pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.03507 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

Systematic underestimation of polarisation angle dispersion and its consequences for magnetic field strength estimates in star-forming regions

Seamus D. Clarke , Ya-Wen Tang , Patrick M. Koch , Gary A. Fuller , Dawei Xi
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 15:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords polarization dispersionangular dispersionmagnetic field strengthstar formationdust emissionbeam convolutionturbulencestructure function
0
0 comments X

The pith

Polarization angle dispersion is systematically underestimated by factors of 1-10 due to pixel size and beam effects, causing magnetic field strengths in star-forming regions to be overestimated.

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

Polarized dust emission observations measure the spread in polarization position angles to infer magnetic field strengths in star-forming regions. Turbulence naturally produces angular dispersion that varies with length scale, so the measurement depends on how finely the data are sampled and smoothed. When common analysis methods are applied to maps that include this scale dependence, the recovered dispersion is always smaller than the true input value. Magnetic field strength is derived from the inverse of this dispersion, so the bias inflates the field estimates. The paper quantifies the size of the bias across different map structures and supplies a correction procedure that can be applied to existing observations.

Core claim

In all cases the measured angular dispersion is underestimated compared to the true value. The degree to which the measured angular dispersion is underestimated varies by factors of 1-10 when measured on scales of 1-3x the beam size, and depends on the underlying structure of the polarisation angle field. This suggests that currently derived magnetic field strengths using angular dispersions are chronically overestimated, potentially leading to an overly magnetically-dominated view of star formation. A method to estimate a correction factor is presented and applied to JCMT Orion A OMC-1 observations, where the field is found to vary on scales much larger than the beam with low unresolveddisp

What carries the argument

Parametrized scale-dependent polarization angle maps analyzed with unsharp-masking and structure-function methods to measure the effect of pixel size and beam convolution on recovered angular dispersion.

Load-bearing premise

The parametrized scale-dependent maps accurately represent the magneto-dynamic turbulence present in real star-forming regions.

What would settle it

Higher-resolution polarization maps of the same region that show the measured dispersion rising by the predicted correction factor as the beam size decreases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.03507 by Dawei Xi, Gary A. Fuller, Patrick M. Koch, Seamus D. Clarke, Ya-Wen Tang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (Top left and middle) Two examples of angle maps generated using the method described in section 2, where N=360, kmin = 1, and α = −2 or α = −4 respectively. (Bottom left and middle) Zoom-ins of the region enclosed by the white square in the angle maps above. The black segments on each panel show the angle represented, multipled by a factor of 20 to better illustrate the variation. (Right) The power spectr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (Top row) The angle map resulting from averaging the Q and U maps to larger pixel sizes, m, as indicated by the white text. (Bottom row) The same angle map as above but where the Q and U maps have been convolved by a single fixed beam with full-width half-maximum of 6. The Q and U maps are constructed using N=360, α = −2, and kmin = 1. 1 ◦ and shifted to ensure that the mean is 0◦ . The scaling of the mean… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (Left) The total angular dispersion as a function of pixel (blue) or beam (orange) size for parameters α = −2 and kmin = 1. Low opacity lines show the individual results of the 50 realisations of the parameter pair, solid lines show the average value. (Right) The total angular dispersion as a function of pixel size for the same parameters when beam convolution has first been applied, the beam having a full… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Left) The total angular dispersion as a function of pixel size for maps with a constant kmin = 1 and α varies from (green) -1, (orange) -2, and (blue) -4, when beam convolution has first been applied, the beam having a full-width half-maximum of 6 (vertical, dashed line). The angular dispersion has been normalised such that when the pixel size is equal to the beam size it has a value of 1. Low opacity lin… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Measured angular dispersion using the unsharp-masking method as a function of filter size (i.e. the side length of the square filter) for maps with varying values of α (top row) and of kmin (bottom row). The measurements using pixels of size 1 (blue), 3 (orange), 6 (green), and 12 (red) are shown for each panel and the maps have been convoluted with a beam of size 6. The total dispersion in the map measure… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The angular dispersion correction factor as a function of the filter size with α = −1, −2, −4 (green, orange and blue respectively). The correction factor is defined as σψ(l)/σψ,b(l), where σψ(l) is the angular dispersion measured at filter size l, and the b subscript denotes the measurement is from a beam convolved map. Here the measurements are made for maps with pixel size 1 and kmin=1, and the beam has… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Structure functions for maps with varying values of α (top row) and of kmin (bottom row). The measurements using pixels of size 1 (blue), 3 (orange), 6 (green), and 12 (red) are shown for each panel. In the bottom row, the vertical, dashed, black lines show the size scale associated with the map’s value of kmin. Note that only one realisation out of the total of 50 is shown for each parameter pair, that al… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (Left) The structure function for a realisation with α = −2 and kmin = 1 (orange) with the various fits colour-coded by the maximum value of l used. (Middle and right) The fitting parameters δ and ⟨B2 t ⟩ ⟨B2 o ⟩ respectively as a function of the maximum l included in the fitting, colour-coded in the same manner. The error-bars show the 1σ uncertainties from the fitting results. as done above for the maxim… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Cumulative distribution plots of the fitting results for (left) ⟨B2 t ⟩ ⟨B2 o ⟩ and (right) δ for the structure functions of maps with kmin = 1 and α set to -1, -2 and -4 for the top, middle and bottom rows respectively. The colours indicate the pixel size in the map with m=1, 3, 6, 12 shown as blue, orange, green and red lines respectively. et al. 2009; Houde et al. 2009; Skalidis et al. 2021). The equati… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (Top left panel) The 850 µm Stokes I map with a contour showing the 0.7 Jy/beam enclosed region considered in the analysis and black segments showing the polarisation segments. The white circle in the lower left corner shows the 14” beam size for the JCMT at 850 µm. (Top row) The polarisation segment position angle determined at (left column) 4”, (middle column) 12”, (right column) 24” pixel sizes. (Middl… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The angular dispersion within the intensity con￾tour seen in figure 10 using the unsharp-masking technique with varying filter sizes. The colours denote the pixel sizes used, and the dashed horizontal lines the total angular dis￾persion across the whole map. increasing pixel size appears to contradict the assertion made in the prior sections that one expects to see a de￾crease in measured angular dispersi… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: (Left) The angular dispersion measured as a function of the filter size in terms of beam size for (blue lines) 50 random realisations of an angle map characterised by α = −3, a beam size of 3, total dispersion of 60◦ , and a grid size of 60. The mean and standard deviation of this set is shown in orange, with the JCMT OMC-1 results shown in black. (Right) The correction factor as a function of filter size… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Slice plots at y = 0.5 pc of the (top) super-Alfv´enic and (bottom) sub-Alfv´enic simulations at t = 0.5 Myr. Panels show (left) volume density, (centre) B-field vector angle, and (right) power spectrum resulting from the Fourier transform of the angle map. The black and red dashed lines in the right panels show power-laws with indices of -2 and -3 respectively. REFERENCES Andersson, B. G., Lazarian, A., … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Polarised dust emission observations are a valuable tool to infer the structure of the magnetic field and the dispersion of polarisation position angles may be used to estimate magnetic field strengths. A natural consequence of magneto-dynamic turbulence is for the angular dispersion to have a length-scale dependence, making the measurement of angular dispersion non-trivial. In this paper, we present a study of parametrised, scale dependent maps, focusing on the effect of pixel size and beam convolution on the measured angular dispersion when using the commonly employed unsharp-masking and structure function methods. We find that in all cases the measured angular dispersion is underestimated compared to the true value. The degree to which the measured angular dispersion is underestimated varies by factors of 1-10 when measured on scales of 1-3x the beam size, and depends on the underlying structure of the polarisation angle field. This suggests that currently derived magnetic field strengths using angular dispersions are chronically overestimated, potentially leading to an overly magnetically-dominated view of star formation. We present a method to estimate a correction factor to account for this and apply it to JCMT Orion A OMC-1 observations. We find that the magnetic field in OMC-1 is predominately found to vary on scales much larger than the JCMT's 14'' beam and has a rather low degree of unresolved dispersion, leading to a correction factor of only $\sim$1.6 for angular dispersion measured at a scale of 14''/0.028 pc.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines how finite pixel size and Gaussian beam convolution affect measurements of polarization angle dispersion in scale-dependent fields using unsharp-masking and structure-function estimators. Through a family of parametrized maps, it reports that the measured dispersion is underestimated relative to the true value by factors of 1–10 on scales 1–3 times the beam size. This bias implies that magnetic field strengths derived via the Davis-Chandrasekhar-Fermi method are systematically overestimated. The authors propose a correction procedure based on the parametrized results and apply it to JCMT 850 μm observations of Orion A OMC-1, obtaining a modest correction factor of ∼1.6 that indicates the field varies primarily on scales larger than the 14″ beam with low unresolved dispersion.

Significance. If the reported bias generalizes beyond the chosen parametrizations, the work identifies a previously under-appreciated systematic error in a widely used technique for estimating plane-of-sky magnetic field strengths in star-forming regions. The finding that current B-field estimates may be too high by up to an order of magnitude could alter assessments of magnetic versus turbulent support. The practical correction method and its application to OMC-1 constitute a concrete contribution, though the magnitude of the effect remains tied to the fidelity of the synthetic angle fields.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3] §3 (construction of parametrized maps): The central results rest on maps generated with explicit functional forms for the scale dependence of the polarization angle field. The manuscript provides no quantitative validation of these forms against either MHD turbulence snapshots or an ensemble of observed polarization maps, nor does it report sensitivity tests to the functional parameters. This leaves open the possibility that the reported underestimation factors (1–10) are specific to the adopted parametrizations rather than generic to magneto-turbulent fields.
  2. [§4] §4 and abstract (OMC-1 correction): The correction factor of ∼1.6 is obtained by matching the parametrized model to the observed structure function of OMC-1. No formal error propagation, covariance analysis, or Monte-Carlo exploration of model-parameter uncertainty is presented, so the quoted numerical value cannot be assessed for robustness.
  3. [§2, §5] §2 (methods) and §5 (discussion): The paper does not compare its unsharp-masking and structure-function results on the parametrized maps to the same estimators applied to full MHD simulation cubes with self-consistent density, velocity, and magnetic-field statistics. Such a comparison would directly test whether the bias magnitude or sign changes when the angle field exhibits realistic intermittency and power-spectrum properties.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figures] Figure captions (e.g., Fig. 2–4): The exact beam FWHM, pixel scale, and functional parameters used to generate each example map should be stated explicitly in the captions rather than only in the main text.
  2. [§2] Notation: The distinction between the “true” dispersion (defined on the continuous field) and the “measured” dispersion (after pixelation and convolution) is introduced but not given a compact symbol; introducing a clear notation such as σ_true versus σ_meas would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive report. The comments highlight important aspects of our methodology and the robustness of our conclusions. Below we respond point by point to the major comments, indicating where we agree that revisions are warranted and where we maintain that the current approach is appropriate for the scope of the paper.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §3 (construction of parametrized maps): The central results rest on maps generated with explicit functional forms for the scale dependence of the polarization angle field. The manuscript provides no quantitative validation of these forms against either MHD turbulence snapshots or an ensemble of observed polarization maps, nor does it report sensitivity tests to the functional parameters. This leaves open the possibility that the reported underestimation factors (1–10) are specific to the adopted parametrizations rather than generic to magneto-turbulent fields.

    Authors: The parametrized functional forms were selected to isolate the effects of scale dependence, beam convolution, and pixel sampling in a controlled manner, without the additional variables present in full MHD simulations. The chosen forms are motivated by the power-law scale dependence expected in turbulent magnetic fields. We acknowledge that direct quantitative validation against specific MHD snapshots or large observational ensembles was not performed. In the revised manuscript we will add sensitivity tests varying the characteristic scale length and amplitude parameters over ranges consistent with observed polarization maps, demonstrating that the underestimation factors remain between 1 and 10. We will also include a brief discussion relating our parametrizations to typical power spectra reported in the MHD literature. revision: partial

  2. Referee: §4 and abstract (OMC-1 correction): The correction factor of ∼1.6 is obtained by matching the parametrized model to the observed structure function of OMC-1. No formal error propagation, covariance analysis, or Monte-Carlo exploration of model-parameter uncertainty is presented, so the quoted numerical value cannot be assessed for robustness.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative assessment of uncertainty in the derived correction factor is desirable. In the revised manuscript we will implement a Monte-Carlo exploration of the parameter space, sampling model parameters that reproduce the observed structure function within its uncertainties. The resulting distribution of correction factors will be reported, allowing readers to evaluate the robustness of the ∼1.6 value for OMC-1. revision: yes

  3. Referee: §2 (methods) and §5 (discussion): The paper does not compare its unsharp-masking and structure-function results on the parametrized maps to the same estimators applied to full MHD simulation cubes with self-consistent density, velocity, and magnetic-field statistics. Such a comparison would directly test whether the bias magnitude or sign changes when the angle field exhibits realistic intermittency and power-spectrum properties.

    Authors: Our use of parametrized maps was deliberate to separate the influence of scale dependence and observational smoothing from other magneto-hydrodynamic correlations. Introducing full MHD cubes would add density and velocity structure that could obscure the specific bias under study. We recognize the value of such a comparison for establishing generality. In the revised discussion we will expand on how the bias we identify is expected to persist in fields with realistic intermittency, drawing on published MHD polarization statistics, while noting that a direct side-by-side application to MHD cubes lies beyond the present scope. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: bias quantified directly from constructed maps and applied to independent data

full rationale

The paper constructs its own family of parametrized scale-dependent polarization angle maps, applies the unsharp-masking and structure-function estimators after pixelation and beam convolution, and directly compares the recovered dispersion to the known input dispersion of those same maps. The reported underestimation (factors 1-10 on 1-3 beam scales) is therefore a measured property of the chosen parametrizations, not a reduction of an external claim to a fitted parameter. A correction factor is then derived from the same maps and applied to separate JCMT OMC-1 observations; the observational data are not used to tune the maps or the estimators. No self-citation, uniqueness theorem, or ansatz-smuggling step is present in the provided text, and the derivation chain remains self-contained against the synthetic benchmark it defines.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are identifiable. The study relies on parametrized maps whose construction details and assumptions about turbulence are not specified here.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5587 in / 1141 out tokens · 42447 ms · 2026-05-07T15:38:16.267729+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

64 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    Andersson, B. G., Lazarian, A., & Vaillancourt, J. E. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 501, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122414 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f As...

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

  2. [2]

    2020, A&A, 636, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936885

    Brinkmann, N., Wyrowski, F., Kauffmann, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 636, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936885

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936885 2020

  3. [3]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1086/145731 1953

  4. [4]

    Chen, C.-Y., & Ostriker, E. C. 2015, ApJ, 810, 126, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/126

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/810/2/126 2015

  5. [5]

    2026, Magnetic angular dispersion Correction Factor (MCF) code, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19202295

    Clarke, S. 2026, Magnetic angular dispersion Correction Factor (MCF) code, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19202295

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.19202295 2026

  6. [6]

    J., & Jennings, R

    Cudlip, W., Furniss, I., King, K. J., & Jennings, R. E. 1982, MNRAS, 200, 1169, doi: 10.1093/mnras/200.4.1169

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/200.4.1169 1982

  7. [7]

    1951, Physical Review, 81, 890, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.81.890.2

    Davis, L. 1951, Physical Review, 81, 890, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.81.890.2

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.81.890.2 1951

  8. [8]

    Davis, L., & Greenstein, J. L. 1949, Physical Review, 75, 1605, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.75.1605 Falceta-Gon¸ calves, D., Lazarian, A., & Kowal, G. 2008, ApJ, 679, 537, doi: 10.1086/587479 19

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.75.1605 1949

  9. [9]

    2016, Journal of Plasma Physics, 82, 535820601, doi: 10.1017/S0022377816001069

    Federrath, C. 2016, Journal of Plasma Physics, 82, 535820601, doi: 10.1017/S0022377816001069

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022377816001069 2016

  10. [10]

    D., & Seifried, D

    Ganguly, S., Walch, S., Clarke, S. D., & Seifried, D. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3630, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae032

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae032 2024

  11. [11]

    D., & Weis, M

    Ganguly, S., Walch, S., Seifried, D., Clarke, S. D., & Weis, M. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 721, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2054

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2054 2023

  12. [12]

    Gurland, J., & Tripathi, R. C. 1971, The American Statistician, 25, 30, doi: 10.1080/00031305.1971.10477279

    work page doi:10.1080/00031305.1971.10477279 1971

  13. [13]

    2017, ArXiv e-prints

    Hacar, A., Tafalla, M., & Alves, J. 2017, ArXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.07029

    work page arXiv 2017

  14. [14]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  15. [15]

    Norman, M. L. 2001, ApJ, 561, 800, doi: 10.1086/323489

    work page doi:10.1086/323489 2001

  16. [16]

    Hildebrand, R. H. 1988, QJRAS, 29, 327

    1988

  17. [17]

    H., Dragovan, M., & Novak, G

    Hildebrand, R. H., Dragovan, M., & Novak, G. 1984, ApJL, 284, L51, doi: 10.1086/184351

    work page doi:10.1086/184351 1984

  18. [18]

    Vaillancourt, J. E. 2009, ApJ, 696, 567, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/567

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

  19. [19]

    Hiltner, W. A. 1949, Science, 109, 165, doi: 10.1126/science.109.2825.165

    work page doi:10.1126/science.109.2825.165 1949

  20. [20]

    N., Lee, H., Diep, P

    Hoang, T., Tram, L. N., Lee, H., Diep, P. N., & Ngoc, N. B. 2021, ApJ, 908, 218, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd54f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd54f 2021

  21. [21]

    2013, ApJ, 766, 49, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/49

    Houde, M., Fletcher, A., Beck, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 766, 49, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/49

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/766/1/49 2013

  22. [22]

    Houde, M., Hull, C. L. H., Plambeck, R. L., Vaillancourt, J. E., & Hildebrand, R. H. 2016, ApJ, 820, 38, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/38

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/820/1/38 2016

  23. [23]

    E., & Hildebrand, R

    Houde, M., Rao, R., Vaillancourt, J. E., & Hildebrand, R. H. 2011, ApJ, 733, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/2/109

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/733/2/109 2011

  24. [24]

    E., Hildebrand , R

    Chitsazzadeh, S., & Kirby, L. 2009, ApJ, 706, 1504, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/2/1504

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

  25. [25]

    Hull, C. L. H., Plambeck, R. L., Kwon, W., et al. 2014, ApJS, 213, 13, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/213/1/13

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/213/1/13 2014

  26. [26]

    Hull, C. L. H., Mocz, P., Burkhart, B., et al. 2017, ApJL, 842, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa71b7

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa71b7 2017

  27. [27]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  28. [28]

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

    Hwang, J., Kim, J., Pattle, K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf3c4 Ib´ a˜ nez-Mej´ ıa, J. C., Mac Low, M.-M., & Klessen, R. S. 2022, ApJ, 925, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3b58

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf3c4 2021

  29. [29]

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

    Inoue, T., Hennebelle, P., Fukui, Y., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S53, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx089

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psx089 2018

  30. [30]

    2012, A&A, 543, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118730

    Joos, M., Hennebelle, P., & Ciardi, A. 2012, A&A, 543, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118730

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118730 2012

  31. [31]

    C., & Filippova, N

    Kim, J.-G., Ostriker, E. C., & Filippova, N. 2021, ApJ, 911, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe934

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe934 2021

  32. [32]

    M., Tang, Y.-W., Ho, P

    Koch, P. M., Tang, Y.-W., Ho, P. T. P., et al. 2014, ApJ, 797, 99, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/99

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/797/2/99 2014

  33. [33]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabd82 2018

  34. [34]

    2007, MNRAS, 378, 910, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11817.x

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

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

  35. [35]

    H., & Pogosyan, D

    Lazarian, A., Yuen, K. H., & Pogosyan, D. 2022, ApJ, 935, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6877

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6877 2022

  36. [36]

    2021, ApJ, 918, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0cf2

    Lee, D., Berthoud, M., Chen, C.-Y., et al. 2021, ApJ, 918, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0cf2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0cf2 2021

  37. [37]

    S., Lopez-Rodriguez, E., Ajeddig, H., et al

    Li, P. S., Lopez-Rodriguez, E., Ajeddig, H., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 6085, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3448

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3448 2022

  38. [38]

    2021, ApJ, 919, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0cec

    Liu, J., Zhang, Q., Commer¸ con, B., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0cec

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0cec 2021

  39. [39]

    2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 943556, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.943556

    Liu, J., Zhang, Q., & Qiu, K. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 943556, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.943556

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2022.943556 2022

  40. [40]

    P., & Hubber, D

    Lomax, O., Whitworth, A. P., & Hubber, D. A. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 662, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv310

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv310 2015

  41. [41]

    , keywords =

    Menten, K. M., Reid, M. J., Forbrich, J., & Brunthaler, A. 2007, A&A, 474, 515, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078247

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078247 2007

  42. [42]

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

    Mestel, L., & Spitzer, L., J. 1956, MNRAS, 116, 503, doi: 10.1093/mnras/116.5.503

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/116.5.503 1956

  43. [43]

    C., & Goodman, A

    Myers, P. C., & Goodman, A. A. 1991, ApJ, 373, 509, doi: 10.1086/170070

    work page doi:10.1086/170070 1991

  44. [44]

    B., Diep , P

    Ngoc, N. B., Diep, P. N., Hoang, T., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdb6e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acdb6e 2023

  45. [45]

    C., Stone, J

    Ostriker, E. C., Stone, J. M., & Gammie, C. F. 2001, ApJ, 546, 980, doi: 10.1086/318290

    work page doi:10.1086/318290 2001

  46. [46]

    T., et al

    Padoan, P., Goodman, A., Draine, B. T., et al. 2001, ApJ, 559, 1005, doi: 10.1086/322504

    work page doi:10.1086/322504 2001

  47. [47]

    2019, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 15, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2019.00015

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

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2019.00015 2019

  48. [48]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    Pattle, K., Fissel, L., Tahani, M., Liu, T., & Ntormousi, E. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    2023

  49. [49]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa80e5 2017

  50. [50]

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

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

  51. [51]

    2020, , 641, A12, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833885

    Pineda, J. E., Arzoumanian, D., Andre, P., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 233 20 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833885

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833885 2023

  52. [52]

    A., Goldbaum, N

    Schive, H.-Y., ZuHone, J. A., Goldbaum, N. J., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 4815, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2586

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2586 2018

  53. [53]

    Pudritz, R. E. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 1054, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19320.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19320.x 2011

  54. [54]

    Bisbas, T. G. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1465, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3563

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3563 2020

  55. [55]

    2021, A&A, 656, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142045

    Tassis, K. 2021, A&A, 656, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142045

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142045 2021

  56. [56]

    M., Peretto, N., et al

    Tang, Y.-W., Koch, P. M., Peretto, N., et al. 2019, ApJ, 878, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1484

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1484 2019

  57. [57]

    E., et al

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

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

  58. [58]

    2019, , 876, 42, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab13a2

    Wang, J.-W., Lai, S.-P., Eswaraiah, C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab13a2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab13a2 2019

  59. [59]

    M., Clarke , S

    Wang, J.-W., Koch, P. M., Clarke, S. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad165b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad165b 2024

  60. [60]

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

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

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

  61. [61]

    Whittet, D. C. B., Hough, J. H., Lazarian, A., & Hoang, T. 2008, ApJ, 674, 304, doi: 10.1086/525040

    work page doi:10.1086/525040 2008

  62. [62]

    S., & Watson, W

    Wiebe, D. S., & Watson, W. D. 2004, ApJ, 615, 300, doi: 10.1086/424033

    work page doi:10.1086/424033 2004

  63. [63]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2215 , eprint =

    Wurster, J., Bate, M. R., & Price, D. J. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 1719, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2215

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2215 2019

  64. [64]

    J., & Bate, M

    Wurster, J., Price, D. J., & Bate, M. R. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 1037, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw013

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw013 2016