pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.04632 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: 3 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Revealing the cold skeleton of the Magellanic Clouds and the Magellanic Bridge with ASKAP

James Dempsey , N. M. McClure-Griffiths , Antoine Marchal , S. E. Clark , John M. Dickey , Min-Young Lee , Claire Murray , Hiep Nguyen
show 9 more authors
Nickolas M. Pingel Sne\v{z}ana Stanimirovi\'c Jacco Th. van Loon Helga D\'enes Steven J. Gibson Katie Jameson Ian Kemp Callum Lynn Yik Ki Ma
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 17:43 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords Magellanic CloudsMagellanic BridgeHI absorptioncold neutral mediumneutral hydrogenASKAPGASKAP-HI
0
0 comments X

The pith

Cold neutral hydrogen gas is detected across the Magellanic Bridge, concentrated near the Small Magellanic Cloud.

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

The paper reports results from the GASKAP-HI pilot absorption survey, which observed 3219 sightlines through the Magellanic system toward 1.4-GHz continuum sources. It identifies 344 candidate detections of cold gas at Magellanic velocities with SNR greater than 3, including 35 in the Bridge where the detection rate is only 4 percent. Most Bridge detections lie closer to the SMC, and the mean cold neutral medium fraction there is 0.12, similar to the SMC value but lower than the LMC. The authors conclude that this cold gas was either pulled from the SMC during Bridge formation or created by turbulence in those interactions.

Core claim

The GASKAP-HI pilot absorption survey provides 3219 sightlines across the LMC, SMC and MB. We find 344 candidate detections of cold gas at Magellanic velocities (vLSRK >= 90 km/s) with SNR > 3, detection rates of 44 percent in the LMC, 73 percent in the SMC and 4 percent in the MB. Gaussian decomposition of the Bridge detections shows most cold gas lies closer to the SMC, with possible recent formation on the outskirts of a shell. The mean cold gas fraction in the MB is fCNM = 0.12 plus or minus 0.08, very similar to the SMC and lower than the LMC value of 0.14. Overall we reveal cold gas distributed extensively across the Magellanic system, including within the MB, and surmise that the cold

What carries the argument

The GASKAP-HI absorption survey against continuum sources combined with Gaussian decomposition of spectra to isolate cold neutral medium components at Magellanic velocities.

If this is right

  • Cold gas is distributed extensively across the entire Magellanic system including the Bridge.
  • The majority of cold gas detections in the Bridge are found closer to the SMC.
  • Potential evidence exists for recent formation of cold gas on the outskirts of a shell within the MB.
  • The cold gas fraction in the MB is very similar to the SMC and lower than the LMC.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the Bridge gas truly traces SMC material, its velocity and spatial distribution could constrain the timing and geometry of the Clouds' interaction.
  • The low but nonzero detection rate in the Bridge suggests cold gas can survive or form quickly in low-density tidal structures.
  • Similar absorption surveys toward other interacting galaxy pairs might reveal whether cold gas reservoirs are a common outcome of such encounters.

Load-bearing premise

The 344 SNR greater than 3 absorption features are genuine cold neutral medium gas at Magellanic velocities without significant contamination, misidentification or projection effects, and Gaussian decomposition reliably isolates components in the Bridge.

What would settle it

Independent higher-resolution spectra or observations at a different frequency that fail to recover absorption at the same vLSRK greater than or equal to 90 km/s velocities would show the features are not real cold gas.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.04632 by Antoine Marchal, Callum Lynn, Claire Murray, Helga D\'enes, Hiep Nguyen, Ian Kemp, Jacco Th. van Loon, James Dempsey, John M. Dickey, Katie Jameson, Min-Young Lee, Nickolas M. Pingel, N. M. McClure-Griffiths, S. E. Clark, Sne\v{z}ana Stanimirovi\'c, Steven J. Gibson, Yik Ki Ma.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Map of all 3219 sightlines from GASKAP-HI pilot phase I and II observations of the Magellanic system where optical depth spectra were obtained. Each point is coloured by continuum noise level, with darker colours indicating lower noise. Squares are candidate detections (344), circles are non-detections (2116) and triangles are high noise spectra (759) excluded from further analysis. The background map is H… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Spatial distribution of the 344 sightlines with candidate absorption detections at Magellanic velocities. Each candidate is coloured by its signal-to-noise ratio, with darker colours reflecting higher ratio. The background map is Hi column density from the GASS survey (Kalberla & Haud 2015). Contours are shown at 0.18, 0.5, 1 and 2 × 1021 cm−2 . The contour at 1 × 1021 cm−2 is shown in blue. The survey cov… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Gaussian decomposition of Hi emission and absorption spectra for J013218−715348. The lower section shows the absorption spectrum (𝑒 −𝜏 ) in black with the fit shown in red. The 1𝜎 noise envelope is shown as gray shading and the 3𝜎 threshold is shown as a dot-dashed line. A residual between the fit and the spectrum is shown at the top of the lower panel. The upper panel shows the brightness temperature (𝑇𝑏)… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Map of cold gas detections in absorption in the MB region. The 11 filled squares (2 of which represent a source pair each) and 3 filled diamonds are detections at Magellanic velocities, coloured by the cold gas fraction of the sight line. The cold gas fraction is determined from Gaussian fitting of each spectrum. The diamonds indicate sightlines where the cold gas components have 𝑣 > 200 km s−1 . The 3 emp… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of cold gas fractions for each sightline as calculated using the mean spin temperature and Gaussian techniques. The diagonal dotted line shows equality. Right Ascension is used here as a proxy for distance from the SMC. 𝑇b ≥ 3K. For this spectrum, this results in a very narrow velocity window being analysed. This window is imposed to avoid the cal￾culation being dominated by noise in the emissio… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present the GASKAP-HI pilot absorption survey of neutral hydrogen (HI) in the Magellanic system. This survey provides 3219 sightlines across the Large (LMC) and Small Magellanic Clouds (SMC) and the Magellanic Bridge (MB) towards 1.4-GHz continuum sources, representing a 15-fold increase on pre--GASKAP-HI sampling of the Magellanic System. We find 344 candidate detections of cold gas at Magellanic velocities (vLSRK >= 90 km s-1), with signal-to-noise ratio > 3 detection rates of 44% (LMC; 192 of 438), 73% (SMC; 85 of 117) and 4% (MB; 35 of 793). We examine the candidate detections within the MB, Gaussian decompose these and examine the cold gas across the MB. Here we find that the majority of cold gas detections are found closer to the SMC. We also find potential evidence of the recent formation of cold gas on the outskirts of a shell within the MB. We find a mean cold gas fraction of fCNM = 0.12 +- 0.08 for the MB, which is very similar to the SMC and lower than the LMC value of 0.14. Overall, we reveal cold gas distributed extensively across the Magellanic system, including within the MB, and surmise that the cold gas in the MB is either pulled from the SMC as part of the formation of the MB, or formed in the turbulence of those same interactions.

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 paper presents the GASKAP-HI pilot absorption survey of HI in the Magellanic system using ASKAP, delivering 3219 sightlines toward 1.4 GHz continuum sources (a 15-fold increase over prior sampling). It reports 344 candidate cold-gas absorptions at Magellanic velocities (v_LSRK >= 90 km/s) with SNR > 3, yielding detection rates of 44% (LMC; 192/438), 73% (SMC; 85/117), and 4% (MB; 35/793). Focusing on the MB, the authors Gaussian-decompose the candidates, note that most lie closer to the SMC, identify possible recent cold-gas formation on a shell outskirts, and derive a mean cold neutral medium fraction f_CNM = 0.12 ± 0.08 (similar to the SMC, lower than the LMC). They conclude that cold gas is distributed extensively across the system and surmise that MB cold gas was either stripped from the SMC during Bridge formation or formed in the turbulence of the interactions.

Significance. If the MB detections hold, the work provides a substantial observational advance through its large, uniform sample, enabling the first statistical view of CNM across the entire Magellanic system including the Bridge. The reported f_CNM similarity between MB and SMC, together with the spatial concentration near the SMC, supplies direct constraints on tidal-stripping and in-situ formation scenarios in low-metallicity, tidally perturbed gas. The 15-fold increase in sightlines and the pilot nature of the survey also lay groundwork for future wide-field ASKAP studies of multiphase gas in interacting galaxies.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and MB analysis section] Abstract and MB analysis section: the headline claim of extensive cold gas in the MB (and the subsequent origin surmise) rests on only 35 SNR>3 candidates out of 793 sightlines. No quantitative assessment of false-positive rates, Galactic high-velocity-cloud contamination within the v_LSRK >= 90 km/s cut, or the performance of Gaussian decomposition in the complex, multi-phase Bridge velocity field is provided; without these, the spatial distribution and formation inference cannot be considered robust.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the reported f_CNM = 0.12 ± 0.08 for the MB is given without any description of the derivation (e.g., how absorption optical depths or column densities are obtained from the candidates, how non-detections are treated as upper limits, or the propagation of uncertainties), making it impossible to evaluate whether the quoted error bar fully captures systematic effects from baseline subtraction or sightline selection.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from explicitly stating the total sightline count (3219) and the per-region breakdowns early in the text for immediate context.
  2. [Throughout] Notation for velocity (v_LSRK) and the precise SNR threshold definition should be introduced consistently on first use and cross-referenced to the methods section.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and positive review, which highlights the value of our expanded sample for studying the multiphase gas in the Magellanic system. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and MB analysis section] Abstract and MB analysis section: the headline claim of extensive cold gas in the MB (and the subsequent origin surmise) rests on only 35 SNR>3 candidates out of 793 sightlines. No quantitative assessment of false-positive rates, Galactic high-velocity-cloud contamination within the v_LSRK >= 90 km/s cut, or the performance of Gaussian decomposition in the complex, multi-phase Bridge velocity field is provided; without these, the spatial distribution and formation inference cannot be considered robust.

    Authors: We agree that the modest number of MB detections (35) requires careful scrutiny to support claims of extensive cold gas and inferences on its origin. While these detections constitute a substantial increase over prior sampling, we acknowledge the absence of explicit false-positive quantification and contamination checks in the submitted version. In the revised manuscript we have added a quantitative estimate of the false-positive rate based on the measured noise statistics of the spectra, a cross-check against known Galactic HVC catalogs to assess contamination within the v_LSRK >= 90 km/s selection, and validation of the Gaussian decomposition using simulated multi-component spectra that replicate the Bridge's velocity complexity. These additions bolster the reported spatial concentration near the SMC and the formation discussion, although the small sample size remains an inherent limitation of the pilot survey. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the reported f_CNM = 0.12 ± 0.08 for the MB is given without any description of the derivation (e.g., how absorption optical depths or column densities are obtained from the candidates, how non-detections are treated as upper limits, or the propagation of uncertainties), making it impossible to evaluate whether the quoted error bar fully captures systematic effects from baseline subtraction or sightline selection.

    Authors: We accept that the abstract omitted a concise description of the f_CNM derivation, even though the full procedure (conversion from optical depth to column density, treatment of non-detections as 3-sigma upper limits, and uncertainty propagation) is presented in the methods and results sections. We have revised the abstract to include a brief outline of these steps and have expanded the main text with an explicit discussion of systematic contributions from baseline fitting and sightline selection. The quoted uncertainty primarily captures the observed scatter; the added material now addresses whether additional systematics are fully reflected. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational survey of HI absorption with direct empirical results

full rationale

The paper is an observational survey reporting counts of candidate absorption features (344 total, with region-specific rates), Gaussian decomposition of MB sightlines, and a computed mean fCNM fraction from the data. These are direct measurements from ASKAP spectra at Magellanic velocities, with no equations, models, fitted parameters presented as predictions, or derivations that reduce to inputs by construction. The spatial distribution analysis and interpretive surmise on MB gas origin follow from the observed positions and velocities without self-referential steps or self-citation load-bearing claims. The analysis stands as self-contained empirical reporting against standard observational benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard radio astronomy assumptions for interpreting 21 cm absorption as cold gas and on chosen selection thresholds for detections.

free parameters (2)
  • velocity threshold = 90 km/s
    vLSRK >= 90 km s-1 used to isolate Magellanic velocities
  • SNR threshold = 3
    signal-to-noise ratio > 3 for selecting candidate detections
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption HI 21 cm absorption traces cold neutral medium gas
    Standard assumption in radio astronomy for identifying CNM via absorption against continuum sources
  • domain assumption Gaussian decomposition separates distinct velocity components in the spectra
    Applied to examine cold gas properties across the Magellanic Bridge

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5689 in / 1443 out tokens · 116596 ms · 2026-05-08T17:43:28.282346+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

51 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Audit E., Hennebelle P., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041474 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...433....1A 433, 1

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041474 2005

  2. [2]

    J., Koposov S

    Belokurov V., Erkal D., Deason A. J., Koposov S. E., De Angeli F., Evans D. W., Fraternali F., Mackey D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3357 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466.4711B 466, 4711

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3357 2017

  3. [3]

    Bialy S., Sternberg A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2fd1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...881..160B 881, 160

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2fd1 2019

  4. [4]

    423, Galaxy Wars: Stellar Populations and Star Formation in Interacting Galaxies

    Bournaud F., 2010, in Smith B., Higdon J., Higdon S., Bastian N., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 423, Galaxy Wars: Stellar Populations and Star Formation in Interacting Galaxies. p. 177 ( @eprint arXiv 0909.1812 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.0909.1812

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.0909.1812 2010

  5. [5]

    Br \"u ns C., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20040321 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...432...45B 432, 45

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20040321 2005

  6. [6]

    Chen H., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/adc67c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025AJ....169..284C 169, 284

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adc67c 2025

  7. [7]

    in preparation

    Chen H., et al., 2026, p. in preparation

    2026

  8. [8]

    Dempsey J., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2022.18 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PASA...39...34D 39, e034

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2022.18 2022

  9. [9]

    Dempsey J., Mcclure-Griffiths N., Nguyen H., 2026, GASKAP-HI Pilot Survey HI Absorption Spectra, https://doi.org/10.25919/3dgk-7d61, @doi 10.25919/3dgk-7d61

    work page doi:10.25919/3dgk-7d61 2026

  10. [10]

    M., Mebold U., Marx M., Amy S., Haynes R

    Dickey J. M., Mebold U., Marx M., Amy S., Haynes R. F., Wilson W., 1994, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994A&A...289..357D 289, 357

    1994

  11. [11]

    M., Mebold U., Stanimirovic S., Staveley-Smith L., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308953 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...536..756D 536, 756

    Dickey J. M., Mebold U., Stanimirovic S., Staveley-Smith L., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308953 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...536..756D 536, 756

    work page doi:10.1086/308953 2000

  12. [12]

    M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2012.003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASA...30....3D 30, e003

    Dickey J. M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2012.003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASA...30....3D 30, e003

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2012.003 2013

  13. [13]

    M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3a89 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...926..186D 926, 186

    Dickey J. M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3a89 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...926..186D 926, 186

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3a89 2022

  14. [14]

    861, Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag

    Duc P.-A., Renaud F., 2013, in Souchay J., Mathis S., Tokieda T., eds, , Vol. 861, Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag. p. 327, @doi 10.1007/978-3-642-32961-6_9

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-32961-6_9 2013

  15. [15]

    , year = 1965, month = aug, volume =

    Field G. B., 1965, @doi [ ] 10.1086/148317 , 142, 531

    work page doi:10.1086/148317 1965

  16. [16]

    Glover S. C. O., Clark P. C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19648.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.421....9G 421, 9

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19648.x 2012

  17. [17]

    Haud U., 2000, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...364...83H 364, 83

    2000

  18. [18]

    H., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/367785 , 145, 329

    Heiles C., Troland T. H., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/367785 , 145, 329

    work page doi:10.1086/367785 2003

  19. [19]

    system description

    Hotan A. W., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2021.1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PASA...38....9H 38, e009

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2021.1 2021

  20. [20]

    J., Kunkel W

    Irwin M. J., Kunkel W. E., Demers S., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1038/318160a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985Natur.318..160I 318, 160

    work page doi:10.1038/318160a0 1985

  21. [21]

    E., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3576 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..244....7J 244, 7

    Jameson K. E., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3576 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..244....7J 244, 7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab3576 2019

  22. [22]

    Kalberla P. M. W., Haud U., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525859 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...578A..78K 578, A78

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525859 2015

  23. [23]

    Kalberla P. M. W., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913979 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...521A..17K 521, A17

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913979 2010

  24. [24]

    submitted

    Kim S.-J., et al., 2025, , p. submitted

    2025

  25. [25]

    A., Dickey J

    Kobulnicky H. A., Dickey J. M., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300741 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999AJ....117..908K 117, 908

    work page doi:10.1086/300741 1999

  26. [26]

    R., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...759....9K 759, 9

    Krumholz M. R., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...759....9K 759, 9

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/759/1/9 2012

  27. [27]

    C., Keenan F

    Lehner N., Howk J. C., Keenan F. P., Smoker J. V., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/529574 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...678..219L 678, 219

    work page doi:10.1086/529574 2008

  28. [28]

    E., Morel R., Allys E., Butsky I

    Lei M., Clark S. E., Morel R., Allys E., Butsky I. S., Redshaw C., Fielding D. B., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ae044a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...993....4L 993, 4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae044a 2025

  29. [29]

    Liszt H., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20010395 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...371..698L 371, 698

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010395 2001

  30. [30]

    Liu B., 2021, PhD thesis, The University of Western Australia, @doi 10.26182/ecpa-x533

    work page doi:10.26182/ecpa-x533 2021

  31. [31]

    D., Koposov S

    Mackey A. D., Koposov S. E., Da Costa G. S., Belokurov V., Erkal D., Fraternali F., McClure-Griffiths N. M., Fraser M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2035 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.2975M 472, 2975

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2035 2017

  32. [32]

    A&A , volume =

    Marchal A., Miville-Desch \^e nes M.-A., Orieux F., Gac N., Soussen C., Lesot M.-J., d'Allonnes A. R., Salom \'e Q., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935335 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...626A.101M 626, A101

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935335 2019

  33. [33]

    G., Miville-Desch \^e nes M.-A., McClure-Griffiths N

    Marchal A., Martin P. G., Miville-Desch \^e nes M.-A., McClure-Griffiths N. M., Lynn C., Bracco A., Vujeva L., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0f21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...961..161M 961, 161

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0f21 2024

  34. [34]

    M., Zimmer F., Staveley-Smith L., Mebold U., 2000, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...354..787M 354, 787

    Marx-Zimmer M., Herbstmeier U., Dickey J. M., Zimmer F., Staveley-Smith L., Mebold U., 2000, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...354..787M 354, 787

    2000

  35. [35]

    Matthews D., Staveley-Smith L., Dyson P., Muller E., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/L115 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...691L.115M 691, L115

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/691/2/l115 2009

  36. [36]

    , keywords =

    McClure-Griffiths N. M., Stanimirovi\' c S., Rybarczyk D. R., 2023, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-104851 , 61, null

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-104851 2023

  37. [37]

    W., Wilson W., Haynes R

    Mebold U., Greisen E. W., Wilson W., Haynes R. F., Herbstmeier U., Kalberla P. M. W., 1991, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991A&A...251L...1M 251, L1

    1991

  38. [38]

    C., Kobulnicky H

    Misawa T., Charlton J. C., Kobulnicky H. A., Wakker B. P., Bland-Hawthorn J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/695/2/1382 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...695.1382M 695, 1382

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/695/2/1382 2009

  39. [39]

    Morelli A. P. M., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202555015 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...702L..11M 702, L11

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555015 2025

  40. [40]

    Muller E., Stanimirovi \'c S., Rosolowsky E., Staveley-Smith L., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/425154 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...616..845M 616, 845

    work page doi:10.1086/425154 2004

  41. [41]

    E., Stanimirovi \'c S., Kim C.-G., Ostriker E

    Murray C. E., Stanimirovi \'c S., Kim C.-G., Ostriker E. C., Lindner R. R., Heiles C., Dickey J. M., Babler B., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5d12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...837...55M 837, 55

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5d12 2017

  42. [42]

    E., Peek J

    Murray C. E., Peek J. E. G., Kim C.-G., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aba19b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...899...15M 899, 15

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba19b 2020

  43. [43]

    E., Hasselquist, S., Peek, J

    Murray C. E., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1591 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...962..120M 962, 120

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1591 2024

  44. [44]

    Nguyen H., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2274 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534.3478N 534, 3478

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2274 2024

  45. [45]

    L., Majewski, S

    Nidever D. L., Majewski S. R., Butler Burton W., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/587042 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...679..432N 679, 432

    work page doi:10.1086/587042 2008

  46. [46]

    M., Dempsey, J., McClure-Griffiths, N

    Pingel N. M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2021.59 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PASA...39....5P 39, e005

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2021.59 2022

  47. [47]

    Poudel S., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adc099 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...984..161P 984, 161

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc099 2025

  48. [48]

    S., Werner K., Rauch T., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527451 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...584L...6R 584, L6

    Richter P., de Boer K. S., Werner K., Rauch T., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527451 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...584L...6R 584, L6

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527451 2015

  49. [49]

    Shapley H., 1940, Harvard College Observatory Bulletin, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1940BHarO.914....8S 914, 8

    1940

  50. [50]

    2003, MNRAS, 340, 1214, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06380.x

    Staveley-Smith L., Kim S., Calabretta M. R., Haynes R. F., Kesteven M. J., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06146.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.339...87S 339, 87

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06146.x 2003

  51. [51]

    , keywords =

    Wolfire M. G., McKee C. F., Hollenbach D., Tielens A. G. G. M., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/368016 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...587..278W 587, 278

    work page doi:10.1086/368016 2003