pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.19097 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-21 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

Investigation of Hourglass-shaped Magnetic fields in the G35.20-0.74 Star-Forming Complex

O. R. Jadhav , L. K. Dewangan , A. K. Maity , Sanhueza Patricio , D. K. Ojha , Saurabh Sharma , Ram Kesh Yadav , A. Haj Ismail
show 2 more authors
Moustafa Salouci Ian Stephens
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 02:36 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords magnetic fieldsstar formationpolarizationG35.20-0.74hourglass morphologyHII regionstellar feedback
0
0 comments X

The pith

Hourglass magnetic fields shape star formation differently in two parts of the G35.20-0.74 complex.

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

The paper uses polarimetric data at infrared and millimeter wavelengths to map magnetic fields across the G35N and G35S sub-regions. It identifies hourglass-shaped field patterns in both, but with distinct symmetry and implications. In G35N the pattern aligns with a collapse guided by the magnetic field at clump scales that matches earlier core-scale findings. In G35S the field is stronger and compressed by an expanding ionized region around young stars. Energy comparisons indicate magnetic forces are comparable to gravity in one sub-region and dominant in the other, pointing to magnetic fields as a primary regulator of how material collapses to form stars.

Core claim

Multi-wavelength polarization observations reveal hourglass-shaped plane-of-sky magnetic field morphologies toward both G35N and G35S. Field strengths derived via the Davis-Chandrasekhar-Fermi method reach approximately 600 microgauss in G35N and 850 microgauss in G35S. Gravity and magnetic fields contribute comparably to the energy balance in G35N, whereas magnetic fields dominate over gravity and turbulence in G35S because of compression by the expanding HII region. The hourglass morphology in G35N is consistent across clump and core scales, supporting magnetically regulated collapse, while stellar feedback alters the field configuration and strength in G35S.

What carries the argument

Hourglass-shaped plane-of-sky magnetic field morphology traced by dust polarization at 154 microns and 220 GHz, which enables both morphological comparison across scales and field-strength estimation through the Davis-Chandrasekhar-Fermi technique applied to polarization-angle structure functions.

If this is right

  • The magnetic field in G35N guides collapse consistently from clump scales down to core scales.
  • Stellar feedback from the HII region compresses and amplifies the magnetic field in G35S.
  • Magnetic energy is at least as important as gravitational energy in G35N and more important than both gravity and turbulence in G35S.
  • Magnetic fields overall act as a decisive regulator of star formation in the complex.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If hourglass morphologies with comparable field strengths appear in other star-forming regions, the dual influence of collapse and feedback may be a general pattern.
  • Correcting for beam-scale correlations could reduce the reported field strengths and shift the energy balance conclusions toward greater turbulence contributions.
  • These observations supply concrete targets for magnetohydrodynamic simulations that include both collapse and HII-region feedback.

Load-bearing premise

The measured dust polarization angles reliably trace the plane-of-sky magnetic field orientation and the Davis-Chandrasekhar-Fermi method yields unbiased field strengths despite possible effects from unresolved structures or non-isotropic turbulence.

What would settle it

Higher-resolution polarization maps that show random rather than hourglass field orientations, or independent Zeeman or other measurements that yield field strengths far below the reported 600-850 microgauss range in either sub-region.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.19097 by A. Haj Ismail, A. K. Maity, D. K. Ojha, Ian Stephens, L. K. Dewangan, Moustafa Salouci, O. R. Jadhav, Ram Kesh Yadav, Sanhueza Patricio, Saurabh Sharma.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The panels show the two-color composite images (red: unWISE 12.0 µm; turqoise: Spitzer 8.0 µm) of the HFS candidates detected toward the G35 cloud (see dashed circles in Figure 1b). The white dotted curves/lines highlights the visually identified filaments. The diamonds show the locations of the ATLASGAL clumps. The scale bar corresponding to 1 pc at a distance of 2.19 kpc is shown in each panel [PITH_FU… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: a) B-field segments (in red) inferred from the SOFIA/HAWC+ 154 µm data overlaid on the three-color composite image (red: 12.0 µm, green: 8.0 µm, blue: 5.8 µm). The length of the segments is proportional to the degree of polarization. A reference vector corresponding to 15% polarization is shown in the bottom-left corner of the panel. b) The panel is the same as Figure 4a, except that the segment lengths ar… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: a) Spitzer 8.0 µm image of HFS-1/G35N overlaid with the streamlines showing the B-field directions estimated using the SOFIA/HAWC+ 154 µm polarization data. The dotted curves highlight the hourglass-like structure of the B-fields. The scale bar is the same as shown in Figure 4a. b) The panel depicts the histogram of B-field position angles from the SOFIA/HAWC+ 154 µm toward the G35N (in orange), and G35S (… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: a) The panel shows the GRS 13CO(1–0) moment-2 map toward an area shown in Figure 4a.b) The polarization dispersion (δθ) map toward the G35 cloud using 9 × 9 pixels sliding box. c) δθ map toward G35 cloud using 15 × 15 pixel sliding box. The dashed contours represent the ATLASGAL 870µm continuum emission. The contour levels are 1, 3.8, 6.5, 9.3, and 12 Jy beam−1 . The scale bar is the same as shown in Figur… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Panels (a) and (b) present the structure function (D 1/2 θ (ℓ)) for the G35N and G35S sub-regions of the cloud. The red-dashed line shows the linear fit of Equation 7, while the grey vertical dashed lines mark the lower and upper limits used for the fit. 18 h58m24 s 18 s 12 s 06 s 1°42' 40' 38' 36' RA [J2000] DEC [J2000] SOFIA 154 m ACT 1.3 mm (SNR < 3) ACT 1.3 mm (SNR 3) 18 h58m24 s 18 s 12 s 06 s 1°42' 4… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: a) Spitzer 8.0 µm image (in the inverse hyperbolic sine scale and re-gridded to same pixel scale as the ACT 220 GHz data) overlaid with B-field orientations from the SOFIA/HAWC+ 154 µm (in red) and ACT 220 GHz (in cyan). b) Same as Figure 8a, the back ground image is the ACT 220 GHz continuum map. The cyan and green segments represent polarization vectors with p/σp < 3 and p/σp ≥ 3, respectively [PITH_FUL… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

To investigate the role of magnetic fields toward the G35N and G35S sub-regions in the G35.20-0.74 star-forming complex, we utilized multi-wavelength polarimetric observations from the SOFIA/HAWC+ at 154 $\mu$m and ACT at 220 GHz/1.3 mm. The ACT 220 GHz polarization data (resolution $\sim$1$'$) show an hourglass-shaped plane-of-sky magnetic field morphologies toward both the sub-regions, although with distinct symmetry axes. SOFIA/HAWC+ 154 $\mu$m data (resolution $\sim$13.6$''$) confirm an hourglass morphology in G35N, whereas G35S displays a different magnetic field configuration compared to the ACT observations. An hourglass morphology identified at clump scales ($\sim$pc) toward G35N is consistent with the previously reported B-field morphology at core scales ($\sim$0.05 pc), supporting the scenario of a magnetically regulated collapse. Using the SOFIA/HAWC+ data, we estimate magnetic field strengths of $\sim$600 $\pm$ 200 $\mu$G in G35N and $\sim$850 $\pm$ 310 $\mu$G in G35S. Energy balance analysis suggests that gravity and magnetic fields contribute comparably in G35N, while in G35S the gas dynamics are dominated by magnetic field, followed by gravity and turbulence. The higher field strength in G35S likely results from compression by the expanding HII region, highlighting the impact of stellar feedback. The derived magnetic field strengths and corresponding magnetic energies should be treated as upper limits due to unresolved beam-scale correlations and the limited fitting range of the polarization angle structure function. Overall, our results show that magnetic fields decisively regulate star formation, with G35N shaped by magnetically controlled collapse and G35S being strongly influenced by stellar feedback.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents multi-wavelength polarimetric observations of the G35.20-0.74 star-forming complex using SOFIA/HAWC+ at 154 μm (~13.6'' resolution) and ACT at 220 GHz (~1' resolution). It identifies hourglass-shaped plane-of-sky magnetic field morphologies in the G35N and G35S sub-regions (with distinct symmetry axes), notes consistency of the hourglass pattern in G35N between clump and previously reported core scales, derives DCF magnetic field strengths of ~600 ± 200 μG (G35N) and ~850 ± 310 μG (G35S), and performs energy balance analysis to conclude that magnetic fields decisively regulate star formation, with G35N shaped by magnetically controlled collapse (gravity ~ magnetic) and G35S dominated by magnetic fields compressed by HII-region feedback.

Significance. If the B-field estimates and energy ratios are robust, the work supplies direct observational evidence linking hourglass morphologies across scales to magnetically regulated collapse and quantifies the relative roles of magnetic, gravitational, and turbulent energies in a high-mass star-forming region. The multi-scale morphological consistency in G35N and the contrast with feedback-influenced G35S are potentially useful for models of magnetic regulation versus stellar feedback.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / energy balance analysis] Abstract and energy-balance discussion: The central claim that 'magnetic fields decisively regulate star formation' with 'gravity and magnetic fields contribute comparably' in G35N rests on the DCF B-field values. The manuscript itself states these values 'should be treated as upper limits due to unresolved beam-scale correlations and the limited fitting range of the polarization angle structure function,' yet no lower-bound estimate, Monte-Carlo propagation of the beam-averaging bias, or revised energy ratios under plausible downward corrections (e.g., 30-50% lower B) are provided. If the true plane-of-sky field is substantially weaker, the magnetic-to-gravitational energy ratio in G35N falls below unity and the 'decisively regulate' conclusion no longer follows.
  2. [Results / DCF section] DCF application and G35S analysis: The higher B ~850 μG in G35S is attributed to compression by the expanding HII region, but the same upper-limit caveats apply. Without a quantified uncertainty range on the DCF estimate or an alternative method (e.g., using the structure-function slope or independent Zeeman data), the assertion that 'gas dynamics are dominated by magnetic field' in G35S remains sensitive to the unresolved-structure bias flagged in the text.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] The polarization angle structure function fitting range and the exact beam-size correction applied to the DCF formula should be stated explicitly with the adopted functional form and fitting interval.
  2. [Figures 2-4] Figure captions and text should clarify whether the reported hourglass symmetry axes are determined by eye or by quantitative fitting, and how the two datasets (SOFIA vs ACT) are aligned for morphological comparison.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We respond point-by-point to the major comments below, acknowledging where revisions are needed to clarify uncertainties in the DCF analysis while defending the morphological evidence for magnetic regulation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / energy balance analysis] Abstract and energy-balance discussion: The central claim that 'magnetic fields decisively regulate star formation' with 'gravity and magnetic fields contribute comparably' in G35N rests on the DCF B-field values. The manuscript itself states these values 'should be treated as upper limits due to unresolved beam-scale correlations and the limited fitting range of the polarization angle structure function,' yet no lower-bound estimate, Monte-Carlo propagation of the beam-averaging bias, or revised energy ratios under plausible downward corrections (e.g., 30-50% lower B) are provided. If the true plane-of-sky field is substantially weaker, the magnetic-to-gravitational energy ratio in G35N falls below unity and the 'decisively regulate' conclusion no longer follows.

    Authors: We agree that the DCF estimates are upper limits, as stated in the manuscript, and that a sensitivity analysis would strengthen the energy-balance claims. The hourglass morphology at clump scales in G35N, consistent with core-scale observations, provides independent morphological support for magnetically regulated collapse regardless of the precise field strength. In the revision we will add a sensitivity test showing energy ratios for B reduced by 30-50%, update the abstract language to reflect that magnetic regulation is supported by both morphology and indicative (upper-limit) energetics, and include a brief discussion of beam-averaging effects. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results / DCF section] DCF application and G35S analysis: The higher B ~850 μG in G35S is attributed to compression by the expanding HII region, but the same upper-limit caveats apply. Without a quantified uncertainty range on the DCF estimate or an alternative method (e.g., using the structure-function slope or independent Zeeman data), the assertion that 'gas dynamics are dominated by magnetic field' in G35S remains sensitive to the unresolved-structure bias flagged in the text.

    Authors: The structure-function fitting already provides a range through the dispersion and lag selection; we will expand the DCF section to report a more explicit uncertainty envelope and explore the structure-function slope as an alternative diagnostic of the turbulent component. The attribution of the higher field in G35S to HII compression is based on the morphological contrast with G35N and the presence of the HII region, which remains valid even if the absolute value is an upper limit. We cannot supply independent Zeeman data, as our observations are limited to dust polarization. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Independent Zeeman measurements for G35.20-0.74, which are not available from the SOFIA/HAWC+ or ACT polarization datasets used in this study.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation relies on independent observations and standard methods

full rationale

The paper's central claims derive from direct multi-wavelength polarimetric data (SOFIA/HAWC+ at 154 μm and ACT at 220 GHz) to map plane-of-sky B-field orientations via polarization angles, followed by standard Davis-Chandrasekhar-Fermi estimation of field strengths and subsequent virial/energy comparisons. No equations reduce a derived quantity to a fitted input by construction, no self-citations form load-bearing premises, and no ansatz or uniqueness theorem is smuggled in. The abstract itself flags the B-strength values as upper limits due to beam-scale effects, confirming the analysis remains externally grounded rather than self-referential.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis depends on standard domain assumptions in astrophysical polarimetry rather than new postulates or fitted parameters beyond the observational measurements.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Dust emission polarization traces the plane-of-sky magnetic field direction
    Invoked to interpret the observed polarization angles as B-field orientations in both SOFIA and ACT data.
  • domain assumption The Davis-Chandrasekhar-Fermi method provides reliable estimates of magnetic field strength from polarization angle dispersion and gas velocity dispersion
    Used to derive the ~600 μG and ~850 μG values from the SOFIA/HAWC+ data.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5712 in / 1506 out tokens · 45903 ms · 2026-05-10T02:36:35.942014+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

116 extracted references · 115 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    Discovery of a rich population of compact hub-filament systems in a single star-forming complex. arXiv e-prints , keywords =

  2. [3]

    H., Young, E

    The Multiband Imaging Photometer for Spitzer (MIPS). , keywords =. doi:10.1086/422717 , adsurl =

    work page doi:10.1086/422717

  3. [4]

    J., Noriega-Crespo, A., Mizuno, D

    MIPSGAL: A Survey of the Inner Galactic Plane at 24 and 70 m. , year = 2009, month = jan, volume =. doi:10.1086/596581 , adsurl =

    work page doi:10.1086/596581 2009

  4. [7]

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

    Clouds, filaments, and protostars: The Herschel Hi-GAL Milky Way , DOI= "10.1051/0004-6361/201014659", url= "https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201014659", journal =

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014659

  5. [8]

    , keywords =

    The Photodetector Array Camera and Spectrometer (PACS) on the Herschel Space Observatory. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014535 , archivePrefix =. 1005.1487 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014535

  6. [9]

    J., Abergel, A., Abreu, A., et al

    The Herschel-SPIRE instrument and its in-flight performance. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014519 , archivePrefix =. 1005.5123 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014519

  7. [34]

    2010, ApJL, 723, L7, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/723/1/L7

    How Many Infrared Dark Clouds Can form Massive Stars and Clusters?. , keywords =. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/723/1/L7 , archivePrefix =. 1009.1617 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/723/1/l7 2041

  8. [37]

    , keywords =

    Mon R2: A Hub Filament System with an Infrared Bubble at the Hub Center. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad9b22 , archivePrefix =. 2412.02628 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad9b22

  9. [57]

    2024, , 687, A18, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449824

    Magnetic field dragging in filamentary molecular clouds. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449824 , archivePrefix =. 2405.11589 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449824

  10. [83]

    The initial conditions of stellar protocluster formation. I. A catalogue of Spitzer dark clouds. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912127 , archivePrefix =. 0906.3493 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912127

  11. [91]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    Evolution of magnetized hub-filament systems: Comparing the observed properties of W3(OH), W3 Main, and S 106. arXiv e-prints , keywords =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2508.05918 , archivePrefix =. 2508.05918 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.05918

  12. [92]

    , keywords =

    Dark Dragon Breaks Magnetic Chain: Dynamical Substructures of IRDC G28.34 Form in Supported Environments. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3105 , archivePrefix =. 2403.03437 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3105

  13. [93]

    A massive, quiescent core in the dragon cloud (IRDC G028.37+00.07)

    Mother of dragons. A massive, quiescent core in the dragon cloud (IRDC G028.37+00.07). , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245668 , archivePrefix =. 2303.15499 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245668

  14. [94]

    2018, , 70, S53, 10.1093/pasj/psx089

    The formation of massive molecular filaments and massive stars triggered by a magnetohydrodynamic shock wave. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/pasj/psx089 , archivePrefix =. 1707.02035 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psx089

  15. [111]

    , keywords =

    Filamentary structure and magnetic field orientation in Musca. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527068 , adsurl =

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527068

  16. [116]

    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

  17. [117]

    2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed

    Andr \'e , P., Di Francesco , J., Ward-Thompson , D., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther , R. S. Klessen , C. P. Dullemond , & T. Henning , 27--51, 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch002

    work page doi:10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch002 2014

  18. [118]

    , keywords =

    Arzoumanian , D., Andr \'e , P., Didelon , P., et al. 2011, , 529, L6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201116596

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116596 2011

  19. [119]

    , Furuya, R

    Arzoumanian, D. , Furuya, R. S. , Hasegawa, T. , et al. 2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics Journal, 647, A78, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038624

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038624 2021

  20. [120]

    P., Tollerud, E

    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

  21. [121]

    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

  22. [122]

    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

  23. [123]

    K., Whitworth , A

    Balfour , S. K., Whitworth , A. P., & Hubber , D. A. 2017, , 465, 3483, 10.1093/mnras/stw2956

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2956 2017

  24. [124]

    K., Whitworth , A

    Balfour , S. K., Whitworth , A. P., Hubber , D. A., & Jaffa , S. E. 2015, , 453, 2471, 10.1093/mnras/stv1772

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1772 2015

  25. [125]

    K., Ojha , D

    Baug , T., Dewangan , L. K., Ojha , D. K., & Ninan , J. P. 2016, , 833, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/85

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/85 2016

  26. [126]

    T., Cesaroni , R., Moscadelli , L., et al

    Beltr \'a n , M. T., Cesaroni , R., Moscadelli , L., et al. 2016, , 593, A49, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628588

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628588 2016

  27. [127]

    arXiv , author =:1908.01597 , journal =

    Beltr \'a n , M. T., Padovani , M., Girart , J. M., et al. 2019, , 630, A54, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935701

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935701 2019

  28. [128]

    T., Padovani , M., Galli , D., et al

    Beltr \'a n , M. T., Padovani , M., Galli , D., et al. 2024, , 686, A281, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348927

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348927 2024

  29. [129]

    A., Churchwell, E., Babler, B

    Benjamin, R. A., Churchwell, E., Babler, B. L., et al. 2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 953, 10.1086/376696

    work page doi:10.1086/376696 2003

  30. [130]

    D., Vlemmings , W., et al

    Beuther , H., Soler , J. D., Vlemmings , W., et al. 2018, , 614, A64, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732378

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732378 2018

  31. [131]

    R., Fuller , G

    Birks , J. R., Fuller , G. A., & Gibb , A. G. 2006, , 458, 181, 10.1051/0004-6361:20053209

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053209 2006

  32. [132]

    1953, ApJ, 118, 113, doi: 10.1086/145731

    Chandrasekhar , S., & Fermi , E. 1953, , 118, 113, 10.1086/145731

    work page doi:10.1086/145731 1953

  33. [133]

    J., Lee , C

    Chung , E. J., Lee , C. W., Kwon , W., et al. 2022, , 164, 175, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac8a43

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac8a43 2022

  34. [134]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.1086/507015 2006

  35. [135]

    T., Andersson, B.-G., Bally, J., et al

    Chuss , D. T., Andersson , B. G., Bally , J., et al. 2019, , 872, 187, 10.3847/1538-4357/aafd37

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafd37 2019

  36. [136]

    C., Sanhueza , P., Houde , M., et al

    Cort \'e s , P. C., Sanhueza , P., Houde , M., et al. 2021, , 923, 204, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac28a1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac28a1 2021

  37. [137]

    C., Girart , J

    Cort \'e s , P. C., Girart , J. M., Sanhueza , P., et al. 2024, , 972, 115, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad59a7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad59a7 2024

  38. [138]

    Crutcher , R. M. 2004, , 292, 225, 10.1023/B:ASTR.0000045021.42255.95

    work page doi:10.1023/b:astr.0000045021.42255.95 2004

  39. [139]

    2012, , 50, 29, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125514

    ---. 2012, , 50, 29, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125514

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125514 2012

  40. [140]

    , keywords =

    Cyganowski , C. J., Whitney , B. A., Holden , E., et al. 2008, , 136, 2391, 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2391

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2391 2008

  41. [141]

    P., Dewangan , L

    Devaraj , R., Clemens , D. P., Dewangan , L. K., et al. 2021, , 911, 81, 10.3847/1538-4357/abe9b1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe9b1 2021

  42. [142]

    Dewangan , L. K. 2017, , 837, 44, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5df2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5df2 2017

  43. [143]

    , keywords =

    Dewangan , L. K., Bhadari , N. K., Maity , A. K., et al. 2024, , 527, 5895, 10.1093/mnras/stad3384

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3384 2024

  44. [144]

    K., & Ojha , D

    Dewangan , L. K., & Ojha , D. K. 2017, , 849, 65, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8e00

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8e00 2017

  45. [145]

    K., Yadav , R

    Dewangan , L. K., Yadav , R. K., Sharma , S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.01455. 2512.01455

    work page arXiv 2025

  46. [146]

    Dowell , C. D. 1997, , 487, 237, 10.1086/304577

    work page doi:10.1086/304577 1997

  47. [147]

    , keywords =

    Faerber, T., Anderson, L. D., Luisi, M., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 990, 30, 10.3847/1538-4357/ade852

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade852 2025

  48. [148]

    2022, , 512, 1985, 10.1093/mnras/stac528

    Fanciullo , L., Kemper , F., Pattle , K., et al. 2022, , 512, 1985, 10.1093/mnras/stac528

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac528 2022

  49. [149]

    M., Longmore, S

    Federrath , C., Rathborne , J. M., Longmore , S. N., et al. 2016, , 832, 143, 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/143

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/832/2/143 2016

  50. [150]

    D., & Pudritz , R

    Fiege , J. D., & Pudritz , R. E. 2000, , 544, 830, 10.1086/317228

    work page doi:10.1086/317228 2000

  51. [151]

    G., Hooker, J., & Li, B.-A

    Froebrich , D., & Ioannidis , G. 2011, , 418, 1375, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19589.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19589.x 2011

  52. [152]

    A., & Myers , P

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

    work page doi:10.1086/170894 1992

  53. [153]

    R., Ohama , A., et al

    Furukawa , N., Dawson , J. R., Ohama , A., et al. 2009, , 696, L115, 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/L115

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/696/2/l115 2009

  54. [154]

    D., Camilo, F., et al

    Goedhart , S., Cotton , W. D., Camilo , F., et al. 2024, , 531, 649, 10.1093/mnras/stae1166

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1166 2024

  55. [155]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2018 , eprint =

    G \'o mez , G. C., V \'a zquez-Semadeni , E., & Zamora-Avil \'e s , M. 2018, , 480, 2939, 10.1093/mnras/sty2018

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2018 2018

  56. [156]

    E., Hensley, B

    Guan, Y., Clark, S. E., Hensley, B. S., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 920, 6, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac133f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac133f 2021

  57. [157]

    A., Chuss , D

    Guerra , J. A., Chuss , D. T., Dowell , C. D., et al. 2021, , 908, 98, 10.3847/1538-4357/abd6f0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd6f0 2021

  58. [158]

    A., Runyan , M

    Harper, D. A., Runyan, M. C., Dowell, C. D., et al. 2018, Journal of Astronomical Instrumentation, 07, 1840008, 10.1142/S2251171718400081

    work page doi:10.1142/s2251171718400081 2018

  59. [159]

    2018, , 70, S48, 10.1093/pasj/psx141

    Hayashi , K., Sano , H., Enokiya , R., et al. 2018, , 70, S48, 10.1093/pasj/psx141

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psx141 2018

  60. [160]

    H., Kirby , L., Dotson , J

    Hildebrand , R. H., Kirby , L., Dotson , J. L., Houde , M., & Vaillancourt , J. E. 2009, , 696, 567, 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/567

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/696/1/567 2009

  61. [161]

    2016, , 831, 159, 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/159

    Hoang , T., & Lazarian , A. 2016, , 831, 159, 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/159

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/831/2/159 2016

  62. [162]

    D., Ngoc , N

    Hoang , T. D., Ngoc , N. B., Diep , P. N., et al. 2022, , 929, 27, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5abf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5abf 2022

  63. [163]

    E., Hildebrand , R

    Houde , M., Vaillancourt , J. E., Hildebrand , R. H., Chitsazzadeh , S., & Kirby , L. 2009, , 706, 1504, 10.1088/0004-637X/706/2/1504

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/706/2/1504 2009

  64. [164]

    Hull , C. L. H., Yang , H., Cort \'e s , P. C., et al. 2022, , 930, 49, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6023

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6023 2022

  65. [165]

    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

  66. [166]

    2022, , 941, 51, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac99e0

    ---. 2022, , 941, 51, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac99e0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac99e0 2022

  67. [167]

    M., et al

    Hwang , J., Sanhueza , P., Girart , J. M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.25078, 10.48550/arXiv.2510.25078

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.25078 2025

  68. [168]

    2013, ApJL, 774, L31, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/774/2/L31

    Inoue , T., & Fukui , Y. 2013, , 774, L31, 10.1088/2041-8205/774/2/L31

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/774/2/l31 2013

  69. [169]

    M., Rathborne , J

    Jackson , J. M., Rathborne , J. M., Shah , R. Y., et al. 2006, , 163, 145, 10.1086/500091

    work page doi:10.1086/500091 2006

  70. [170]

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/2/185 2013

  71. [171]

    A., Pattle , K., & Graves , S

    Khan , Z. A., Pattle , K., & Graves , S. F. 2024, , 535, 107, 10.1093/mnras/stae2350

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2350 2024

  72. [172]

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038232 2020

  73. [173]

    M., Puget , J

    Lamarre , J. M., Puget , J. L., Ade , P. A. R., et al. 2010, , 520, A9, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912975

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912975 2010

  74. [174]

    2014, AJ, 147, 108, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/5/108

    Lang , D. 2014, , 147, 108, 10.1088/0004-6256/147/5/108

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/147/5/108 2014

  75. [175]

    Y., Beltr \'a n , M

    Law , C. Y., Beltr \'a n , M. T., Furuya , R. S., et al. 2025, , 697, L4, 10.1051/0004-6361/202453510

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453510 2025

  76. [176]

    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

  77. [177]

    N., Karska , A., et al

    L \^e , N., Tram , L. N., Karska , A., et al. 2024, , 690, A191, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348008

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348008 2024

  78. [178]

    Le Gouellec , V. J. M., Andersson , B.-G., Soam , A., et al. 2023, , 951, 97, 10.3847/1538-4357/accff7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/accff7 2023

  79. [179]

    K., Dewangan , L

    Maity , A. K., Dewangan , L. K., Bhadari , N. K., et al. 2025, , 169, 56, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad98ff

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad98ff 2025

  80. [180]

    2023, , 523, 5388, 10.1093/mnras/stad1644

    ---. 2023, , 523, 5388, 10.1093/mnras/stad1644

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1644 2023

Showing first 80 references.