17

    Pelgrims , V., Ferri \`e re , K., Boulanger , F., Lallement , R., & Montier , L. 2020, , 636, A17

    2020

  139. [147]

    2024, , 689, A84

    Piecka , M., Hutschenreuter , S., & Alves , J. 2024, , 689, A84

    2024

  140. [148]

    L., Langer , W

    Pineda , J. L., Langer , W. D., Velusamy , T., & Goldsmith , P. F. 2013, , 554, A103

    2013

  141. [149]

    E., Alves , J., et al

    Ratzenb \"o ck , S., Gro schedl , J. E., Alves , J., et al. 2023, , 678, A71

    2023

  142. [150]

    Reid , M. J. 2022, , 164, 133

    2022

  143. [151]

    J., Dame , T

    Reid , M. J., Dame , T. M., Menten , K. M., & Brunthaler , A. 2016, , 823, 77

    2016

  144. [152]

    J., Menten , K

    Reid , M. J., Menten , K. M., Brunthaler , A., et al. 2019, , 885, 131

    2019

  145. [153]

    J., Menten , K

    Reid , M. J., Menten , K. M., Brunthaler , A., et al. 2009, , 693, 397

    2009

  146. [154]

    , S., Bailer-Jones , C

    Rezaei Kh. , S., Bailer-Jones , C. A. L., Hanson , R. J., & Fouesneau , M. 2017, , 598, A125

    2017

  147. [155]

    S., Goodman , A

    Rice , T. S., Goodman , A. A., Bergin , E. A., Beaumont , C., & Dame , T. M. 2016, , 822, 52

    2016

  148. [156]

    2020, , 633, A14

    Riener , M., Kainulainen , J., Beuther , H., et al. 2020, , 633, A14

    2020

  149. [157]

    M., Heyer , M., et al

    Roman-Duval , J., Jackson , J. M., Heyer , M., et al. 2009, , 699, 1153

    2009

  150. [158]

    R., Beuther , H., Bihr , S., et al

    Rugel , M. R., Beuther , H., Bihr , S., et al. 2018, , 618, A159

    2018

  151. [159]

    R., Wenger , T

    Rybarczyk , D. R., Wenger , T. V., & Stanimirovi \'c , S. 2024, , 975, 167

    2024

  152. [160]

    Rygl , K. L. J., Brunthaler , A., Reid , M. J., et al. 2010, , 511, A2

    2010

  153. [161]

    J., et al

    Sato , M., Hirota , T., Reid , M. J., et al. 2010, , 62, 287

    2010

  154. [162]

    Savage , B. D. & Mathis , J. S. 1979, , 17, 73

    1979

  155. [163]

    & Leroy , A

    Schinnerer , E. & Leroy , A. K. 2024, , 62, 369

    2024

  156. [164]

    F., Meisner , A

    Schlafly , E. F., Meisner , A. M., & Green , G. M. 2019, , 240, 30

    2019

  157. [165]

    M., Bigiel , F., Klessen , R

    Schmidt , T. M., Bigiel , F., Klessen , R. S., & de Blok , W. J. G. 2016, , 457, 2642

    2016

  158. [166]

    2022, , 512, 4765

    Seifried , D., Beuther , H., Walch , S., et al. 2022, , 512, 4765

    2022

  159. [167]

    Seifried , D., Haid , S., Walch , S., Borchert , E. M. A., & Bisbas , T. G. 2020, , 492, 1465

    2020

  160. [168]

    2017, , 472, 4797

    Seifried , D., Walch , S., Girichidis , P., et al. 2017, , 472, 4797

    2017

  161. [169]

    Sellwood , J. A. & Carlberg , R. G. 1984, , 282, 61

    1984

  162. [170]

    Shane , W. W. 1972, , 16, 118

    1972

  163. [171]

    F., Cutri , R

    Skrutskie , M. F., Cutri , R. M., Stiening , R., et al. 2006, , 131, 1163

    2006

  164. [172]

    2011, , 63, 813

    Sofue , Y. 2011, , 63, 813

    2011

  165. [173]

    Soler , J. D. 2020, AstroHOG: Analysis correlations using the Histograms of Oriented Gradients , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2003.013

    2020

  166. [174]

    D., Beuther , H., Rugel , M., et al

    Soler , J. D., Beuther , H., Rugel , M., et al. 2019, , 622, A166

    2019

  167. [175]

    D., Hennebelle , P., Martin , P

    Soler , J. D., Hennebelle , P., Martin , P. G., et al. 2013, , 774, 128

    2013

  168. [176]

    D., Zucker , C., Peek , J

    Soler , J. D., Zucker , C., Peek , J. E. G., et al. 2023, , 675, A206

    2023

  169. [177]

    E., Lee , M.-Y., Heiles , C., & Miller , J

    Stanimirovi \'c , S., Murray , C. E., Lee , M.-Y., Heiles , C., & Miller , J. 2014, , 793, 132

    2014

  170. [178]

    Stark , A. A. & Brand , J. 1989, , 339, 763

    1989

  171. [179]

    T., Dickey , J

    Strasser , S. T., Dickey , J. M., Taylor , A. R., et al. 2007, , 134, 2252

    2007

  172. [180]

    2024, , 631, 49

    Swiggum , C., Alves , J., Benjamin , R., et al. 2024, , 631, 49

    2024

  173. [181]

    F., et al

    Syed , J., Beuther , H., Goldsmith , P. F., et al. 2023, , 679, A130

    2023

  174. [182]

    2020, , 642, A68

    Syed , J., Wang , Y., Beuther , H., et al. 2020, , 642, A68

    2020

  175. [183]

    J., Genzel , R., & Sternberg , A

    Tacconi , L. J., Genzel , R., & Sternberg , A. 2020, , 58, 157

    2020

  176. [184]

    & Peek , J

    Tchernyshyov , K. & Peek , J. E. G. 2017, , 153, 8

    2017

  177. [185]

    Tchernyshyov , K., Peek , J. E. G., & Zasowski , G. 2018, , 156, 248

    2018

  178. [186]

    T., & Steinmetz , M

    Thornton , K., Gaudlitz , M., Janka , H. T., & Steinmetz , M. 1998, , 500, 95

    1998

  179. [187]

    1984, , 36, 457

    Tomisaka , K. 1984, , 36, 457

    1984

  180. [188]

    2014, , 440, 3588

    Traficante , A., Paladini , R., Compiegne , M., et al. 2014, , 440, 3588

    2014

  181. [189]

    L., Lallement , R., & Cox , N

    Vergely , J. L., Lallement , R., & Cox , N. L. J. 2022, , 664, A174

    2022

  182. [190]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  183. [191]

    2008, , 675, 188

    Wada , K. 2008, , 675, 188

    2008

  184. [192]

    2015, , 454, 238

    Walch , S., Girichidis , P., Naab , T., et al. 2015, , 454, 238

    2015

  185. [193]

    Walter , F., Brinks , E., de Blok , W. J. G., et al. 2008, , 136, 2563

    2008

  186. [194]

    2022, , 259, 51

    Wang , C., Huang , Y., Yuan , H., et al. 2022, , 259, 51

    2022

  187. [195]

    2020, , 634, A139

    Wang , Y., Bihr , S., Beuther , H., et al. 2020, , 634, A139

    2020

  188. [196]

    Webber , W. R. & Yushak , S. M. 1983, , 275, 391

    1983

  189. [197]

    V., Balser , D

    Wenger , T. V., Balser , D. S., Anderson , L. D., & Bania , T. M. 2018, , 856, 52

    2018

  190. [198]

    W., Jefferts , K

    Wilson , R. W., Jefferts , K. B., & Penzias , A. A. 1970, , 161, L43

    1970

  191. [199]

    & Blitz , L

    Wong , T. & Blitz , L. 2002, , 569, 157

    2002

  192. [200]

    L., Eisenhardt , P

    Wright , E. L., Eisenhardt , P. R. M., Mainzer , A. K., et al. 2010, , 140, 1868

    2010

  193. [201]

    2022, , 662, A66

    Xiang , M., Rix , H.-W., Ting , Y.-S., et al. 2022, , 662, A66

    2022

  194. [202]

    J., Reid , M

    Xu , Y., Li , J. J., Reid , M. J., et al. 2013, , 769, 15

    2013

  195. [203]

    2016, Science Advances, 2, e1600878

    Xu , Y., Reid , M., Dame , T., et al. 2016, Science Advances, 2, e1600878

    2016

  196. [204]

    W., Frankel , N., et al

    Zari , E., Rix , H. W., Frankel , N., et al. 2021, , 650, A112

    2021

  197. [205]

    2023 a , , 269, 6

    Zhang , R., Yuan , H., & Chen , B. 2023 a , , 269, 6

    2023

  198. [206]

    M., & Rix , H.-W

    Zhang , X., Green , G. M., & Rix , H.-W. 2023 b , , 524, 1855

    2023

  199. [207]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Zucker , C., Alves , J., Goodman , A., Meingast , S., & Galli , P. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 43

    2023

  200. [208]

    2021, , 919, 35

    Zucker , C., Goodman , A., Alves , J., et al. 2021, , 919, 35

    2021

  201. [209]

    A., Alves , J., et al

    Zucker , C., Goodman , A. A., Alves , J., et al. 2022, , 601, 334

    2022

  202. [210]

    S., Schlafly , E

    Zucker , C., Speagle , J. S., Schlafly , E. F., et al. 2020, , 633, A51

    2020

Pith tools

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