Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

ALMA Observations of Massive Clouds in the Central Molecular Zone: External-Pressure-Confined Dense Cores and Salpeter-like Core Mass Functions

T0 review · 3 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 External pressure, not self-gravity, confines most dense cores in three Milky Way center clouds, and their high-mass core mass functions are Salpeter-like once measured gas temperatures replace the assumed 20 K.

desk verdict The Salpeter-like CMF claim hinges on T_dust=T_gas, and the paper needs a quantitative bound before it can land; otherwise the analysis is careful and deserves peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01593 v1 pith:YYDAIIAS submitted 2024-12-02 astro-ph.GA

Zhenying Zhang , Xing Lu , Tie Liu , Sheng-Li Qin , Adam Ginsburg , Yu Cheng , Hauyu Baobab Liu , Daniel L. Walker
show 20 more authors
Xindi Tang Shanghuo Li Qizhou Zhang Thushara Pillai Jens Kauffmann Cara Battersby Siyi Feng Suinan Zhang Qi-Lao Gu Fengwei Xu Wenyu Jiao Xunchuan Liu Li Chen Qiu-yi Luo Xiaofeng Mai Zi-yang Li Dongting Yang Xianjin Shen Meizhu Liu Zhiqiang Shen
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords CentralMolecularZonedensecorescoremassfunctionvirialequilibriumexternalpressureSalpeterslope1.3mmcontinuumformaldehydethermometry
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 analyzes 834 dense cores in three massive molecular clouds near the Milky Way's center, using 1.3 mm continuum plus H2CO and CH3CN spectral lines to measure gas temperatures and linewidths for 253 cores. Its central claim is that external pressure from surrounding gas, not self-gravity, is what holds most of these cores together: 154 of 253 become bound only when the pressure term is added, and 239 of 253 sit in the pressure-dominated regime. Its second claim is that the high-mass ends of the three clouds' core mass functions follow a Salpeter-like slope, with a combined power-law index of 1.33 +/- 0.14 after replacing the old uniform 20 K temperature assumption. A sympathetic reader should care because this changes the earlier top-heavy conclusion for the same clouds and, given the possibly top-heavy stellar initial mass function at the Galactic center, implies that gas accretion and later fragmentation shape the final stellar masses rather than the initial core masses alone.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on two instruments. First, formaldehyde (H2CO) and methyl cyanide (CH3CN) rotational lines are used as LTE thermometers: their line ratios and forward-model fits constrain each core's gas temperature and velocity dispersion, replacing the uniform 20 K assumption used before. Second, the virial analysis adds an external pressure term, $\Omega_P = -4\pi P_{\rm out} R^3$, computed from larger-scale SMA observations of the surrounding gas, so the bound/unbound criterion becomes $\alpha_{\rm vir,p} = -\Omega_K/(\Omega_G + \Omega_P)$. The core mass functions are then fit at the high-mass end by maximum likelihood following $dN/d\log M \propto M^{-\alpha}$, which yields the Salpeter-like index.

What would settle it

Compare gas temperatures from H2CO and CH3CN with dust temperatures from multi-band continuum SEDs for the same cores. If the dust is systematically colder than the gas, the core masses are underestimated and the fitted high-mass CMF slope would flatten toward the earlier top-heavy value; if the temperatures agree, the Salpeter-like slope stands.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the dense cores in cloud e, Sgr C, and the 20 km/s cloud are predominantly confined by external pressure rather than by their own gravity, and that their high-mass core mass functions are Salpeter-like once the core temperatures are actually measured. Using LTE fits to H2CO and CH3CN spectra, the authors obtain temperatures and velocity dispersions for 253 cores; with these temperatures, the 1.3 mm dust-derived masses drop for the brightest cores, steepening the high-mass end of the mass function. Adding the external pressure term to the virial balance makes 154 of 253 cores bound, while 239 of 253 have gravitational-to-pressure energy ratios below one, meaning pressure confinement dominates. The paper therefore argues that the earlier top-heavy core mass functions were affected by the uniform 20 K assumption, and that the true high-mass slopes are consistent with the canonical Salpeter index.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the gas temperature measured from H2CO and CH3CN lines equals the dust temperature that converts 1.3 mm flux into core mass, and that cores without line detections are at 20 K.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Most CMZ dense cores are pressure-confined rather than self-gravitating, so virial analyses that omit external pressure will misclassify them as unbound.
  • The high-mass end of the combined core mass function has slope 1.33 +/- 0.14, consistent with the canonical Salpeter/Kroupa IMF slope of 1.35.
  • If the CMZ's stellar IMF is top-heavy, the Salpeter-like CMF implies that core masses change after the core stage via gas accretion and fragmentation.
  • Cores without detectable H2CO or CH3CN emission are assigned 20 K; raising that assumed temperature to 30-50 K steepens the slopes further, so the Salpeter-like result is unchanged in the paper's tests.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test would compare dust temperatures from multi-band SEDs with these gas temperatures; if shocked gas is warmer than dust in the cores, the true core masses would be higher and the slope could shift back toward top-heavy.
  • The pressure-confinement picture predicts that many of these cores are transient density fluctuations that will disperse rather than form stars, which would help explain the CMZ's low star formation efficiency.
  • Applying the same temperature-correction method to other CMZ clouds surveyed at similar resolution should steepen their high-mass CMF slopes as well, replacing fixed-temperature mass estimates.
  • If accretion afterward builds the top-heavy IMF, one testable consequence is that protostellar cores in the CMZ should show higher accretion rates or more fragmentation than their Galactic disk counterparts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents ALMA Band 6 (1.3 mm) continuum and H2CO/CH3CN line observations of three massive CMZ clouds (Dust Ridge cloud e, Sgr C, and the 20 km s−1 cloud) at about 2000 au resolution. For 253 of 834 detected dense cores, the authors derive LTE (and non-LTE cross-checked) gas temperatures and velocity dispersions, convert 1.3 mm fluxes into masses assuming T_dust = T_gas, evaluate virial parameters with and without an external-pressure term obtained from lower-resolution SMA data, and construct core mass functions (CMFs). The two central claims are that external pressure is crucial for the virial equilibrium of most cores (154/253 bound only when the pressure term is included; 239/253 are pressure-dominated) and that the high-mass CMFs are Salpeter-like, with a combined power-law index α = 1.33 ± 0.14, reversing the top-heavy CMF conclusion of Lu et al. (2020). The paper interprets this as evidence that gas accretion and further fragmentation transform the CMF into the possibly top-heavy CMZ IMF.

Significance. If substantiated, these are important results: they would show that the extreme CMZ environment changes the dynamical state of cores through external pressure rather than through a top-heavy core mass distribution, and they would sharpen the long-standing question of how the CMF maps to the IMF. The analysis has genuine strengths: the temperature and linewidth measurements are carried out carefully, with LTE and non-LTE fits cross-checked (Appendix A), CH3CN fits cross-checked with XCLASS, Monte Carlo slope uncertainties presented (Appendix D), and complete core catalogs provided in Appendix E. The main claims are not circular: the temperatures come from line-ratio fits rather than from a fit tuned to produce a Salpeter slope. However, as detailed below, the headline results rest on assumptions that are acknowledged but not quantitatively stress-tested, so the conclusions are not yet as robust as the presentation suggests.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3.1, Eq. (1); §3.4, Fig. 9; §4.3] The central CMF result depends on T_dust = T_gas for the 253 line-detected cores, but the paper provides no quantitative test of the direction that would restore the Lu et al. (2020) top-heavy CMF. In Eq. (1), Mcore ∝ 1/Bν(Tdust), and the fitted H2CO/CH3CN temperatures are typically 50–200 K (Table 1), so adopting T_dust = T_gas reduces the masses of these bright, line-detected cores by factors of roughly 3–10 relative to the assumed 20 K dust temperature. If the dust is colder than the gas, as the shock-heating discussion in §4.3 allows, these cores move back to the high-mass end and α flattens toward the values reported by Lu et al. (2020). Appendix D varies the temperature of cores without line detections and tests non-LTE temperatures, but it never varies T_dust/T_gas for the 253 cores with measured gas temperatures. Please add a sensitivity test that recomputes the CMF slope (and, ideally, the virial fractions in §3.3.3) for T_dust = r T_gas with values such as r = 0.5 and r = 0.25, or provide external constraints (e.g., dust SEDs) bounding T_dust. Without this, the headline "Salpeter-like CMF" is not robust to the gas-dust decoupling that the paper itself identifies as a caveat.
  2. [§3.3.3, Eqs. (8)–(9); Figs. 6–8] The external-pressure confinement claim (154/253 bound with pressure; 239/253 with ΩG/ΩP < 1) relies on P_out computed from SMA data at 4" resolution, while the ALMA cores have effective radii R ~ 1000–8000 au. Eq. (9) therefore assigns each core a boundary pressure derived from gas on roughly 0.16 pc scales, which is not obviously the pressure at the core surface, and the SMA-based density estimate itself assumes a 20 K dust temperature and is subject to missing-flux effects. The paper does not propagate uncertainties in P_out into α_vir,p or into the bound/unbound fractions. Please quantify how the fractions in §3.3.3 and Figures 6–8 change when P_out is varied over a plausible range (e.g., factors of 0.5 and 2) and when the density-profile parameter a in Eq. (6) is varied. This will establish whether the qualitative conclusion that external pressure dominates over self-gravity is robust.
  3. [§3.4, Fig. 9; Appendix D] The CMF fitting sample is a hybrid: the 581 cores without H2CO/CH3CN detections are assigned T = 20 K and enter the fitted CMF, while the line-detected cores are assigned T_gas from line fits and therefore lower masses. Section 3.4 should explicitly state which cores are included after the virial cut, because only 253 cores have α_vir,p values yet 80, 245, and 410 cores enter the fits for the three clouds. More importantly, the mass functions in Figure 9 mix two different mass estimators, and the excluded-unbound cut uses the same T_dust assumption whose failure would change which cores are excluded. Please report the MLE slopes with and without the virial cut, and with and without the 20 K cores, for each cloud as well as for the combined sample; Figure D4 provides a combined-sample test with only line-detected cores, but the per-cloud results are not shown.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix C, Fig. C2] The text says that core-related H2CO compact sources "clearly present lower temperatures" than core-unrelated sources, but the K-S p-value for the temperature comparison is 0.068, which is only marginally significant; please soften the wording or add a more powerful test before claiming a clear difference.
  2. [Figure 10 caption and §3.4] The sentence listing K-S p-values should make explicit that the fourth value (2.9 × 10⁻⁹) is for the three clouds combined; as written, "for the three clouds respectively" refers to only three values while four are listed.
  3. [§4.3, Caveats] The statement that cores without line detections cannot have very high temperatures "otherwise molecular transitions such as H2CO and CH3CN should have been excited" is not strictly valid, because non-detections can also reflect low column density or low abundance; please rephrase to avoid implying that line non-detection alone bounds the temperature.
  4. [Table 1 and Appendix E] The notation for upper-limit temperatures and lower-limit masses should be defined in the table note in one place; currently the reader must infer from Section 3.2.1 that entries such as '<89.1' in the temperature column correspond to '>' entries in the mass column.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: temperatures are measured from H2CO/CH3CN LTE fits and drive the new masses; the only fitted step is the Appendix B line-ratio calibration for 24 upper-limit cores, which is minor and flagged.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2.1, scenario ii; Appendix B, Eq. B1]
    "This line ratio was then converted to a temperature upper limit following a best-fit power law relation between the line ratio and the temperature, which is derived from the best-fit temperatures in scenario i). ... The relation between the line ratio (LR) and the temperature (T) follows: T = 67.9 exp(0.8LR), (B1) which is then used to convert the line ratios to temperatures for scenario ii."

    The 24 upper-limit temperatures are produced by applying Eq. B1, whose two parameters are fit to H2CO temperatures from the same data set (scenario i), rather than measured independently. These values then feed Eq. (1) core masses and the subsequent CMF and virial analysis. The step is minor: the paper marks the values as upper limits, and its Appendix D test using only cores with directly fitted H2CO/CH3CN temperatures still yields a Salpeter-like combined slope, so the central claims do not reduce to this calibration.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. Core masses come from Eq. (1) with T_dust set equal to LTE gas temperatures fitted from H2CO/CH3CN line ratios (Section 3.2), and the Salpeter-like CMF slope is an output of the MLE fit in Section 3.4, not an input to the temperature or mass estimates. The virial analysis uses measured linewidths, Eq. (1) masses, and SMA-based external pressures (Lu et al. 2019b); no target quantity is used to define a fitted parameter. Reuse of the Lu et al. (2020) core catalog and SMA data is prior independent observational material, not a self-citation that supplies the conclusion. The only internal calibration is the scenario-ii line-ratio-temperature relation in Appendix B, used for 24 upper-limit temperatures; it is non-load-bearing because Appendix D's fit using only directly measured temperatures still gives a combined Salpeter-like slope. The T_dust = T_gas assumption is a genuine caveat (Section 4.3) that affects robustness but is not circular: the temperatures are not chosen to reproduce any target CMF slope.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central analysis rests on standard LTE and optically thin dust assumptions, plus the domain-specific assumptions that gas and dust temperatures are equal and that SMA-scale envelope pressure confines the cores. No new physical entities are introduced. The only fitted auxiliary relation is the H2CO line ratio-temperature calibration used for 24 upper limits.

free parameters (2)
  • H2CO line ratio-temperature relation coefficients = T = 67.9 exp(0.8 LR)
    Fit to cores with detected H2CO lines (scenario i), used to convert line ratios to temperature upper limits for 24 cores (Appendix B).
  • Dust temperature for cores without line detections = 20 K
    Adopted from Lu et al. 2020 for cores with no H2CO/CH3CN detection; affects roughly 581 cores in the CMF.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption LTE conditions hold for H2CO and CH3CN excitation
    Assumed in Section 3.2.1, justified by high densities (Goldsmith 2001); cross-checked with non-LTE RADEX fits in Appendix A.
  • domain assumption Gas and dust temperatures are equal in cores
    Invoked in Section 3.3.1 to use gas temperatures as dust temperatures in mass estimates; flagged as a caveat in Section 4.3.
  • standard math Dust emission is optically thin
    Used in Eq. 1 (Hildebrand 1983) for mass estimation; standard for 1.3 mm continuum cores.
  • domain assumption Spherically symmetric Gaussian density distribution for gravitational potential energy
    Used in Eq. 6 with a = 5/3 for kp = 2, following Bertoldi and McKee (1992).
  • domain assumption External pressure from SMA-scale envelope gas confines the ALMA cores
    Adopted in Section 3.3.3, Eq. 9, using SMA data at 4 arcsec resolution; the paper argues missing diffuse flux does not directly exert pressure on cores.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ALMA Observations of Massive Clouds in the Central Molecular Zone: External-Pressure-Confined Dense Cores and Salpeter-like Core Mass Functions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YYDAIIAS

@misc{pith2026241201593,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ALMA Observations of Massive Clouds in the Central Molecular Zone: External-Pressure-Confined Dense Cores and Salpeter-like Core Mass Functions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YYDAIIAS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01593}
}
read the original abstract

We present Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) Band 6 (1.3 mm) observations of dense cores in three massive molecular clouds within the Central Molecular Zone (CMZ) of the Milky Way, including the Dust Ridge cloud e, Sgr C, and the 20 km s-1 cloud, at a spatial resolution of 2000 au. Among the 834 cores identified from the 1.3 mm continuum, we constrain temperatures and linewidths of 253 cores using local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) methods to fit the H2CO and/or CH3CN spectra. We determine their masses using the 1.3 mm dust continuum and derived temperatures, and then evaluate their virial parameters using the H2CO and/or CH3CN linewidths and construct the core mass functions (CMFs). We find that the contribution of external pressure is crucial for the virial equilibrium of the dense cores in the three clouds, which contrasts with the environment in the Galactic disk where dense cores are already bound even without the contribution of external pressure. We also find that the CMFs show a Salpeter-like slope in the high-mass (>~3-6 Msun) end, a change from previous works with our new temperature estimates. Combined with the possible top-heavy initial mass functions (IMFs) in the CMZ, our result suggests that gas accretion and further fragmentation may play important roles in transforming the CMF to the IMF.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01593 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The integrated intensity (0th moment) maps of the H2CO and CH3CN line emission toward the three clouds. The inner and outer red dashed loops in the left panels show the ALMA primary-beam responses at 50% and 30%, respectively. The left panels show the integrated intensities of H2CO 30,3–20,2 and CH3CN 120–110/ 121–111, while the right panels are the zoomed-in views of the dashed boxes in the left panels. The blue co… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Examples of H2CO (left) and CH3CN (right) spectra detected in three cores, each from one of the three clouds. The complete gallery of all the fitting results can be found in Appendix A. The black curves show the observed spectra, while the red curves are the results of the LTE fits. The gray dashed lines indicate the ±3σ levels, while the orange dashed line represents the 5σ level. Above the spectra display the core… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The LTE fitting results for core 54 in cloud e, using the FFTL code to fit H2CO (left) and the EMANON code to fit CH3CN (right). The H2CO lines show clear self absorption, and therefore cannot be fit reasonably. Note that when both H2CO and CH3CN lines are de￾tected towards a core, the fitting result using CH3CN was adopted, as in such cases the H2CO lines are always optically thick and show self absorption making t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An overview of the temperatures of the cores. The inner and outer dashed loops represent the ALMA primary-beam responses at 50% and 30%, respectively. The black contour represents the 1.3 mm continuum emission at the level of 5σ. The color patches show the positions an…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparisons between the non-thermal velocity dispersion (σNT ) and the sound speed (cs). The dashed gray lines represent Mach numbers M = 1, 10, and 20. If αvir is lower than the critical value of 2, a core would be gravitationally bound, otherwise it would be un￾bound…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of masses and virial parameters of the cores, considering only gravitational and kinetic energies. The data points are color-coded by the clouds they belong to. Cores located above the dashed line (αvir = −Ωk/ΩG = 2) are considered to be unbound. 10 2 10 1…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Virial parameters (αvir,p) versus confinement ratios (ΩG/ΩP ). Cores located above the horizontal dashed line (ΩG/ΩP = 1) are dominantly confined by gravity, while those below are dominantly confined by external pressure. Cores located to the left of the vertical dashe…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Histograms of virial parameters of the cores. The orange bars represent the portion of cores with virial parameter αvir,p = −Ωk/(ΩG + Ωp) < 2, which are 10/19, 108/137, 36/97 in the cloud e, Sgr C, and the 20 km s−1 cloud, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fi…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: CMFs for the three individual clouds and the three clouds combined. The blue curves represent the kernel density estimations (KDEs) of the core masses. The red sticks attached to the bottom horizontal axes denote the core masses obtained with best-fit temperatures from…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Cumulative distributions of the core masses in the current work and from Lu et al. (2020). The blue curves represent the cumulative mass distributions assuming a dust temperature of 20 K for all cores. The red curves represent the mass distributions with partially upd…

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. How Should We Understand the Core Mass Function? A memo of the CMF2IMF conference at ESO Garching

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

    The high-mass slope of the core mass function depends strongly on the minimum fitting mass: completeness-based fits look top-heavy, while KS-selected tail fits move toward Salpeter, and the early-stage ASHES sample ap...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    M., et al

    Ao, Y., Henkel, C., Menten, K. M., et al. 2013, A&A, 550, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220096 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration,...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220096 2013

  2. [2]

    T., Longmore, S

    Barnes, A. T., Longmore, S. N., Battersby, C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 2263, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx941

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx941 2017

  3. [3]

    R., & Meyer, M

    Bastian, N., Covey, K. R., & Meyer, M. R. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 339, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101642

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101642 2010

  4. [4]

    L., Barnes, A., et al

    Battersby, C., Walker, D. L., Barnes, A., et al. 2024, 3-D CMZ I: Central Molecular Zone Overview. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.17334

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    A., & Tafalla, M

    Bergin, E. A., & Tafalla, M. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 339, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.071206.100404

    arXiv 2007

  6. [6]

    Bertoldi, F., & McKee, C. F. 1992, ApJ, 395, 140, doi: 10.1086/171638

    doi:10.1086/171638 1992

  7. [7]

    H., Wilson, T

    Bieging, J. H., Wilson, T. L., & Downes, D. 1982, A&AS, 49, 607

    work page 1982

  8. [8]

    A., Bate, M

    Bonnell, I. A., Bate, M. R., Clarke, C. J., & Pringle, J. E. 2001, MNRAS, 323, 785, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04270.x

    arXiv 2001

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    A., Bate, M

    Bonnell, I. A., Bate, M. R., & Zinnecker, H. 1998, MNRAS, 298, 93, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01590.x

    1998

  2. [10]

    N., Battersby, C., et al

    Callanan, D., Longmore, S. N., Battersby, C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 4760, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad388

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    2021, ApJL, 918, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1947 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al

    Cao, Y., Qiu, K., Zhang, Q., Wang, Y., & Xiao, Y. 2021, ApJL, 918, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1947 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    2024, ApJ, 967, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3c41

    Cheng, Y., Lu, X., Sanhueza, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3c41

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    R., & Newman, M

    Clauset, A., Shalizi, C. R., & Newman, M. E. J. 2009, SIAM Review, 51, 661, doi: 10.1137/070710111 Dell’Ova, P., Motte, F., Gusdorf, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A217, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348984

    2009 doi

  6. [14]

    L., Bieging, J., & Wink, J

    Downes, D., Wilson, T. L., Bieging, J., & Wink, J. 1980, A&AS, 40, 379

    1980

  7. [15]

    G., Klessen, R

    Elmegreen, B. G., Klessen, R. S., & Wilson, C. D. 2008, ApJ, 681, 365, doi: 10.1086/588725

    2008 doi

  8. [16]

    2017, A&A, 606, L12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731728

    Giannetti, A., Leurini, S., K¨ onig, C., et al. 2017, A&A, 606, L12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731728

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    2022, AJ, 163, 291, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac695a

    Ginsburg, A., Sokolov, V., de Val-Borro, M., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 291, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac695a

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    2016, A&A, 586, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526100

    Ginsburg, A., Henkel, C., Ao, Y., et al. 2016, A&A, 586, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526100

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 662, A9

    Ginsburg, A., Csengeri, T., Galv´ an-Madrid, R., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 662, A9

    2022

  12. [20]

    Goldsmith, P. F. 2001, ApJ, 557, 736, doi: 10.1086/322255 GRA VITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Aimar, N., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, L12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142465

    2001 doi

  13. [21]

    2008, ApJ, 684, 395, doi: 10.1086/589916

    Hennebelle, P., & Chabrier, G. 2008, ApJ, 684, 395, doi: 10.1086/589916

    2008 doi

  14. [22]

    D., Barnes, A

    Henshaw, J. D., Barnes, A. T., Battersby, C., 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, 83, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.11223

    2023 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    D., Longmore, S

    Henshaw, J. D., Longmore, S. N., Kruijssen, J. M. D., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 2675, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw121

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    Hildebrand, R. H. 1983, QJRAS, 24, 267

    1983

  17. [25]

    Hopkins, A. M. 2018, PASA, 35, e039, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2018.29 42

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    R., Anderson, J., et al

    Hosek, Matthew W., J., Lu, J. R., Anderson, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 870, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaef90 Hußmann, B., Stolte, A., Brandner, W., Gennaro, M., &

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    2012, A&A, 540, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117637

    Liermann, A. 2012, A&A, 540, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117637

    2012 doi

  20. [28]

    L., Evans, N

    Kauffmann, J., Bertoldi, F., Bourke, T. L., Evans, N. J., I., & Lee, C. W. 2008, A&A, 487, 993, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809481

    2008 doi

  21. [29]

    F., Melnick, G., et al

    Kauffmann, J., Goldsmith, P. F., Melnick, G., et al. 2017a, A&A, 605, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731123

    doi

  22. [30]

    Kauffmann, J., Pillai, T., & Goldsmith, P. F. 2013, ApJ, 779, 185, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/185

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    2017b, A&A, 603, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628088

    Kauffmann, J., Pillai, T., Zhang, Q., et al. 2017b, A&A, 603, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628088

    doi

  24. [32]

    M., Di Francesco, J., et al

    Kirk, H., Dunham, M. M., Di Francesco, J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 838, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa63f8

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    Klessen, R. S. 2000, ApJ, 535, 869, doi: 10.1086/308854

    2000 doi

  26. [34]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa951c

    Krieger, N., Ott, J., Beuther, H., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa951c

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    2002, Science, 295, 82, doi: 10.1126/science.1067524

    Kroupa, P. 2002, Science, 295, 82, doi: 10.1126/science.1067524

    2002 doi

  28. [36]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D., Dale, J. E., & Longmore, S. N. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 1059, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2526

    2015 doi

  29. [37]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D., Longmore, S. N., Elmegreen, B. G., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 3370, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu494

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    R., Kruijssen, J

    Krumholz, M. R., Kruijssen, J. M. D., & Crocker, R. M. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 1213, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3195

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

    Larson, R. B. 2005, MNRAS, 359, 211, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08881.x

    2005

  32. [40]

    2023a, Nature, 613, 460, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05488-1

    Li, J., Liu, C., Zhang, Z.-Y., et al. 2023a, Nature, 613, 460, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05488-1

    doi

  33. [41]

    2023b, ApJ, 949, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc58f

    Li, S., Sanhueza, P., Zhang, Q., et al. 2023b, ApJ, 949, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc58f

    doi

  34. [42]

    B., Ho, P

    Liu, H. B., Ho, P. T. P., Wright, M. C. H., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/44

    2013 doi

  35. [43]

    N., Bally, J., Testi, L., et al

    Longmore, S. N., Bally, J., Testi, L., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 987, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts376

    2013 doi

  36. [44]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.18719, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.18719

    Louvet, F., Sanhueza, P., Stutz, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.18719, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.18719

    2024 doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    2020, ApJL, 894, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8b65

    Lu, X., Cheng, Y., Ginsburg, A., et al. 2020, ApJL, 894, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8b65

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    2017, ApJ, 839, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa67f7

    Lu, X., Zhang, Q., Kauffmann, J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 839, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa67f7

    2017 doi

  39. [47]

    Lu, X., Mills, E. A. C., Ginsburg, A., et al. 2019a, ApJS, 244, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab4258

    doi

  40. [48]

    2019b, ApJ, 872, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab017d

    Lu, X., Zhang, Q., Kauffmann, J., et al. 2019b, ApJ, 872, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab017d

    doi

  41. [49]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abde3c

    Lu, X., Li, S., Ginsburg, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abde3c

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1395

    Lu, X., Liu, J., Pillai, T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1395

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    G., Darling, J., Menten, K

    Mangum, J. G., Darling, J., Menten, K. M., & Henkel, C. 2008, ApJ, 673, 832, doi: 10.1086/524354

    2008 doi

  44. [52]

    2014, Protostars and Planets VI, eds

    Matthews, B., Krivov, A., Wyatt, M., Bryden, G., & Eiroa, C. 2014, Protostars and Planets VI, eds. H. Beuther, RS

    2014

  45. [53]

    2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Golap, K. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw, F. Hill, & D. J. Bell, 127 M¨ oller, T., Endres, C., & Schilke, P. 2017, A&A, 598, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527203

    2007 doi

  46. [54]

    1996, ARA&A, 34, 645, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.34.1.645

    Morris, M., & Serabyn, E. 1996, ARA&A, 34, 645, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.34.1.645

    1996 doi

  47. [55]

    2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 478, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0452-x

    Motte, F., Nony, T., Louvet, F., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 478, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0452-x

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 662, A8

    Motte, F., Bontemps, S., Csengeri, T., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 662, A8

    2022

  49. [57]

    C., Hatchfield, H

    Myers, P. C., Hatchfield, H. P., & Battersby, C. 2022, ApJ, 929, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5906

    2022 doi

  50. [58]

    2019, A&A, 625, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834094

    Ntormousi, E., & Hennebelle, P. 2019, A&A, 625, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834094

    2019 doi

  51. [59]

    Offner, S. S. R., Clark, P. C., Hennebelle, P., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 53–75, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816531240-ch003

    2014 doi

  52. [60]

    Offner, S. S. R., Taylor, J., Markey, C., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 885, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2734

    2022 doi

  53. [61]

    1994, A&A, 291, 943

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

    1994

  54. [62]

    2011, ApJL, 741, L22, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/741/1/L22

    Padoan, P., & Nordlund, ˚A. 2011, ApJL, 741, L22, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/741/1/L22

    2011 doi

  55. [63]

    Heyer, M. H. 1998, ApJ, 493, 680, doi: 10.1086/305136

    1998 doi

  56. [64]

    P., & Kim, S

    Park, S.-M., Goodwin, S. P., & Kim, S. S. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 325, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa668

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    M., et al

    Pattle, K., Ward-Thompson, D., Kirk, J. M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1094, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv376

    2015 doi

  58. [66]

    C., et al

    Pillai, T., Kauffmann, J., Tan, J. C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/74

    2015 doi

  59. [67]

    2023, A&A, 674, A76, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244776

    Pouteau, Y., Motte, F., Nony, T., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A76, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244776

    2023 doi

  60. [68]

    M., Longmore, S

    Rathborne, J. M., Longmore, S. N., Jackson, J. M., et al. 2014, ApJL, 795, L25, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/795/2/L25 43

    2014 doi

  61. [69]

    2012, APLpy: Astronomical Plotting Library in Python, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1208.017

    Robitaille, T., & Bressert, E. 2012, APLpy: Astronomical Plotting Library in Python, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1208.017

    2012

  62. [70]

    2019, ApJ, 886, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab45e9

    Sanhueza, P., Contreras, Y., Wu, B., et al. 2019, ApJ, 886, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab45e9

    2019 doi

  63. [71]

    2021, A&A, 649, A32, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040221

    Cernicharo, J., & Cuadrado, S. 2021, A&A, 649, A32, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040221

    2021 doi

  64. [72]

    2023, MNRAS, 521, 4579, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad827 Su´ arez, G., Galv´ an-Madrid, R., Aguilar, L., et al

    Scibelli, S., Shirley, Y., Schmiedeke, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 4579, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad827 Su´ arez, G., Galv´ an-Madrid, R., Aguilar, L., et al. 2021, ApJ, 921, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1bb9

    2023 doi

  65. [73]

    D., Esimbek, J., Zhou, J

    Tang, X. D., Esimbek, J., Zhou, J. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 551, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219809 van der Tak, F. F. S., Black, J. H., Sch¨ oier, F. L., Jansen, D. J., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2007, A&A, 468, 627, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066820

    2013 doi

  66. [74]

    L., Longmore, S

    Walker, D. L., Longmore, S. N., Zhang, Q., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2373, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2898

    2018 doi

  67. [75]

    A., Walker, D

    Williams, B. A., Walker, D. L., Longmore, S. N., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 578, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1378

    2022 doi

  68. [76]

    2015, ApJ, 804, 141, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/141

    Zhang, Q., Wang, K., Lu, X., & Jim´ enez-Serra, I. 2015, ApJ, 804, 141, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/141

    2015 doi

  69. [77]

    1992, A&AS, 96, 525

    Zylka, R., Guesten, R., Henkel, C., & Batrla, W. 1992, A&AS, 96, 525

    1992

Pith tools

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