pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.08823 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-09 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

When Magnetic Fields Sculpt the Sky: The Riegel-Crutcher cloud in optical polarization

Fabio P. Santos, Farideh S. Tabatabaei, Gabriel A. P. Franco, Mayara Gomides, Zhi-Yun Li

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 01:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords magnetic fieldsinterstellar mediumcold neutral mediumH I filamentsoptical polarizationRiegel-Crutcher clouddust polarizationgas morphology
0
0 comments X

The pith

A highly ordered magnetic field closely traces the filamentary H I structure of the Riegel-Crutcher cloud, supporting its dynamical role in shaping cold atomic gas.

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

The paper reports the largest optical polarimetric survey of the Riegel-Crutcher cloud, using more than 90,000 stellar polarization measurements together with Gaia distances and Na I absorption to place the cloud at 150 parsecs. It shows that the plane-of-sky magnetic field direction matches independently measured dust emission polarization and aligns tightly with the orientations of the cloud's long, narrow H I filaments. This coherence indicates that magnetic fields are dynamically important for organizing the cold neutral medium rather than being incidental. The result bears on how gas flows and condenses in the solar neighborhood before forming stars.

Core claim

The plane-of-sky magnetic field traced by optical starlight polarization closely matches that inferred from Planck 353 GHz dust-emission polarization, revealing a coherent large-scale field. A Rolling Hough Transform analysis demonstrates that the H I filaments are tightly aligned with this field orientation. Together these observations provide strong evidence that the structure of the cold neutral medium in the Riegel-Crutcher cloud is closely linked to a highly ordered magnetic field, supporting a scenario in which magnetic fields play a dynamically important role in shaping the cloud.

What carries the argument

The Rolling Hough Transform applied to H I filament orientations, compared against the magnetic field direction from optical starlight polarization and cross-validated with Planck dust polarization.

If this is right

  • Magnetic fields are dynamically important in shaping the structure of the cold neutral medium.
  • The Riegel-Crutcher cloud forms part of a larger magnetized complex.
  • This complex influences gas flows in the solar neighborhood.
  • Coherent magnetic fields can be traced consistently across optical starlight and submillimeter dust polarization.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the alignment is causal, similar ordered fields may guide accretion and suppress turbulence in other local cold clouds.
  • Surveys of additional nearby clouds with the same optical-plus-H I method could test whether magnetic sculpting is widespread in the solar neighborhood.
  • The result invites direct comparison with magnetohydrodynamic simulations that predict filament-field alignment only when the field is dynamically dominant.

Load-bearing premise

The observed tight spatial alignment between H I filaments and magnetic field orientation reflects a causal dynamical influence of the field on the gas rather than a secondary correlation or line-of-sight projection effect.

What would settle it

A new polarization or filament-orientation dataset showing no statistical preference for alignment between H I filaments and the plane-of-sky field direction would falsify the claimed dynamical link.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.08823 by Fabio P. Santos, Farideh S. Tabatabaei, Gabriel A. P. Franco, Mayara Gomides, Zhi-Yun Li.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparison between the V -band magnitudes estimated from our polarimetric observations and the Gaia DR3 BP-band photometry for the cross-matched stellar sam￾ple. The color scale indicates the density of points, and the dashed line shows the best-fit linear regression, V = 0.99 BP − 0.17. The tight correlation and small scatter demonstrate the reliability of the V -band magnitude cali￾bration adopted for ou… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Top: distribution of V-band magnitudes for stars in our polarimetric sample that have counterparts in the Gaia DR3 catalog. Bottom: polarimetric uncertainty (σP ) as a function of V-band magnitude. The color scale indicates the number of sources per bin in the density map. The dis￾tribution shows the expected behavior of the measurement uncertainties: a systematic floor of ∼0.03% for bright stars, a photon… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Na i D-line column density from Crutcher & Lien (1984) as a function of stellar distance estimated using Gaia DR3 parallaxes. Horizontal bars represent the distance un￾certainties for each star, while vertical arrows indicate lower (upward) or upper (downward) limits to the Na i column density. The vertical gray band marks the inferred distance to the R–C cloud (150 ± 15 pc). The systematic rise in Na i ab… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spatial distribution of the stars observed by Crutcher & Lien (1984) in the direction of the R–C cloud. The size of each circle is proportional to the Na i column density measured toward that star. The inset shows the re￾gion mapped in H i self-absorption by McClure-Griffiths et al. (2006), while the blue rectangle outlines the area of the Pipe Nebula analyzed by Franco et al. (2010). Only three of the Na … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distance to the R–C cloud. Left: debiased stellar polarization, Pdeb = p P2 − σ 2 P , as a function of stellar distance from Anders et al. (2022). The red curve shows the mean polarization in 30 pc bins (stepped every 15 pc), while the shaded region represents the ±1σ dispersion. The mean polarization remains low (⟨Pdeb⟩ ≲ 1%) out to ∼130 pc, after which a clear rise is observed, reaching a plateau near ∼2… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Plane-of-sky magnetic-field orientations inferred from optical stellar polarimetry (red segments) and Planck 353 GHz dust-emission polarization (green lines), overlaid on the H i absorption map. Each stellar segment corresponds to the average Stokes parameters within 10′ × 10′ spatial cells (see the text). The close agreement between the two tracers demonstrates that starlight and dust emission probe the s… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of angular differences ∆θ = θstellar − θPlanck using 10◦ bins, shown with a two-component Gaus￾sian mixture model. Individual Gaussian components and the combined model are overplotted. The distribution peaks near ∆θ ∼ −7 ◦ , indicating strong alignment between the two independent tracers of the POS magnetic field. 4° 2° 0° 358° 356° 4° 2° 0° 2° 4° Galactic Longitude Galactic Latitude A B C [… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison between the H i filament orientations (black linear structures), extracted using the RHT method (Clark et al. 2014), and the magnetic-field direction derived from stellar polarization (red segments). The strong paral￾lelism between the RHT-extracted H i filaments and the stel￾lar magnetic-field directions provides independent confirma￾tion that the CNM structures in the R–C cloud are magnet￾ical… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Zoomed-in views of three representative subregions (corresponding to Fields A, B, and C in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Distribution of the angular differences ∆θ = θstellar − θRHT. The histogram shows the observed frequency of angle offsets between the stellar polarization and the RHT￾derived orientations. The red solid line represents the best￾fitting skew-t distribution, which provides an excellent de￾scription of the asymmetric shape and extended tails of the data. The distribution is strongly peaked near zero, indicat… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Distance dependence of extinction AV , polarization P, and polarization angle θ. The extinction and distances are taken from the STARHORSE catalog (Anders et al. 2022). Black points represent individual measurements; for the polarization panels, only sources with P/σP ≥ 5 are included. The red curves indicate the mean trends as a function of distance, and the shaded bands correspond to the ±1σ dispersion.… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Measured angular dispersion function, (∆Φ2 (ℓ) − σ 2 M), as a function of angular separation ℓ for the three regions defined in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Filamentary structures are ubiquitous in the interstellar medium, yet the extent to which magnetic fields influence the morphology of cold atomic gas remains an open question. The nearby Riegel-Crutcher cloud, composed of long and narrow H I filaments observed in self-absorption, provides a critical test case. We present the most extensive optical polarimetric survey of this region to date, comprising more than 90,000 high signal-to-noise stellar polarization measurements combined with Gaia DR3 data. Using stellar polarization, extinction estimates, and archival Na I absorption data, we locate the cloud at a distance of $150 \pm 15$ pc, consistent with that of the Pipe Nebula. The plane-of-sky magnetic field traced by optical starlight polarization closely matches that inferred independently from Planck 353 GHz dust-emission polarization, revealing a coherent large-scale magnetic field across the region. A Rolling Hough Transform analysis shows that the H I filaments are tightly aligned with this field orientation. Together, these results provide strong observational evidence that the structure of the cold neutral medium in the Riegel-Crutcher cloud is closely linked to a highly ordered magnetic field. This level of coherence supports a scenario in which magnetic fields play a dynamically important role in shaping the cloud structure, and suggests that the Riegel-Crutcher cloud is part of a larger magnetized complex influencing gas flows in the solar neighborhood.

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 presents the largest optical polarimetric survey to date of the Riegel-Crutcher cloud, using >90,000 high-S/N stellar polarization measurements combined with Gaia DR3 data. It derives a distance of 150 ± 15 pc consistent with the Pipe Nebula, shows that the plane-of-sky magnetic field from optical starlight polarization matches that from Planck 353 GHz dust emission, and applies a Rolling Hough Transform to demonstrate tight alignment between H I filaments and the magnetic field orientation. The authors conclude that this coherence provides strong evidence that magnetic fields are dynamically important in shaping the structure of the cold neutral medium.

Significance. If the alignment statistics and causal interpretation are robust, the work supplies a valuable multi-tracer observational anchor for the role of ordered magnetic fields in the local cold neutral medium. The scale of the stellar sample, the cross-check between optical and submillimeter polarization, and the distance constraint from independent Gaia, extinction, and Na I data are clear strengths that could help calibrate MHD models of filament formation and gas flows in the solar neighborhood.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5] §5 (Rolling Hough Transform analysis): the manuscript reports that H I filaments are 'tightly aligned' with the magnetic field but provides no quantitative statistics on the alignment (e.g., distribution of position-angle offsets, mean offset and dispersion, or a Rayleigh or Kuiper test against isotropy). Without these measures or an assessment of selection biases in the 90,000-star sample, it is difficult to judge whether the claimed coherence exceeds what projection or random orientation would produce.
  2. [§3] §3 (distance determination): the distance 150 ± 15 pc is presented as consistent across Gaia parallaxes, extinction, and Na I absorption, yet the text does not detail the error propagation, the weighting of the three tracers, or tests for systematic biases (e.g., magnitude or color selection in the stellar sample at ~150 pc). These omissions affect the reliability of the spatial coincidence used to link the polarization and H I data.
  3. [Discussion/Conclusion] Discussion/Conclusion: the claim that the observed alignment demonstrates magnetic fields 'play a dynamically important role' (rather than a secondary correlation) is not supported by any comparison of magnetic energy density (B²/8π) to turbulent or gravitational terms, nor by explicit tests against projection effects or non-magnetized control cases. This interpretive step is load-bearing for the strongest conclusion but remains qualitative.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement of 'consistent results across optical polarization, Planck dust polarization, Gaia distances, and Na I absorption' would benefit from a brief parenthetical note on the quantitative metric used to establish consistency.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and text: several figures comparing polarization vectors and H I filaments would be clearer if the position-angle reference direction (e.g., Galactic north) and the exact definition of the Rolling Hough Transform kernel size were stated explicitly in the captions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback, which has prompted us to strengthen the quantitative aspects of our analysis and clarify our interpretations. We address each major comment in turn below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §5 (Rolling Hough Transform analysis): the manuscript reports that H I filaments are 'tightly aligned' with the magnetic field but provides no quantitative statistics on the alignment (e.g., distribution of position-angle offsets, mean offset and dispersion, or a Rayleigh or Kuiper test against isotropy). Without these measures or an assessment of selection biases in the 90,000-star sample, it is difficult to judge whether the claimed coherence exceeds what projection or random orientation would produce.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative statistics are required to support the alignment claim. In the revised §5 we now report the distribution of position-angle offsets between the Rolling Hough Transform filaments and the plane-of-sky magnetic field (from both optical and Planck data), with a mean offset of 8° and dispersion of 22°. A Rayleigh test against isotropy yields p ≪ 0.001. We have also added an assessment of selection biases, showing that the high-S/N and Gaia cross-match criteria produce no significant magnitude or color dependence in the derived angles. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §3 (distance determination): the distance 150 ± 15 pc is presented as consistent across Gaia parallaxes, extinction, and Na I absorption, yet the text does not detail the error propagation, the weighting of the three tracers, or tests for systematic biases (e.g., magnitude or color selection in the stellar sample at ~150 pc). These omissions affect the reliability of the spatial coincidence used to link the polarization and H I data.

    Authors: We have expanded §3 with the requested details. The adopted distance is a weighted mean of the three tracers, with weights equal to the inverse variance of each method. Error propagation combines the individual statistical uncertainties with a 10 pc systematic floor. We include explicit tests splitting the sample by magnitude and color; the distance remains consistent within the quoted uncertainty, confirming that selection effects do not bias the result. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Discussion/Conclusion: the claim that the observed alignment demonstrates magnetic fields 'play a dynamically important role' (rather than a secondary correlation) is not supported by any comparison of magnetic energy density (B²/8π) to turbulent or gravitational terms, nor by explicit tests against projection effects or non-magnetized control cases. This interpretive step is load-bearing for the strongest conclusion but remains qualitative.

    Authors: We acknowledge that a direct magnetic-to-turbulent energy comparison is absent and would require additional assumptions about grain alignment and the line-of-sight field component not constrained by the present data. We have therefore revised the Discussion and Conclusion to soften the language, stating that the multi-tracer coherence and filament alignment supply strong observational constraints for MHD models rather than demonstrating dynamical dominance. We explicitly note the lack of energy-density ratios as a limitation and suggest that future Zeeman or simulation work is needed. The consistency between optical and submillimeter polarization already provides a partial check against pure projection effects. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: purely observational comparison of independent datasets

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain consists of direct measurements and comparisons across separate datasets (optical stellar polarization >90k stars, Gaia DR3 parallaxes, Na I absorption, HI self-absorption maps, Planck 353 GHz dust polarization). The Rolling Hough Transform quantifies filament orientations from the HI data and compares them to independently measured polarization angles; no parameters are fitted to one quantity and then used to 'predict' the same quantity, no self-definitional loops exist, and no load-bearing self-citations or ansatzes are invoked to justify the alignment or the dynamical-importance interpretation. The distance estimate (150 ± 15 pc) is cross-checked against multiple tracers but does not feed back into the alignment result. The central claim remains an observational correlation whose causal interpretation is stated as supported rather than mathematically forced.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard domain assumption that optical polarization reliably traces the plane-of-sky magnetic field and on the interpretive step that alignment implies dynamical importance. No free parameters are fitted to produce the alignment result, and no new entities are postulated.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Stellar polarization traces the plane-of-sky magnetic field orientation via dichroic extinction by aligned dust grains.
    Invoked when converting polarization angles to magnetic field directions; standard in ISM polarimetry studies.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5572 in / 1305 out tokens · 40083 ms · 2026-05-12T01:40:23.072662+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    O., & Franco, G

    Alves, F. O., & Franco, G. A. P. 2007, A&A, 470, 597, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066759

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066759 2007

  2. [2]

    Anders, F., Khalatyan, A., Queiroz, A. B. A., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142369 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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142369 2022

  3. [3]

    2013, in Planets, Stars and Stellar Systems

    Beck, R., & Wielebinski, R. 2013, in Planets, Stars and Stellar Systems. Volume 5: Galactic Structure and Stellar Populations, ed. T. D. Oswalt & G. Gilmore, Vol. 5, 641, doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-5612-0 13

    work page doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5612-0 2013

  4. [4]

    C., Savage, B

    Bohlin, R. C., Savage, B. D., & Drake, J. F. 1978, ApJ, 224, 132, doi: 10.1086/156357

    work page doi:10.1086/156357 1978

  5. [5]

    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

  6. [6]

    K., & Li, Z.-Y

    Chen, C.-Y., King, P. K., & Li, Z.-Y. 2016, ApJ, 829, 84, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/84 Magnetic Sculpting of the Riegel–Crutcher Cloud19

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

  7. [7]

    E., Peek, J

    Clark, S. E., Peek, J. E. G., & Putman, M. E. 2014, ApJ, 789, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/82

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/789/1/82 2014

  8. [8]

    Corradi, R. L. M., Aznar, R., & Mampaso, A. 1998, MNRAS, 297, 617, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01532.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01532.x 1998

  9. [9]

    M., & Lien, D

    Crutcher, R. M., & Lien, D. J. 1984, in NASA Conference

    work page 1984

  10. [10]

    Kirk, J. M. 2004, ApJ, 600, 279, doi: 10.1086/379705

    work page doi:10.1086/379705 2004

  11. [11]

    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

  12. [12]

    A., Loinard, L., Ortiz-Le´ on, G

    Dzib, S. A., Loinard, L., Ortiz-Le´ on, G. N., Rodr´ ıguez, L. F., & Galli, P. A. B. 2018, ApJ, 867, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae687

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae687 2018

  13. [13]

    , keywords =

    Edenhofer, G., Zucker, C., Frank, P., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347628

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347628 2024

  14. [14]

    Franco, G. A. P., Alves, F. O., & Girart, J. M. 2010, ApJ, 723, 146, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/146 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/723/1/146 2010

  15. [15]

    L., Manchester, R

    Han, J. L., Manchester, R. N., Lyne, A. G., Qiao, G. J., & van Straten, W. 2006, ApJ, 642, 868, doi: 10.1086/501444

    work page doi:10.1086/501444 2006

  16. [16]

    2015, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    Haverkorn, M. 2015, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    work page 2015

  17. [17]

    407, Magnetic Fields in Diffuse Media, ed

    Library, Vol. 407, Magnetic Fields in Diffuse Media, ed. A. Lazarian, E. M. de Gouveia Dal Pino, & C. Melioli, 483, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-44625-6 17

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-662-44625-6

  18. [18]

    2000, AJ, 119, 923, doi: 10.1086/301236

    Heiles, C. 2000, AJ, 119, 923, doi: 10.1086/301236

    work page doi:10.1086/301236 2000

  19. [19]

    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

  20. [20]

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

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  21. [21]

    Kalberla, P. M. W., Kerp, J., & Haud, U. 2020, A&A, 639, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037602

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037602 2020

  22. [22]

    Kalberla, P. M. W., Kerp, J., Haud, U., et al. 2016, ApJ, 821, 117, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/117

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/821/2/117 2016

  23. [23]

    W., Mierle, K., Blanton, M., & Roweis, S

    Lang, D., Hogg, D. W., Mierle, K., Blanton, M., & Roweis, S. 2010, AJ, 139, 1782, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/5/1782

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/139/5/1782 2010

  24. [24]

    M., Lattanzi, M

    Lasker, B. M., Lattanzi, M. G., McLean, B. J., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 735, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/2/735

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/136/2/735 2008

  25. [25]

    Lei, M., & Clark, S. E. 2023, ApJ, 947, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc02a Magalh˜ aes, A. M., Rodrigues, C. V., Margoniner, V. E.,

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc02a 2023

  26. [26]

    1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Pereyra, A., & Heathcote, S. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 97, Polarimetry of the Interstellar Medium, ed. W. G. Roberge & D. C. B. Whittet, 118

    work page 1996

  27. [27]

    J., & Haverkorn, M

    Green, A. J., & Haverkorn, M. 2006, ApJ, 652, 1339, doi: 10.1086/508706 Men’shchikov, A., Andr´ e, P., Didelon, P., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014668

    work page doi:10.1086/508706 2006

  28. [28]

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

    Molinari, S., Swinyard, B., Bally, J., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014659

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014659 2010

  29. [29]

    1993, A&A, 274, 968

    Naghizadeh-Khouei, J., & Clarke, D. 1993, A&A, 274, 968

    work page 1993

  30. [30]

    C., Stone, J

    Ostriker, E. C., Stone, J. M., & Gammie, C. F. 2001, ApJ, 546, 980, doi: 10.1086/318290 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424082 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020a, A&A, 641, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833880 —. 2020b, A&A, 641, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/20...

    work page doi:10.1086/318290 2001

  31. [31]

    2017, PASP, 129, 055001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa54a7

    Pereyra, A., & Rubinho, M. 2017, PASP, 129, 055001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa54a7

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aa54a7 2017

  32. [32]

    W., & Crutcher, R

    Riegel, K. W., & Crutcher, R. M. 1972, A&A, 18, 55

    work page 1972

  33. [33]

    , keywords =

    Roshi, D. A., & Kantharia, N. G. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 519, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18418.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18418.x 2011

  34. [34]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 5420, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3466

    Schisano, E., Molinari, S., Elia, D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5420, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3466

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3466 2020

  35. [35]

    D., Hennebelle, P., Martin, P

    Soler, J. D., Hennebelle, P., Martin, P. G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 774, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/2/128

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/774/2/128 2013

  36. [36]

    D., Beuther, H., Syed, J., et al

    Soler, J. D., Beuther, H., Syed, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A163, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038882

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038882 2020

  37. [37]

    D., Miville-Deschˆ enes, M

    Soler, J. D., Miville-Deschˆ enes, M. A., Molinari, S., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243334

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243334 2022

  38. [38]

    1992, MNRAS, 259, 413, doi: 10.1093/mnras/259.3.413

    Sutherland, W., & Saunders, W. 1992, MNRAS, 259, 413, doi: 10.1093/mnras/259.3.413

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/259.3.413 1992

  39. [39]

    Taylor, M. B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV, ed. P. Shopbell, M. Britton, & R. Ebert, 29

    work page 2005