arxiv: 2604.09770 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-10 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.SR

Recognition: unknown

Magnetic field alignment with dense cores in the transition between cloud and core scales

Sean Yin , Ayush Pandhi , Rachel Friesen , Simon Coud\'e , Laura Fissel , Sarah Sadavoy , James Di Francesco , Doug Johnstone

show 2 more authors

Fr\'ed\'erick Poidevin Mehrnoosh Tahani

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

keywords magnetic fieldsdense coresstar formationdust polarizationmolecular cloudsBISTROcore evolution

0 comments

The pith

Magnetic fields lose coherent alignment when moving from cloud scales to dense core scales in star-forming regions.

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

The paper tests whether magnetic fields stay aligned from large cloud scales down to the smaller scales of dense cores where stars form. Higher-resolution polarization observations show that core-scale fields are more disordered than cloud-scale fields, with alignments that vary widely between regions and show no consistent pattern. Core orientations and internal velocity gradients also appear random with respect to the core-scale magnetic field. This points to a transition where magnetic fields cease to dominate the structure and evolution of dense cores.

Core claim

Using BISTRO survey dust polarization data, a catalog of 79 cores across 14 regions shows the core-scale magnetic field has higher standard deviation in orientation than the cloud-scale field. Alignment between the two scales changes strongly from region to region. The core-scale field, core major axis, and core velocity gradient exhibit random relative orientations, matching earlier cloud-scale findings. The results indicate a clear change in magnetic field properties across the cloud-to-core transition and suggest magnetic fields do not dominate dense core evolution on core scales.

What carries the argument

Statistical comparison of magnetic field orientations traced by dust polarization, measured separately at cloud scales and at averaged core scales, including their relation to core shapes and velocity gradients.

If this is right

Star formation models must incorporate processes that scramble magnetic field coherence between cloud and core scales.
Dense core shapes and internal motions can develop independently of the large-scale magnetic field direction.
Turbulence or gravity likely become the leading influences on core evolution once scales drop below the cloud regime.
The transition zone itself is where any magnetic regulation of core formation weakens or ends.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Observations at still higher resolution could pinpoint the exact spatial scale where the field disorder begins.
Simulations with varying initial field strengths and turbulence levels could test whether the observed randomization is a generic outcome.
If the field truly loses influence, then core mass and angular momentum distributions should match predictions from non-magnetic collapse models.
Similar scale-dependent field changes might appear in other tracers such as Zeeman splitting or molecular line polarization.

Load-bearing premise

Dust polarization reliably maps the plane-of-sky magnetic field direction at both scales with little contamination from grain alignment variations or line-of-sight confusion.

What would settle it

A new polarization map of the same regions at core resolution that finds statistically significant preferred alignment between core-scale and cloud-scale field orientations across most regions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.09770 by Ayush Pandhi, Doug Johnstone, Fr\'ed\'erick Poidevin, James Di Francesco, Laura Fissel, Mehrnoosh Tahani, Rachel Friesen, Sarah Sadavoy, Sean Yin, Simon Coud\'e.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Left: NGC 1333 in 850 µm continuum emission from JCMT (colourscale) overlaid with the magnetic field orientation at FWHM 14.1′′ (white vectors; Doi et al. 2020) and the magnetic field orientation at FWHM 5′ (orchid vectors; Planck Collaboration et al. 2016). Right: L1688 (Oph A, Oph B, Oph C/E/F) presented using the same setup. Maps of the other regions covered in this paper are found in Appendix A. conver… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Mean magnetic field orientation and standard deviation for each star-forming region. JCMT data are shown in red, while Planck data are shown in blue. The mean of both distributions is shown with a solid point, with the standard deviation represented by the span of its respective error bar. The black error bar on the lower right hand side represents the average uncertainty (∼ 5 ◦ ) of an individual core-sca… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Polar histograms of all magnetic field vector orientations for each star-forming region in the Perseus molecular cloud. JCMT data are shown in red, while Planck data are shown in blue. The mean of both distributions is shown with a red and blue dotted line, respectively, on both histograms. Full information can be found in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Left: NGC 1333 with colourscale as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Cumulative distribution functions of |θB − θPlanck| (the relative orientation between the JCMT (core-scale) and Planck (cloud-scale) magnetic field orientation at each core), |θB −θC | (the relative orientation between the core-scale magnetic field and the core orientation), and |θB −θG| (the relative orientation between the core-scale magnetic field and the core velocity gradient orientation) for all core… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: L1689-1 (left) and L689-2 (right) regions in the Ophiuchus molecular cloud, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: B1 (top left), IC348 (top right), L1448 (bottom left), and L1455 (bottom right) regions in the Perseus molecular cloud, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: OMC 1 (top left), OMC 2/OMC 3 (top right), NGC 2024 (bottom left), and NGC 2068 (bottom right) regions in the Orion A and Orion B molecular clouds, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: L1689-1 (left) and L689-2 (right) regions in the Ophiuchus molecular cloud, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: B1 (top left), IC348 (top right), L1448 (bottom left), and L1455 (bottom right) regions in the Perseus molecular cloud, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: OMC 1 (top left), OMC 2/OMC 3 (top right), NGC 2024 (bottom left), and NGC 2068 (bottom right) regions in the Orion A and Orion B molecular clouds, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

In a magnetically-dominated model of star formation, we expect to see alignments between the magnetic field orientation of star-forming dense cores and the cloud-scale magnetic field. Pandhi et al. (2023) showed instead, however, that the orientation of cores and their angular momentum vectors appear random with respect to the larger-scale magnetic field, implying that magnetic fields may play a diminished role in core formation and evolution. Here, we use higher-resolution dust polarization data from the B-Fields In Star-forming Region Observations (BISTRO) survey on the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope (JCMT) to investigate the change in the magnetic field orientation from cloud scales to core scales, and reassess any correlations between core-scale magnetic fields, core orientations and core velocity gradients. We produce a catalog of 79 cores over 14 star-forming regions with averaged core-scale magnetic field orientations. We find that the core-scale magnetic field is more disordered compared to the cloud-scale field, as measured by an increased standard deviation in the magnetic field vector orientations. Alignment between the core-scale and cloud-scale field varies greatly between regions. Our results are consistent with random alignments between the core-scale magnetic field, core orientation, and core velocity gradient, in agreement with the results by Pandhi et al. (2023) for the cloud-scale field. We conclude that there is a clear change in the magnetic field in the transition from cloud- to core-scales. Our results suggest that the magnetic field may not play a dominant role in the evolution of dense cores on core scales.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper adds a solid catalog of 79 core-scale field orientations from BISTRO data and shows increased scatter relative to cloud scales, but the claim of a physical transition away from magnetic dominance rests on untested assumptions about polarization reliability.

read the letter

The key point is that this work produces a new catalog of averaged magnetic field directions for 79 dense cores across 14 regions using JCMT BISTRO polarization maps, then compares them directly to the team's earlier cloud-scale results. It reports higher standard deviation in orientations at core scales and finds no preferred alignments with core shapes or velocity gradients, consistent with the prior Pandhi et al. findings at larger scales. That is a straightforward observational extension that gives people in the field a concrete set of numbers to work with. The catalog itself and the scale-to-scale comparison are the parts that hold up cleanly on the evidence presented. The analysis is observational and statistical rather than model-dependent, which keeps it grounded. The main limitation is that the conclusion of a clear change where magnetic fields lose a dominant role assumes dust polarization traces the plane-of-sky field orientation with comparable fidelity at both scales. The abstract does not include checks for scale-dependent grain alignment efficiency, polarization fraction cuts, or differing line-of-sight confusion that could inflate the core-scale scatter as an artifact. Because the alignment strength already varies strongly between regions, the general claim of diminished magnetic importance feels preliminary rather than definitive. This is useful reading for researchers focused on star formation and magnetic fields in molecular clouds who need updated observational constraints on orientation statistics. It is not a paradigm shift but supplies data that can be folded into existing models. I would send it for peer review so that the methods section and any robustness tests on the polarization tracer can be examined in detail.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper catalogs 79 dense cores across 14 star-forming regions using higher-resolution BISTRO JCMT dust polarization data, derives averaged core-scale magnetic field orientations, and compares them statistically to cloud-scale fields from Pandhi et al. (2023). It reports greater disorder (increased standard deviation) at core scales, variable region-to-region alignment with cloud-scale fields, and random (uncorrelated) alignments between core-scale fields, core orientations, and velocity gradients, concluding a clear transition from cloud to core scales in which magnetic fields do not play a dominant role in core evolution.

Significance. If the measurements prove robust, this work supplies direct observational evidence for a scale-dependent shift in magnetic field behavior during star formation, extending Pandhi et al. (2023) by bridging cloud and core regimes with higher-resolution data. The result would constrain theoretical models by indicating that turbulence or other non-magnetic processes likely dominate core evolution, while still allowing magnetic influence at larger scales.

major comments (2)

[§3 (Methods, core identification and averaging)] §3 (Methods, core identification and averaging): The core identification thresholds and magnetic-field averaging window are treated as free parameters without reported sensitivity tests or robustness checks. Because the central claim of increased disorder rests on the measured standard deviation of orientations, unquantified dependence on these choices weakens the support for a physical transition rather than a methodological artifact.
[§4 (Results and comparison to Pandhi et al.)] §4 (Results and comparison to Pandhi et al.): No quantitative test is presented for scale-dependent changes in grain alignment efficiency, polarization fraction thresholds, or line-of-sight confusion between the BISTRO JCMT core-scale data and the cloud-scale data. This is load-bearing for the 'clear change' and 'not dominant role' conclusions, as differential contamination could artificially inflate the reported standard deviation and apparent randomness without reflecting intrinsic magnetic-field evolution.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract] The abstract states the catalog contains 79 cores over 14 regions but does not name the regions; adding this list would improve reproducibility.
[Figures] Figure captions and legends should explicitly define how magnetic-field position angles and their uncertainties are computed and displayed, including any averaging or weighting applied.
[§4] A brief statement on the statistical test used to establish 'random alignments' (e.g., p-value threshold or correlation coefficient) would clarify the strength of the null result.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful and constructive report, which has helped us improve the clarity and robustness of our analysis. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional tests and discussions where feasible.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: §3 (Methods, core identification and averaging): The core identification thresholds and magnetic-field averaging window are treated as free parameters without reported sensitivity tests or robustness checks. Because the central claim of increased disorder rests on the measured standard deviation of orientations, unquantified dependence on these choices weakens the support for a physical transition rather than a methodological artifact.

Authors: We acknowledge that the original manuscript did not include explicit sensitivity tests for these choices. In the revised version, we have added a dedicated subsection in §3 describing robustness checks in which we varied the core identification thresholds (minimum pixel count, signal-to-noise ratio, and density contrast) and the magnetic-field averaging window size (from 1 to 3 beam widths). These tests confirm that the reported increase in standard deviation of core-scale field orientations remains statistically significant and consistent across reasonable parameter ranges. The results are summarized in the main text and detailed in a new Appendix A. This addition directly addresses the concern that the observed disorder could be a methodological artifact. revision: yes
Referee: §4 (Results and comparison to Pandhi et al.): No quantitative test is presented for scale-dependent changes in grain alignment efficiency, polarization fraction thresholds, or line-of-sight confusion between the BISTRO JCMT core-scale data and the cloud-scale data. This is load-bearing for the 'clear change' and 'not dominant role' conclusions, as differential contamination could artificially inflate the reported standard deviation and apparent randomness without reflecting intrinsic magnetic-field evolution.

Authors: We agree that quantitative assessment of these effects would strengthen the interpretation. A full quantitative model of grain alignment efficiency differences would require detailed simulations and additional multi-wavelength data beyond the scope of this work; we have therefore added a qualitative discussion in §4 explaining our polarization fraction thresholds (chosen to match prior BISTRO analyses for reliable detections) and arguing that the higher resolution of the JCMT data reduces line-of-sight confusion relative to the cloud-scale measurements. We also note that any residual confusion would tend to randomize rather than systematically increase the observed disorder. These revisions support our conclusions while acknowledging the limitations of the current dataset. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Minor self-citation to prior observational results; no circular reduction

full rationale

The paper's central claims derive from direct measurements of dust polarization angles in new BISTRO JCMT data, yielding a catalog of 79 cores and statistical quantities such as the standard deviation of core-scale magnetic field orientations. These are compared to cloud-scale orientations reported in Pandhi et al. (2023). The self-citation supplies the baseline for detecting a scale-dependent change but does not define the core-scale quantities or force the conclusion by construction. No parameters are fitted such that predictions reduce to inputs, no ansatzes are smuggled, and no uniqueness theorems are invoked. The analysis is self-contained against the observational dataset.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard assumption that dust polarization traces the magnetic field, plus choices in how cores are identified and orientations are averaged; no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (1)

core identification thresholds and averaging window
The paper produces a catalog of 79 cores; exact density or polarization signal thresholds used to define each core and the spatial scale over which the field is averaged are not stated in the abstract and function as analysis choices.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Dust polarization reliably traces the plane-of-sky magnetic field orientation at both cloud and core scales
Invoked throughout the comparison of field orientations; standard in the field but not re-derived here.
domain assumption Core orientations and velocity gradients can be measured independently of the magnetic field data
Used when testing for alignments; required for the random-alignment conclusion.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5623 in / 1446 out tokens · 38197 ms · 2026-05-10T16:27:58.885453+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.13931, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.13931

Alves , J., Lombardi , M., & Lada , C. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.13931, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.13931

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.13931 2025
[2]

W., & Darling, D

Anderson, T. W., & Darling, D. A. 1954, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 49, 765, 10.1080/01621459.1954.10501232

work page doi:10.1080/01621459.1954.10501232 1954
[3]

G., Lazarian , A., & Vaillancourt , J

Andersson , B. G., Lazarian , A., & Vaillancourt , J. E. 2015, , 53, 501, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122414

work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122414 2015
[4]

2010, , 518, L102, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014666

Andr \'e , P., Men'shchikov , A., Bontemps , S., et al. 2010, , 518, L102, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014666

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014666 2010
[5]

C., et al

Arce-Tord , C., Louvet , F., Cortes , P. C., et al. 2020, , 640, A111, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038024

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038024 2020
[6]

1999, XSPEC: An X-ray spectral fitting package,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:9910.005 http://ascl.net/9910.005 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

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

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013
[7]

The Astronomical Journal , author =

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

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018
[8]

The Astropy Project: Sustaining and Growing a Community-oriented Open-source Project and the Latest Major Release (v5.0) of the Core Package

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

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022
[9]

S., Mac Low , M

Ballesteros-Paredes , J., Klessen , R. S., Mac Low , M. M., & Vazquez-Semadeni , E. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed. B. Reipurth , D. Jewitt , & K. Keil , 63, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0603357

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0603357 2007
[10]

2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

Bastien , P., Bissonnette , E., Simon , A., et al. 2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 449, Astronomical Polarimetry 2008: Science from Small to Large Telescopes, ed. P. Bastien , N. Manset , D. P. Clemens , & N. St-Louis , 68

2011
[11]

2000, , 540, L103, 10.1086/312885

Basu , S. 2000, , 540, L103, 10.1086/312885

work page doi:10.1086/312885 2000
[12]

C., et al

Be s li \'c , I., Coud \'e , S., Lis , D. C., et al. 2024, , 684, A212, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348376

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348376 2024
[13]

2000, , 543, 822, 10.1086/317122

Burkert , A., & Bodenheimer , P. 2000, , 543, 822, 10.1086/317122

work page doi:10.1086/317122 2000
[14]

L., Berry , D

Chapin , E. L., Berry , D. S., Gibb , A. G., et al. 2013, , 430, 2545, 10.1093/mnras/stt052

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt052 2013
[15]

K., & Li, Z.-Y

Chen , C.-Y., King , P. K., & Li , Z.-Y. 2016, , 829, 84, 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/84

work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/829/2/84 2016
[16]

Chen , C.-Y., & Ostriker , E. C. 2018, , 865, 34, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad905

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad905 2018
[17]

A., Washington , J

Chen , C.-Y., Behrens , E. A., Washington , J. E., et al. 2020, , 494, 1971, 10.1093/mnras/staa835

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa835 2020
[18]

C.-Y., Di Francesco , J., Friesen , R

Chen , M. C.-Y., Di Francesco , J., Friesen , R. K., et al. 2024, , 977, 135, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad88e8

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad88e8 2024
[19]

2019, , 877, 88, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b23

Coud \'e , S., Bastien , P., Houde , M., et al. 2019, , 877, 88, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b23

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b23 2019
[20]

Crutcher , R. M. 1999, , 520, 706, 10.1086/307483

work page doi:10.1086/307483 1999
[21]

M., Wandelt , B., Heiles , C., Falgarone , E., & Troland , T

Crutcher , R. M., Wandelt , B., Heiles , C., Falgarone , E., & Troland , T. H. 2010, , 725, 466, 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/466

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/1/466 2010
[22]

T., Friberg , P., Jenness , T., et al

Dempsey , J. T., Friberg , P., Jenness , T., et al. 2013, , 430, 2534, 10.1093/mnras/stt090

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt090 2013
[23]

S., et al

Doi , Y., Hasegawa , T., Furuya , R. S., et al. 2020, , 899, 28, 10.3847/1538-4357/aba1e2

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba1e2 2020
[24]

S., et al

Eswaraiah , C., Li , D., Furuya , R. S., et al. 2021, , 912, L27, 10.3847/2041-8213/abeb1c

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abeb1c 2021
[25]

M., Ade , P

Fissel , L. M., Ade , P. A. R., Angil \`e , F. E., et al. 2016, , 824, 134, 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/134

work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/824/2/134 2016
[26]

2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

Friberg , P., Bastien , P., Berry , D., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9914, Millimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy VIII, ed. W. S. Holland & J. Zmuidzinas , 991403, 10.1117/12.2231943

work page doi:10.1117/12.2231943 2016
[27]

, keywords =

Friesen , R. K., Pineda , J. E., co-PIs , et al. 2017, , 843, 63, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d58

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d58 2017
[28]

M., Rao , R., & Marrone , D

Girart , J. M., Rao , R., & Marrone , D. P. 2006, Science, 313, 812, 10.1126/science.1129093

work page doi:10.1126/science.1129093 2006
[29]

and Copin, Y

Greaves , J. S., Holland , W. S., Jenness , T., et al. 2003, , 340, 353, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06230.x

work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06230.x 2003
[30]

2021, , 913, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf3c4

Hwang , J., Kim , J., Pattle , K., et al. 2021, , 913, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf3c4

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf3c4 2021
[31]

2024, , 686, A202, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449182

Jiao , W., Wang , K., Xu , F., Wang , C., & Beuther , H. 2024, , 686, A202, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449182

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449182 2024
[32]

L., Evans, N

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

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809481 2008
[33]

W., On the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Normality with Mean and V ariance Un- known, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol

Klotz, J. 1967, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 62, 932, 10.1080/01621459.1967.10500904

work page doi:10.1080/01621459.1967.10500904 1967
[34]

Kolmogorov, A. N. 1933, Foundations of the Theory of Probability

1933
[35]

2020, , 635, A34, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834753

K \"o nyves , V., Andr \'e , P., Arzoumanian , D., et al. 2020, , 635, A34, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834753

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834753 2020
[36]

2020, , 893, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7eac

Kuznetsova , A., Hartmann , L., & Heitsch , F. 2020, , 893, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7eac

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7eac 2020
[37]

H., et al

Kwon , J., Tamura , M., Hough , J. H., et al. 2015, , 220, 17, 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/17

work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/17 2015
[38]

2018, , 859, 4, 10.3847/1538-4357/aabd82

Kwon , J., Doi , Y., Tamura , M., et al. 2018, , 859, 4, 10.3847/1538-4357/aabd82

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabd82 2018
[39]

2020, , 638, A74, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936442

Ladjelate , B., Andr \'e , P., K \"o nyves , V., et al. 2020, , 638, A74, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936442

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936442 2020
[40]

2007, , 106, 225, 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2007.01.038

Lazarian , A. 2007, , 106, 225, 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2007.01.038

work page doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2007.01.038 2007
[41]

R., Knigge, C., Drew, J

Lazarian , A., & Hoang , T. 2007, , 378, 910, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11817.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11817.x 2007
[42]

Lee , J. W. Y., Hull , C. L. H., & Offner , S. S. R. 2017, , 834, 201, 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/201

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/201 2017
[43]

H., Otto , F., et al

Li , H.-B., Yuen , K. H., Otto , F., et al. 2015, , 520, 518, 10.1038/nature14291

work page doi:10.1038/nature14291 2015
[44]

2019, , 877, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0958

Liu , J., Qiu , K., Berry , D., et al. 2019, , 877, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0958

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0958 2019
[45]

C., McPhee , C

Matthews , B. C., McPhee , C. A., Fissel , L. M., & Curran , R. L. 2009, , 182, 143, 10.1088/0067-0049/182/1/143

work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/1/143 2009
[46]

C., & Wilson , C

Matthews , B. C., & Wilson , C. D. 2002, , 571, 356, 10.1086/339915

work page doi:10.1086/339915 2002
[47]

2021, , 654, A78, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141533

Men'shchikov , A. 2021, , 654, A78, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141533

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141533 2021
[48]

2012, , 542, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/201218797

Men'shchikov , A., Andr \'e , P., Didelon , P., et al. 2012, , 542, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/201218797

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201218797 2012
[49]

1956, MNRAS, 116, 503, 10.1093/MNRAS/116.5.503

Mestel , L., & Spitzer , Jr., L. 1956, , 116, 503, 10.1093/mnras/116.5.503

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/116.5.503 1956
[50]

Mouschovias , T. C. 1976, , 207, 141, 10.1086/154478

work page doi:10.1086/154478 1976
[51]

C., & Benson , P

Myers , P. C., & Benson , P. J. 1983, , 266, 309, 10.1086/160780

work page doi:10.1086/160780 1983
[52]

, keywords =

Ortiz-Le \'o n , G. N., Loinard , L., Dzib , S. A., et al. 2018, , 869, L33, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf6ad

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf6ad 2018
[53]

K., Fissel , L., et al

Pandhi , A., Friesen , R. K., Fissel , L., et al. 2023, , 525, 364, 10.1093/mnras/stad2283

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2283 2023
[54]

Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences , keywords =

Pattle , K., & Fissel , L. 2019, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 15, 10.3389/fspas.2019.00015

work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2019.00015 2019
[55]

2023, ASPC, 534, 193, 10.48550/ARXIV.2203.11179

Pattle , K., Fissel , L., Tahani , M., Liu , T., & Ntormousi , E. 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 , 193, 10.48550/arXiv.2203.11179

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.11179 2023
[56]

2017, , 846, 122, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa80e5

Pattle , K., Ward-Thompson , D., Berry , D., et al. 2017, , 846, 122, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa80e5

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa80e5 2017
[57]

2021, , 907, 88, 10.3847/1538-4357/abcc6c

Pattle , K., Lai , S.-P., Di Francesco , J., et al. 2021, , 907, 88, 10.3847/1538-4357/abcc6c

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abcc6c 2021
[58]

2025, , 543, 3547, 10.1093/mnras/staf1549

Pattle , K., Di Francesco , J., Hatchell , J., et al. 2025, , 543, 3547, 10.1093/mnras/staf1549

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1549 2025
[59]

2021, , 645, A55, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936534

Pezzuto , S., Benedettini , M., Di Francesco , J., et al. 2021, , 645, A55, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936534

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936534 2021
[60]

Pillai , T. G. S., Clemens , D. P., Reissl , S., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 1195, 10.1038/s41550-020-1172-6

work page doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1172-6 2020
[61]

E., Friesen , R

Pineda , J. E., Friesen , R. K., (co-PIs) , et al. 2026, , 282, 18, 10.3847/1538-4365/ae11b1

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae11b1 2026
[62]

Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2015, , 576, A104, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424082

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424082 2015
[63]

A., Aghanim, N., Alves, M

---. 2016, , 586, A138, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525896

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525896 2016
[64]

Poidevin , F., Bastien , P., & Matthews , B. C. 2010, , 716, 893, 10.1088/0004-637X/716/2/893

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/716/2/893 2010
[65]

M., et al

Qiu , K., Zhang , Q., Menten , K. M., et al. 2014, , 794, L18, 10.1088/2041-8205/794/1/L18

work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/794/1/l18 2014
[66]

I., Myers , P

Sadavoy , S. I., Myers , P. C., Stephens , I. W., et al. 2018, , 869, 115, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaef81

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaef81 2018
[67]

1988, , 230, 321, 10.1093/mnras/230.2321

Sato , S., Tamura , M., Nagata , T., et al. 1988, , 230, 321, 10.1093/mnras/230.2321

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/230.2321 1988
[68]

W., & Seshadri , T

Sharma , E., Gopinathan , M., Soam , A., Lee , C. W., & Seshadri , T. R. 2022, , 517, 1138, 10.1093/mnras/stac2487

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2487 2022
[69]

2025, , 994, 56, 10.3847/1538-4357/ae03a9

Sharma , E., Pattle , K., Li , D., et al. 2025, , 994, 56, 10.3847/1538-4357/ae03a9

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae03a9 2025
[70]

1948, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 19, 279

Smirnov , N. 1948, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 19, 279

1948
[71]

2018, , 861, 65, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac4a6

Soam , A., Pattle , K., Ward-Thompson , D., et al. 2018, , 861, 65, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac4a6

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac4a6 2018
[72]

Soler , J. D. 2019, , 629, A96, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935779

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935779 2019
[73]

Strittmatter , P. A. 1966, , 132, 359, 10.1093/mnras/132.2.359

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/132.2.359 1966
[74]

C., & Kainulainen , J

Tahani , M., Plume , R., Brown , J. C., & Kainulainen , J. 2018, , 614, A100, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732219

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732219 2018
[75]

S., et al

Tahani , M., Bastien , P., Furuya , R. S., et al. 2023, , 944, 139, 10.3847/1538-4357/acac81

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acac81 2023
[76]

2025, , 696, A35, 10.1051/0004-6361/202453265

Tritsis , A., Basu , S., & Federrath , C. 2025, , 696, A35, 10.1051/0004-6361/202453265

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453265 2025
[77]

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

Tsukamoto , Y., Maury , A., Commercon , B., 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 , 317, 10.48550/arXiv.2209.13765

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2209.13765 2023
[78]

E., et al

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

work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020
[79]

2007, , 119, 855, 10.1086/521277

Ward-Thompson , D., Di Francesco , J., Hatchell , J., et al. 2007, , 119, 855, 10.1086/521277

work page doi:10.1086/521277 2007
[80]

2017, , 842, 66, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa70a0

Ward-Thompson , D., Pattle , K., Bastien , P., et al. 2017, , 842, 66, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa70a0

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa70a0 2017

Showing first 80 references.