Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 9 minor 126 references

Unraveling the Feedback-Regulated Star Formation Activities around the Expanding Galactic MIR Bubble [HKS2019] E71

T0 review · 3 major / 9 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper concludes that feedback from the B1.5 star m2 sculpted the E71 bubble and is now triggering star formation at its rim, including the accreting massive young stellar object m4.

desk verdict Solid multi-wavelength case study of the E71 bubble; the structural results are probably right, but the expansion velocity and triggered star formation claim rest on an untested kinematic choice. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13232 v1 pith:XYKSSLLR submitted 2025-07-17 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Aayushi Verma , Saurabh Sharma , Lokesh K. Dewangan , Tarak Chand , Ariful Hoque , Devendra K. Ojha , Harmeen Kaur , Ram Kesh Yadav
show 3 more authors
Mamta Manojit Chakraborty Archana Gupta
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords stellarfeedbackHIIregioninfraredbubbletriggeredstarformationcollectandcollapsemechanismyoungobjectsmolecularcloudsradiocontinuumemission
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 argues that the mid-infrared bubble E71 was carved by feedback from a single B1.5-type star, m2, which sits inside a young stellar cluster (Cl1) at the bubble's center. Using Herschel, Spitzer, WISE, CO line, and new uGMRT radio data, the authors find an arc-like photo-dissociation region around m2, regularly spaced dust and molecular condensations along that arc, and expanding molecular gas at the bubble rim. They identify a massive young stellar object, m4, on the arc whose near-infrared spectrum shows accretion tracers such as Br-gamma and He I, and they estimate that the total pressure from m2's H II region, radiation, and wind (about $2.9 \times 10^{-11}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$) exceeds typical cloud pressure, enough to compress the rim. The conclusion is that "collect and collapse" triggered by m2's feedback is a plausible mechanism for the star formation now occurring along E71's periphery.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the "collect and collapse" scenario for expanding H II regions, evaluated observationally through three coupled diagnostics: (1) the measured total feedback pressure from m2, dominated by H II gas pressure ($P_{\rm HII} = 2.1 \times 10^{-11}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$) plus radiation pressure and wind ram pressure, compared against typical cloud pressures; (2) the spatial coincidence between the PDR arc, the dust arc, and the distribution of Class I YSOs and molecular condensations; and (3) the CO kinematics, namely moment maps at a uniform $-16$ km s$^{-1}$ with a position-velocity spread of about $2$ km s$^{-1}$ along the bubble rim, plus linewidth maxima toward the arc, interpreted as expansion. A secondary but essential piece is the Gaia DR3 membership analysis that places m2 inside Cl1 and fixes the cluster distance, turning m2 into the only known massive star capable of powering the bubble.

What would settle it

A decisive test is to measure the distance and velocity structure of the red-shifted cloud ($-4$ to $2$ km s$^{-1}$), for example with NH3 or C18O lines and absorption against background continuum sources: if it lies at the same 1.8 kpc distance as the blue cloud and connects kinematically to it, the two clouds form a single shell expanding at about $11$ km s$^{-1}$, and the paper's $\sim 2$ km s$^{-1}$ expansion and the direct m2-to-bubble causal chain fail. If the red-shifted cloud is genuinely foreground or background, the shell interpretation at $\sim 2$ km s$^{-1}$ survives and the pressure argument stands.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that m2, a B1.5 member of cluster Cl1 at $1.81 \pm 0.15$ kpc, is the primary ionizing source of the E71 H II region and has sculpted the bubble's arc-like morphology through feedback. The assembled evidence includes a partial ring of warm dust and PAH emission (a PDR) surrounding m2; H-$\alpha$ and 1.26 GHz radio continuum tracing ionized gas confined by that PDR; Herschel column density and extinction maps showing the arc; and 12CO position-velocity diagrams along the bubble rim showing a velocity spread around $-16$ km s$^{-1}$, interpreted as expansion at about $2$ km s$^{-1}$. The pressure of m2's H II region, radiation, and wind at the position of the rim protostar m4 is $2.9 \times 10^{-11}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$, above the roughly $10^{-11}$ to $10^{-12}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$ internal pressure of a typical molecular cloud. The authors therefore conclude that m2's feedback swept up and compressed the ambient cloud, that the regularly spaced condensations along the arc are the fragmentation products of that compressed shell, and that m4, an accreting massive young stellar object with jet-like non-thermal radio emission, is a newly triggered star.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the molecular cloud seen at $-20$ to $-14$ km s$^{-1}$ is the gas shell of the E71 bubble, while the cloud at $-4$ to $2$ km s$^{-1}$ is an unrelated foreground or background component; Section 4.3 itself notes the two clouds could instead be the near and far sides of one disrupted shell expanding at about $11$ km s$^{-1}$, and sets that aside because the blue cloud's morphology matches the bubble better.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If m2's feedback is the driver, the E71 bubble is an expanding shell that is actively sweeping up the rim gas, and the cluster Cl1 must be older than the rim-triggered population.
  • The regularly spaced condensations along the PDR arc are candidate sites of collapse that should contain dense cores, potentially forming a new generation of stars around the bubble.
  • m4 and m4' are likely young massive objects powered by B2/B3-type stars, with non-thermal radio emission from jets rather than ultra-compact H II regions; the absence of a P-Cygni profile at higher spectral resolution leaves their outflow geometry open.
  • The measured Lyman continuum flux ($4.32 \times 10^{45}$ photons s$^{-1}$) falls short of the expected B1.5 value ($1.00 \times 10^{46}$ photons s$^{-1}$), implying that roughly half the ionizing photons are absorbed by dust within the bubble, consistent with a dust- and density-bounded H II region.
  • The deep optical, near-infrared, and radio data together make E71 a clear example of feedback-regulated star formation where one massive star can shape a parsec-scale environment and induce a second generation of stars.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper sets aside a more dramatic reading of the CO data: the $[-20, -14]$ km s$^{-1}$ and $[-4, 2]$ km s$^{-1}$ clouds could be the near and far sides of a single expanding shell, implying an expansion velocity near $11$ km s$^{-1}$. If that reading is correct, the bubble's dynamical age would be much shorter, and the feedback would have had to act very quickly; a targeted distance or absorpti
  • A natural test of the collect-and-collapse interpretation is the spacing of the rim condensations: resolved millimeter interferometry should show cores whose separations and masses match the Jeans fragmentation of a swept-up shell; if the cores turn out to be pre-existing, triggered formation is not established.
  • The pressure argument assumes m2 is the only ionizing source inside Cl1; if deeper radio observations reveal additional embedded massive stars, the pressure budget would need to be shared and the causal story would be weakened.
  • The paper's higher-resolution spectrum of m4 does not confirm the previously reported P-Cygni profile, which suggests that the outflow classification of this MYSO may need revision and that follow-up spectroscopy at even higher resolution is worthwhile.
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 / 9 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a multi-wavelength study of the Galactic mid-infrared bubble [HKS2019] E71. Using deep optical photometry (DOT), optical spectroscopy (HFOSC), near-infrared spectroscopy (TANSPEC), uGMRT 1260 MHz radio continuum, Herschel dust maps, and PMO MWISP CO(1-0) data, the authors identify a stellar cluster Cl1 at 1.81±0.15 kpc, classify the central massive star m2 as B1.5, detect an arc-like PDR and associated dust/gas condensations, identify a population of Class I/II YSOs, resolve two radio continuum peaks near the MYSO m4, and infer an expansion velocity of ~2 km/s from a 12CO position-velocity diagram. They conclude that feedback from m2 likely sculpted the bubble and triggered the formation of m4 through the collect-and-collapse mechanism.

Significance. If the kinematic association and expansion inference hold, the paper would provide a well-observed example of feedback-regulated star formation in a modest-size Galactic bubble, with new uGMRT and TANSPEC observations as original contributions. The study makes good use of archival Gaia and Herschel data and presents a coherent morphological case for an embedded cluster, a PDR, and ongoing star formation. However, the causal claim—that m2's feedback drove the expansion and triggered m4—depends on a kinematic interpretation that the authors themselves flag as ambiguous in Section 4.3, and the ~2 km/s expansion velocity is not quantitatively established. The structural results are likely robust; the trigger conclusion needs additional support before it can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3 (with §3.10.3)] The central claim—that m2's feedback expanded the E71 bubble and triggered the formation of m4—requires that the [−20, −14] km/s CO cloud is the molecular shell of the bubble and that the [−4, 2] km/s cloud is an unrelated foreground/background component. Section 4.3 explicitly states that the two clouds 'appear to form a disrupted molecular shell' with an implied expansion velocity of ~11 km/s, and this alternative is set aside only because 'the blue-shifted cloud aligns more closely in morphology with the E71 bubble.' That is a morphological preference, not a quantitative test; no distance or absorption measurement is presented for the red cloud. Please provide a discriminating test (e.g., extinction or 3D dust measurements toward the two velocity components, or a search for associated continuum/dust emission) or explicitly frame the expansion and triggering conclusions as conditional on the adopted association.
  2. [§3.10.3] The inferred expansion velocity of ~2 km/s is read from a PV diagram along arc CD with eye-drawn curves and no quoted uncertainty. The stated velocity spread [−18, −14] km/s is comparable to the measured 13CO FWHM linewidths in Table 4 (0.62–1.99 km/s) and to the linewidth maxima in Figure 12, so it is not established that the apparent expansion exceeds the local velocity dispersion. Please fit the PV structure quantitatively (e.g., a shell or Gaussian model) to obtain an expansion velocity with uncertainty, and compare it with the non-thermal velocity dispersion before using it as evidence of feedback-driven expansion.
  3. [§3.4 (with §1)] The physical association of the MYSO m4 with the bubble is itself dependent on the same velocity association: m4 is not a Gaia cluster member, and its adopted distance of 2.0±0.6 kpc comes from Kawamura et al. (1998), whereas Cl1 is at 1.81±0.15 kpc. The association currently rests on the NH3 velocity of −16 km/s and on the morphology of the blue-shifted cloud. If the blue-cloud association is not confirmed, the triggering scenario involving m4 loses its observational anchor. Please state this dependence explicitly and, if possible, use the new TANSPEC or uGMRT data to constrain m4's distance or association.
minor comments (9)
  1. [§3.10.3] The phrase 'The thought behind electing these paths' should be 'selecting these paths.'
  2. [§4.4] 'Harbig-haro object' should be 'Herbig–Haro object.'
  3. [§5] The phrase 'encouraging and amusing signatures' is informal for a journal article; consider 'compelling signatures.'
  4. [§3.5] The sentence 'We defined the bins in log min' should read 'log m' (the logarithm of stellar mass).
  5. [§3.9] Section 3.8 derives NUV = 4.32×10^45 s−1 from the uGMRT flux, while Section 3.9 uses Nuv = 1.00×10^46 s−1 from Clark & Porter (2004) for the same star; please justify using the literature value or propagate the observed value, since PHII in Eq. (11) depends on Nuv.
  6. [Figure 13 caption] The blue curves in the PV diagram are not described in the caption; please state what they represent and how they were drawn.
  7. [§4.3] The text refers to 'm-2 moment maps,' but Figure 12 shows m-0, m-1, and linewidth (m-2) maps; please make the terminology consistent.
  8. [§3.10.4] The assumption c = (a+b)/2 for the third axis enters the density estimates in Table 5; please state the resulting systematic uncertainty.
  9. [§2.5] 'To authorize the flux density scale' should read 'To calibrate the flux density scale.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: expansion velocity, pressure, and triggered-formation claims are measured or referenced externally, not fitted; Sec. 4.3's two-cloud ambiguity is an interpretive assumption, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central inference—that the B1.5 star m2 has sculpted E71 and may have triggered m4—is assembled from independent measurements: the ~2 km/s expansion velocity is read directly from the 12CO(1-0) PV diagram along arc CD (Sec. 3.10.3), the pressure on m4 uses external B1.5 parameters from Clark & Porter (2004) and Pauwels et al. (2023) together with a projected distance, and the ionized-gas morphology comes from new uGMRT/NVSS and WISE data. None of these inputs is adjusted to produce the conclusion; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or load-bearing self-citation forces the result. The authors do cite their own previous work (e.g., Sharma et al. 2017, Verma et al. 2023) but only as methodological precedent or morphological analogy, not as the justification for the expansion claim. Sec. 4.3 explicitly flags an alternative reading of the CO kinematics—the blue and red clouds 'appear to form a disrupted molecular shell' with expansion ~11 km/s—and sets it aside because 'the blue-shifted cloud aligns more closely in morphology with the E71 bubble.' That is an observational assumption about which cloud is the bubble shell; it weakens the kinematics-based association but does not make the derivation circular, because the adopted 2 km/s expansion is still read from the data rather than manufactured by the assumption. Similarly, the pressure comparison demonstrates capability to compress typical molecular gas, not a forced causal chain. The paper is therefore self-contained relative to the circularity tests; the two-cloud degeneracy is a correctness risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on measured quantities (distance, spectral type) and standard astrophysical assumptions. The most consequential assumption is the identification of the blue-shifted cloud as the bubble shell, which is a modeling choice. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Cluster distance = 1.81 ± 0.15 kpc
    Determined from Gaia DR3 parallaxes and fastmp membership probabilities; anchors all derived sizes, masses, and pressures.
  • Visual extinction A_V = 2.63 mag
    Taken from the Bayestar19 3D dust map (Green et al. 2019) and used to fit the ZAMS to the cluster CMD; affects distance validation and stellar masses.
  • Assumed YSO mass = 0.5 M_sun per YSO
    Adopted from literature (Chavarría et al. 2014) to convert YSO counts into stellar mass for star formation efficiency estimates.
  • Electron temperature T_e = 10,000 K
    Assumed in the Lyman continuum flux estimate (Matsakis et al. 1976 equation); affects derived ionizing photon rates.
  • Core third axis c = mean of semi-major and semi-minor axes
    Adopted for the volume and thus density of each condensation because no distance information exists along the line of sight.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Dust temperature equals gas kinetic temperature (T_gas ≈ T_d)
    Invoked in Section 3.10.4 to derive velocity dispersions and virial masses from 13CO; the authors note substantial differences can exist.
  • domain assumption Local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) and a fixed 13CO-to-H2 conversion factor
    Used in Section 3.10.4 to convert 13CO integrated intensities into masses via Sofue & Kohno 2020.
  • ad hoc to paper The blue-shifted cloud [-20,-14] km/s is the gas associated with the bubble
    Section 4.3 selects this cloud while acknowledging the red cloud [-4,2] km/s could form a disrupted shell with ~11 km/s expansion; this choice underpins the 2 km/s expansion claim.
  • domain assumption m2 is the sole significant ionizing and feedback source of the bubble
    Sections 3.9 and 4.1 assign all feedback to m2; other massive members in the cluster are assumed absent or negligible, though the cluster contains several B-type candidates and unclassified members.
  • domain assumption Regularly spaced condensations along an arc are diagnostic of collect-and-collapse
    Adopted from Deharveng et al. 2005; the spacing is assessed visually and not quantified statistically.
  • standard math Standard pressure formulas for HII regions, radiation, and winds
    Equations 11-13 from Bressert et al. 2012; assumed to apply to the m2 environment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unraveling the Feedback-Regulated Star Formation Activities around the Expanding Galactic MIR Bubble [HKS2019] E71." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XYKSSLLR

@misc{pith2026250713232,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unraveling the Feedback-Regulated Star Formation Activities around the Expanding Galactic MIR Bubble [HKS2019] E71},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XYKSSLLR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13232}
}
abstract

We explore the physical environment of the Galactic mid-infrared (MIR) bubble [HKS2019] E71 (hereafter E71) through a multi-wavelength approach. E71 is located at the edge of a filamentary structure, as traced in Herschel images (250-500 $\mu$m), Herschel column density map, and molecular maps in the velocity range [-20,-14] km/s. It hosts a stellar cluster (radius~1.26 pc, distance~1.81+/-0.15 kpc) associated with radio continuum emission, including a centrally positioned B1.5-type massive star (hereafter 'm2'), along with an enhanced population of evolved low-mass stars and young stellar objects. MIR images and molecular line maps reveal a PDR surrounding 'm2', exhibiting an arc-like structure along the edges of E71. Regularly spaced molecular and dust condensations are identified along this structure. The position-velocity map of 12CO emission suggests an expansion of molecular gas concentrated at the periphery of E71. Near-infrared spectroscopic observations with TANSPEC confirm the presence of the accretion process in a massive young stellar object (MYSO) located near the edge of the bubble. High-resolution uGMRT radio continuum maps uncover substructures in the ionized emission, both toward the MYSO and the center of E71. These findings support that 'm2' has shaped an arc-like morphology through its feedback processes. The pressure exerted by 'm2' and the velocity structure of the 12/13CO(1-0) emission suggest that the stellar feedback has likely driven out molecular material, leading to the formation of the expanding E71 bubble. Our overall investigation infers that the "collect and collapse" process might be a possible mechanism that can describe the ongoing star formation activities around the E71 bubble.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13232 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Upper left panel: Herschel column density map showing the large-scale view (35′ × 35′ ) of the E71 bubble, overlaid with the locations of IRAS sources (red diamonds). Upper right panel: Herschel dust temperature map overlaid with the locations of Class i YSOs, and blue and red contours representing 12CO integrated intensity in the velocity ranges [−20, −14] km s −1 and [−4, 2] km s−1 , respectively (Section 3.10.1).… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Upper Panel: Color-composite image of the E71 bubble, generated using the g and i band images (green and red, respectively) of 6′ .5×6 ′ .5 region (FOV of DOT that en￾tirely covers the bubble). The locations of probable massive stars ‘m1, m2, and m4’ are also marked with yellow squares. Lower Panel: Completeness factor in g and i bands as a function of magnitude derived using the addstar routine of IRAF. Given that … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. g versus (g − i) CMD for the optical sources detected by PS1 DR2 data. The black curve represents the ZAMS isochrones by Pastorelli et al. (2019), corrected for the distance 1.81 kpc and AV =2.63 mag. The probable massive stars (‘m1, m2, and m3’) are marked with black squares [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Upper Panel: Wavelength-calibrated normalized spectra of ‘m2 and m3’, observed using HFOSC. Lower Panel: Wavelength-calibrated spectrum of m4, observed using TANSPEC. We define the area of the cluster (Acluster) through its convex hull 4 (or Qhull) using the formula (S…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Gaia DR3 G vs. (GBP − GRP ) CMD where the color bar represents the membership probabilities (in %) computed by fastmp in a 9′ × 9 ′ region. The locations of ‘m1, m2, m3, and m4’ are also marked. To validate this distance estimate, we analyzed the statistically cleaned …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: g versus (g − i) CMD for statistically cleaned stars within Cl1. The black and green solid curves represent the ZAMS and 1 Myr isochrones by Pastorelli et al. (2019), corrected for the distance 1.81 kpc and AV =2.63 mag. The blue dashed line represents the reddening ve…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A plot of the MF distribution for the stars within Cl1 identified using deep optical data from IMAGER mounted at 3.6-m DOT. Here, ϕ marks N(log m), the error bars mark ± √ N errors. The red and green dashed line shows the least squares fit to the MF distribution. 3.6. …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) MST for the classified YSOs. MST connections are shown with grey color along with the isolated AR and core enclosed by the yellow-colored and magenta-colored Convex hulls, respectively. The MST connections inside them are orange and purple, respectively. (b) and (c…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) Color-composite image generated using the WISE 22 µm, Spitzer 3.6 µm, and 2MASS 2.17 µm (K-band) emission (red, green, and blue, respectively) overlaid with the isodensity contours (cyan) and the locations Class i and Class ii YSOs (green and blue asterisks), respe…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Hα emission (using DFOT) to trace the distribution of the ionized gas. It is overlaid with the (a) NVSS 1.4 GHz radio continuum contours (green), the lowest level to generate these contours is 1.50 mJy beam−1 with a step size of 0.25 mJy beam−1 ; and (b) the uGMRT 126…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Integrated-intensity map for the 12CO (1-0) emission over the velocity intervals (in km s−1 ) mentioned in each panel. The emission is shown above 5σ value (σ being the rms noise). All the panels are overlaid with the locations of probable massive stars (black squares…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: m-0, m-1 and linewidth maps (column-wise) for 12CO (1-0) and 13CO (1-0) emission, respectively in the velocity range [−20, −14] km s−1 . The emission is depicted above 5σ value (σ being the rms noise for the respective spectral cubes). The green squares in panel (d) m…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Left Panel: 12CO (1-0) m-0 map overlaid with elected paths AB and CD to extract the PV maps. Middle and right panels: PV Diagrams extracted using 12CO (1-0) along AB and CD, respectively. The blue curves in the right panel represent the expansion of the E71 bubble. th…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: TCD for the YSOs identified within 35′ × 35′ region. Left panel: [K - [3.6]]0 vs. [[3.6] - [4.5]]0 TCD, classification of YSOs is based on the scheme given by Gutermuth et al. (2009). Middle panel: (J − H) vs. (H − K) CMD, classification is based on the scheme given b…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Differential Column Density map at Td, marked in each panel. The locations of ‘m1, m2, m3, and m4’ are also marked in each panel. Balaguer-N´u˜nez, L., Jordi, C., Galad´ı-Enr´ıquez, D., & Zhao, J. L. 2004, A&A, 426, 819, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041332 Balaguer-N´unez…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

126 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

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

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

  3. [3]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

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

    2021

  4. [4]

    M., Natta , A., Manara , C

    Alcal \'a , J. M., Natta , A., Manara , C. F., et al. 2014, , 561, A2, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322254

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322254 2014

  5. [5]

    Bailer-Jones , C. A. L., Rybizki , J., Fouesneau , M., Demleitner , M., & Andrae , R. 2021, , 161, 147, 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  6. [6]

    Balaguer-N \'u \ n ez , L., Jordi , C., Galad \' -Enr \' quez , D., & Zhao , J. L. 2004, , 426, 819, 10.1051/0004-6361:20041332

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041332 2004

  7. [7]

    P., & Zhao , J

    Balaguer-N \'u nez , L., Tian , K. P., & Zhao , J. L. 1998, , 133, 387, 10.1051/aas:1998324

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:1998324 1998

  8. [8]

    A., Churchwell , E., Babler , B

    Benjamin , R. A., Churchwell , E., Babler , B. L., et al. 2005, , 630, L149, 10.1086/491785

    doi:10.1086/491785 2005

Show all 126 references
  1. [9]

    G., W \"u nsch , R., Whitworth , A

    Bisbas , T. G., W \"u nsch , R., Whitworth , A. P., & Hubber , D. A. 2009, , 497, 649, 10.1051/0004-6361/200811522

    2009 doi

  2. [10]

    2012, , 758, L28, 10.1088/2041-8205/758/2/L28

    Bressert , E., Ginsburg , A., Bally , J., et al. 2012, , 758, L28, 10.1088/2041-8205/758/2/L28

    2012 doi

  3. [11]

    C., Hoare , M

    Bunn , J. C., Hoare , M. G., & Drew , J. E. 1995, , 272, 346, 10.1093/mnras/272.2.346

    1995 doi

  4. [12]

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

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

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    2003, , 115, 763, 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier , G. 2003, , 115, 763, 10.1086/376392

    2003 doi

  6. [14]

    C., Magnier , E

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

    2016 arXiv

  7. [15]

    2014, , 439, 3719, 10.1093/mnras/stu224

    Chavarr \' a , L., Allen , L., Brunt , C., et al. 2014, , 439, 3719, 10.1093/mnras/stu224

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    S., Allen , D., et al

    Churchwell , E., Povich , M. S., Allen , D., et al. 2006, , 649, 759, 10.1086/507015

    2006 doi

  9. [17]

    S., & Porter , J

    Clark , J. S., & Porter , J. M. 2004, , 427, 839, 10.1051/0004-6361:20040523

    2004 doi

  10. [18]

    J., Cotton , W

    Condon , J. J., Cotton , W. D., Greisen , E. W., et al. 1998, , 115, 1693, 10.1086/300337

    1998 doi

  11. [19]

    S., & Reipurth , B

    Connelley , M. S., & Reipurth , B. 2018, , 861, 145, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaba7b

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    Cooper , H. D. B., Lumsden , S. L., Oudmaijer , R. D., et al. 2013, , 430, 1125, 10.1093/mnras/sts681

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    E., Ercolano , B., & Bonnell , I

    Dale , J. E., Ercolano , B., & Bonnell , I. A. 2013, , 431, 1062, 10.1093/mnras/stt236

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    2003, , 408, L25, 10.1051/0004-6361:20031157

    Deharveng , L., Lefloch , B., Zavagno , A., et al. 2003, , 408, L25, 10.1051/0004-6361:20031157

    2003 doi

  15. [23]

    2005, , 433, 565, 10.1051/0004-6361:20041946

    Deharveng , L., Zavagno , A., & Caplan , J. 2005, , 433, 565, 10.1051/0004-6361:20041946

    2005 doi

  16. [24]

    D., et al

    Deharveng , L., Schuller , F., Anderson , L. D., et al. 2010, , 523, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014422

    2010 doi

  17. [25]

    2018, Data of the MWISP Sky Survey (2011 - 2017) , V1, Science Data Bank, 10.11922/sciencedb.570

    DengRong, L., Jixian, S., Zherui, Y., Liang, L., & Ji, Y. 2018, Data of the MWISP Sky Survey (2011 - 2017) , V1, Science Data Bank, 10.11922/sciencedb.570

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    K., Baug , T., Ojha , D

    Dewangan , L. K., Baug , T., Ojha , D. K., et al. 2017 a , , 845, 34, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7da2

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    K., Baug , T., Pirogov , L

    Dewangan , L. K., Baug , T., Pirogov , L. E., & Ojha , D. K. 2020 a , , 898, 41, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab964c

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    K., Ojha , D

    Dewangan , L. K., Ojha , D. K., Zinchenko , I., Janardhan , P., & Luna , A. 2017 b , , 834, 22, 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/22

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    K., Sharma , S., Pandey , R., et al

    Dewangan , L. K., Sharma , S., Pandey , R., et al. 2020 b , , 898, 172, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9c27

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    E., & Williams , D

    Dyson , J. E., & Williams , D. A. 1980, Physics of the interstellar medium

    1980

  23. [31]

    Edwards , S., Fischer , W., Kwan , J., Hillenbrand , L., & Dupree , A. K. 2003, , 599, L41, 10.1086/381077

    2003 doi

  24. [32]

    Elmegreen , B. G. 1998, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 148, Origins, ed. C. E. Woodward , J. M. Shull , & H. A. Thronson , Jr., 150

    1998

  25. [33]

    G., & Lada , C

    Elmegreen , B. G., & Lada , C. J. 1977, , 214, 725, 10.1086/155302

    1977 doi

  26. [34]

    D., & Pudritz , R

    Fiege , J. D., & Pudritz , R. E. 2000, , 311, 85, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03066.x

    2000

  27. [35]

    A., & Myers , P

    Fuller , G. A., & Myers , P. C. 1992, , 384, 523, 10.1086/170894

    1992 doi

  28. [36]

    Gaia Collaboration , Prusti , T., de Bruijne , J. H. J., et al. 2016, , 595, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272

    2016 doi

  29. [37]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023, , 674, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    P., et al

    Ghosh , A., Sharma , S., Ninan , J. P., et al. 2023, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 44, 50, 10.1007/s12036-023-09939-7

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    2013, , 778, 71, 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/71

    Giannini , T., Nisini , B., Antoniucci , S., et al. 2013, , 778, 71, 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/71

    2013 doi

  32. [40]

    2020, GLIMPSE 360 Catalog, IPAC, 10.26131/IRSA214

    GLIMPSE Team . 2020, GLIMPSE 360 Catalog, IPAC, 10.26131/IRSA214 . https://catcopy.ipac.caltech.edu/dois/doi.php?id=10.26131/IRSA214

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    Goldsmith , P. F. 2001, , 557, 736, 10.1086/322255

    2001 doi

  34. [42]

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

    Green , G. M., Schlafly , E., Zucker , C., Speagle , J. S., & Finkbeiner , D. 2019, , 887, 93, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    S., et al

    Gupta , Y., Ajithkumar , B., Kale , H. S., et al. 2017, Current Science, 113, 707, 10.18520/cs/v113/i04/707-714

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    A., Megeath , S

    Gutermuth , R. A., Megeath , S. T., Myers , P. C., et al. 2009, , 184, 18, 10.1088/0067-0049/184/1/18

    2009 doi

  37. [45]

    A., Megeath , S

    Gutermuth , R. A., Megeath , S. T., Pipher , J. L., et al. 2005, , 632, 397, 10.1086/432460

    2005 doi

  38. [46]

    2019, , 71, 6, 10.1093/pasj/psy126

    Hanaoka , M., Kaneda , H., Suzuki , T., et al. 2019, , 71, 6, 10.1093/pasj/psy126

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    G., Drew , J

    Hoare , M. G., Drew , J. E., Muxlow , T. B., & Davis , R. J. 1994, , 421, L51, 10.1086/187185

    1994 doi

  40. [48]

    Inoue , A. K. 2001, , 122, 1788, 10.1086/323095

    2001 doi

  41. [49]

    H., Hunter , D

    Jacoby , G. H., Hunter , D. A., & Christian , C. A. 1984, , 56, 257, 10.1086/190983

    1984 doi

  42. [50]

    C., Reiter , M., Sanchez-Janssen , R., et al

    Jones , O. C., Reiter , M., Sanchez-Janssen , R., et al. 2022, , 517, 1518, 10.1093/mnras/stac2491

    2022 doi

  43. [52]

    K., Ogura , K., et al

    Jose , J., Pandey , A. K., Ogura , K., et al. 2012, , 424, 2486, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21175.x

    2012

  44. [53]

    2022, , 663, A133, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141676

    Karska , A., Koprowski , M., Solarz , A., et al. 2022, , 663, A133, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141676

    2022 doi

  45. [54]

    C., L \'o pez-S \'a nchez , \'A

    Karthick , M. C., L \'o pez-S \'a nchez , \'A . R., Sahu , D. K., Sanwal , B. B., & Bisht , S. 2014, , 439, 157, 10.1093/mnras/stt2301

    2014 doi

  46. [55]

    L., Evans , II, N

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

    2008 doi

  47. [56]

    K., et al

    Kaur , H., Sharma , S., Dewangan , L. K., et al. 2020, , 896, 29, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9122

    2020 doi

  48. [57]

    1998, , 117, 387, 10.1086/313119

    Kawamura , A., Onishi , T., Yonekura , Y., et al. 1998, , 117, 387, 10.1086/313119

    1998 doi

  49. [58]

    V., Piskunov , A

    Kharchenko , N. V., Piskunov , A. E., Roeser , S., Schilbach , E., & Scholz , R. D. 2013, VizieR Online Data Catalog, J/A+A/558/A53

    2013

  50. [59]

    A., & Johnson , K

    Kobulnicky , H. A., & Johnson , K. E. 1999, , 527, 154, 10.1086/308075

    1999 doi

  51. [60]

    P., & Leisawitz , D

    Koenig , X. P., & Leisawitz , D. T. 2014, , 791, 131, 10.1088/0004-637X/791/2/131

    2014 doi

  52. [61]

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

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

    2002 doi

  53. [62]

    B., Singh , A., et al

    Kumar , A., Pandey , S. B., Singh , A., et al. 2022, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 43, 27, 10.1007/s12036-022-09798-8

    2022 doi

  54. [63]

    2018, Bulletin de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 87, 29

    Kumar , B., Omar , A., Maheswar , G., et al. 2018, Bulletin de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 87, 29

    2018

  55. [64]

    Kumar , M. S. N., Palmeirim , P., Arzoumanian , D., & Inutsuka , S. I. 2020, , 642, A87, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038232

    2020 doi

  56. [65]

    1997, , 489, 284, 10.1086/304773

    Kwan , J. 1997, , 489, 284, 10.1086/304773

    1997 doi

  57. [66]

    J., Bergin , E

    Lada , C. J., Bergin , E. A., Alves , J. F., & Huard , T. L. 2003, , 586, 286, 10.1086/367610

    2003 doi

  58. [67]

    G., & Ryder , S

    Lee , Y.-H., Koo , B.-C., Lee , J.-J., Burton , M. G., & Ryder , S. 2019, , 157, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab0212

    2019 doi

  59. [68]

    2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1511.01118

    Lim , B., Sung , H., Hur , H., & Park , B.-G. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1511.01118. 1511.01118

    2015 arXiv

  60. [69]

    W., Hoare , M

    Lucas , P. W., Hoare , M. G., Longmore , A., et al. 2008, , 391, 136, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13924.x

    2008

  61. [70]

    L., Esplin , T

    Luhman , K. L., Esplin , T. L., & Loutrel , N. P. 2016, , 827, 52, 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/52

    2016 doi

  62. [71]

    L., Hoare , M

    Lumsden , S. L., Hoare , M. G., Urquhart , J. S., et al. 2013, VizieR Online Data Catalog: The Red MSX Source Survey: massive protostars (Lumsden+, 2013) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/ApJS/208/11. Originally published in: 2013ApJS..208...11L, 10.26093/cds/vizier.22080011

    2013 doi

  63. [72]

    Luri , X., Brown , A. G. A., Sarro , L. M., et al. 2018, , 616, A9, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832964

    2018 doi

  64. [73]

    K., Dewangan , L

    Mallick , K. K., Dewangan , L. K., Ojha , D. K., Baug , T., & Zinchenko , I. I. 2023, , 944, 228, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb8bc

    2023 doi

  65. [74]

    A., Whitworth , A

    Marsh , K. A., Whitworth , A. P., & Lomax , O. 2015, , 454, 4282, 10.1093/mnras/stv2248

    2015 doi

  66. [75]

    A., Whitworth , A

    Marsh , K. A., Whitworth , A. P., Lomax , O., et al. 2017, , 471, 2730, 10.1093/mnras/stx1723

    2017 doi

  67. [76]

    N., Evans , II, N

    Matsakis , D. N., Evans , II, N. J., Sato , T., & Zuckerman , B. 1976, , 81, 172, 10.1086/111871

    1976 doi

  68. [77]

    2010 a , , 122, 314, 10.1086/651314

    Molinari , S., Swinyard , B., Bally , J., et al. 2010 a , , 122, 314, 10.1086/651314

    2010 doi

  69. [78]

    2010 b , , 518, L100, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014659

    ---. 2010 b , , 518, L100, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014659

    2010 doi

  70. [79]

    C., & Tremonti , C

    Moustakas , J., Kennicutt , Jr., R. C., & Tremonti , C. A. 2006, , 642, 775, 10.1086/500964

    2006 doi

  71. [80]

    1998, , 116, 455, 10.1086/300428

    Muzerolle , J., Hartmann , L., & Calvet , N. 1998, , 116, 455, 10.1086/300428

    1998 doi

  72. [81]

    O., Lumsden , S

    Obonyo , W. O., Lumsden , S. L., Hoare , M. G., et al. 2019, , 486, 3664, 10.1093/mnras/stz1091

    2019 doi

  73. [82]

    K., Tamura , M., Nakajima , Y., et al

    Ojha , D. K., Tamura , M., Nakajima , Y., et al. 2004, , 608, 797, 10.1086/420876

    2004 doi

  74. [83]

    Olnon , F. M. 1975, , 39, 217

    1975

  75. [84]

    1973, , 78, 929, 10.1086/111498

    Panagia , N. 1973, , 78, 929, 10.1086/111498

    1973 doi

  76. [85]

    2020, , 891, 81, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6dc7

    Pandey , R., Sharma , S., Panwar , N., et al. 2020, , 891, 81, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6dc7

    2020 doi

  77. [86]

    K., et al

    Panwar , N., Sharma , S., Ojha , D. K., et al. 2020, , 905, 61, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc42e

    2020 doi

  78. [87]

    2019, , 485, 5666, 10.1093/mnras/stz725

    Pastorelli , G., Marigo , P., Girardi , L., et al. 2019, , 485, 5666, 10.1093/mnras/stz725

    2019 doi

  79. [88]

    2023, , 678, A172, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245324

    Pauwels , T., Reggiani , M., Sana , H., Rainot , A., & Kratter , K. 2023, , 678, A172, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245324

    2023 doi

  80. [89]

    2016, , 128, 073001, 10.1088/1538-3873/128/965/073001

    Pecchioli , T., Sanna , N., Massi , F., & Oliva , E. 2016, , 128, 073001, 10.1088/1538-3873/128/965/073001

    2016 doi

  81. [90]

    I., Pera , M

    Perren , G. I., Pera , M. S., Navone , H. D., & V \'a zquez , R. A. 2023, , 526, 4107, 10.1093/mnras/stad2826

    2023 doi

  82. [91]

    L., & Janes , K

    Phelps , R. L., & Janes , K. A. 1994, , 90, 31, 10.1086/191857

    1994 doi

  83. [92]

    Pirogov , L. E. 2015, Astronomy Reports, 59, 360, 10.1134/S1063772915050078

    2015 doi

  84. [93]

    Purser , S. J. D., Lumsden , S. L., Hoare , M. G., & Kurtz , S. 2021, , 504, 338, 10.1093/mnras/stab747

    2021 doi

  85. [94]

    G., Roman-Lopes , A., Rom \'a n-Z \'u \ n iga , C

    Ram \' rez-Preciado , V. G., Roman-Lopes , A., Rom \'a n-Z \'u \ n iga , C. G., et al. 2020, , 894, 5, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8127

    2020 doi

  86. [95]

    Sagar , R., Kumar , B., Omar , A., & Joshi , Y. C. 2012, in Astronomical Society of India Conference Series, Vol. 4, Astronomical Society of India Conference Series, 173

    2012

  87. [96]

    Salpeter , E. E. 1955, , 121, 161, 10.1086/145971

    1955 doi

  88. [97]

    R., Zavagno , A., Deharveng , L., et al

    Samal , M. R., Zavagno , A., Deharveng , L., et al. 2014, , 566, A122, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321794

    2014 doi

  89. [98]

    Schmeja , S., & Klessen , R. S. 2006, , 449, 151, 10.1051/0004-6361:20054464

    2006 doi

  90. [99]

    Schulz , N. S. 2005, From Dust To Stars Studies of the Formation and Early Evolution of Stars , 10.1007/b138917

    2005 doi

  91. [100]

    K., Ogura , K., et al

    Sharma , S., Pandey , A. K., Ogura , K., et al. 2008, , 135, 1934, 10.1088/0004-6256/135/5/1934

    2008 doi

  92. [101]

    2006, , 132, 1669, 10.1086/507094

    ---. 2006, , 132, 1669, 10.1086/507094

    2006 doi

  93. [102]

    K., Ojha , D

    Sharma , S., Pandey , A. K., Ojha , D. K., et al. 2017, , 467, 2943, 10.1093/mnras/stx014

    2017 doi

  94. [103]

    K., Ojha, D

    Sharma, S., Pandey, A. K., Ojha, D. K., et al. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 380, 1141, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12156.x

    2007

  95. [104]

    K., Borissova , J., et al

    Sharma , S., Pandey , A. K., Borissova , J., et al. 2016, , 151, 126, 10.3847/0004-6256/151/5/126

    2016 doi

  96. [105]

    K., et al

    Sharma , S., Ghosh , A., Ojha , D. K., et al. 2020, , 498, 2309, 10.1093/mnras/staa2412

    2020 doi

  97. [106]

    K., Ghosh , A., et al

    Sharma , S., Ojha , D. K., Ghosh , A., et al. 2022, , 134, 085002, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac81eb

    2022 doi

  98. [107]

    2024, , 167, 106, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad19cd

    Sharma , S., Verma , A., Mallick , K., et al. 2024, , 167, 106, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad19cd

    2024 doi

  99. [108]

    S., & Churchwell , E

    Shepherd , D. S., & Churchwell , E. 1996, , 472, 225, 10.1086/178057

    1996 doi

  100. [109]

    F., Cutri , R

    Skrutskie , M. F., Cutri , R. M., Stiening , R., et al. 2003, 2MASS All-Sky Point Source Catalog, IPAC, 10.26131/IRSA2 . https://catcopy.ipac.caltech.edu/dois/doi.php?id=10.26131/IRSA2

    2003 doi

  101. [110]

    2006, , 131, 1163, 10.1086/498708

    ---. 2006, , 131, 1163, 10.1086/498708

    2006 doi

  102. [111]

    2020, , 497, 1851, 10.1093/mnras/staa2056

    Sofue , Y., & Kohno , M. 2020, , 497, 1851, 10.1093/mnras/staa2056

    2020 doi

  103. [112]

    W., & Palla , F

    Stahler , S. W., & Palla , F. 2004, The Formation of Stars

    2004

  104. [113]

    2005, The Formation of Stars , 865

    ---. 2005, The Formation of Stars , 865

    2005

  105. [114]

    2019, , 240, 9, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaf1c8

    Su , Y., Yang , J., Zhang , S., et al. 2019, , 240, 9, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaf1c8

    2019 doi

  106. [115]

    K., et al

    Swarup , G., Ananthakrishnan , S., Kapahi , V. K., et al. 1991, Current Science, Vol. 60, NO.2/JAN25, P. 95, 1991, 60, 95

    1991

  107. [116]

    S., Morgan , L

    Urquhart , J. S., Morgan , L. K., Figura , C. C., et al. 2011, , 418, 1689, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19594.x

    2011

  108. [117]

    K., et al

    Verma , A., Sharma , S., Mallick , K. K., et al. 2023, , 953, 145, 10.3847/1538-4357/acdeef

    2023 doi

  109. [118]

    K., et al

    Verma , A., Sharma , S., Dewangan , L. K., et al. 2024, , 168, 98, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad5a8b

    2024 doi

  110. [119]

    C., Van Dyk , S

    Wachter , S., Mauerhan , J. C., Van Dyk , S. D., et al. 2010, , 139, 2330, 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2330

    2010 doi

  111. [120]

    R., & Fitzpatrick , E

    Walborn , N. R., & Fitzpatrick , E. L. 1990, , 102, 379, 10.1086/132646

    1990 doi

  112. [121]

    2019, , 877, 116, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1c61

    Wang , S., & Chen , X. 2019, , 877, 116, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1c61

    2019 doi

  113. [122]

    L., Eisenhardt , P

    Wright , E. L., Eisenhardt , P. R. M., Mainzer , A. K., et al. 2010, , 140, 1868, 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

    2010 doi

  114. [123]

    L., Eisenhardt , P

    Wright , E. L., Eisenhardt , P. R. M., Mainzer , A. K., et al. 2019, AllWISE Source Catalog, IPAC, 10.26131/IRSA1 . https://catcopy.ipac.caltech.edu/dois/doi.php?id=10.26131/IRSA1

    2019 doi

  115. [124]

    K., Pandey , A

    Yadav , R. K., Pandey , A. K., Sharma , S., et al. 2016, , 461, 2502, 10.1093/mnras/stw1356

    2016 doi

  116. [125]

    D., Russeil , D., et al

    Zavagno , A., Anderson , L. D., Russeil , D., et al. 2010, , 518, L101, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014587

    2010 doi

  117. [126]

    P., & Wang , J

    Zhang , C. P., & Wang , J. J. 2012, , 544, A11, 10.1051/0004-6361/201218777

    2012 doi

  118. [127]

    2020, , 897, 74, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab94c0

    Zhou , J., Zhou , D., Esimbek , J., et al. 2020, , 897, 74, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab94c0

    2020 doi

Pith tools

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