pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.02028 · v3 · pith:D7BS4MDBnew · submitted 2026-06-01 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

A study of the Physical Properties and Star Formation Activity of a Large Sample of Molecular Clouds: I Distances

Juan Mei , Min Fang , Miaomiao Zhang , Qing-Zeng Yan , Lixia Yuan , Xuepeng Chen , Zhiwei Chen , Yang Su
show 3 more authors
Shiyu Zhang Zhibo Jiang Ji Yang
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 14:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords molecular cloudsdistancesCO surveydust extinctionGaiastar formationMilky Wayphysical properties
0
0 comments X

The pith

Matching CO intensity maps to 3D dust extinction maps yields distances for 1573 molecular clouds.

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

The paper develops three independent methods that align velocity-integrated 12CO intensity maps from the MWISP survey with three-dimensional dust extinction maps built from Gaia, Pan-STARRS 1, and 2MASS data. These alignments produce a catalog of 1573 molecular clouds whose distances span roughly 150 to 3000 parsecs. Ninety percent of the distances are reported for the first time, carrying typical statistical uncertainties near 20 percent and systematic uncertainties near 10 percent. The work also computes cloud masses and sizes from the new distances, supplying a public resource for examining star formation and Galactic structure.

Core claim

We propose three independent methods, all of which match the molecular cloud's velocity-integrated intensity maps of 12CO lines from the MWISP with the three-dimensional dust extinction maps derived from Gaia, Pan-STARRS 1, and 2MASS, to determine molecular cloud distances. We present a catalog of 1,573 molecular clouds with robust distances ranging from approximately 150 pc to 3000 pc, 90 percent of which are measured for the first time, with typical statistical and systematic uncertainties of approximately 20% and 10%, respectively. We also derive their physical properties, such as their mass and sizes.

What carries the argument

Matching velocity-integrated 12CO intensity maps to three-dimensional dust extinction maps from Gaia, Pan-STARRS 1, and 2MASS.

If this is right

  • Masses and sizes can be computed for each of the 1573 clouds once distances are assigned.
  • The catalog supplies a data set for testing molecular cloud scaling relations.
  • Cloud conditions can be compared to star formation activity across different Galactic locations.
  • The distances support mapping of Galactic spiral structure.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same matching approach could be tested on other large CO surveys to expand the sample.
  • Future Gaia data releases might reduce the statistical uncertainties below the current 20 percent level.
  • If distances prove consistent with other tracers, the catalog could anchor comparisons between molecular gas and young stellar populations.

Load-bearing premise

The CO emission structures line up with the dust extinction features closely enough that overlaps along the line of sight and differences between gas and dust distributions do not create large distance errors.

What would settle it

A large fraction of the clouds showing distances that disagree with independent checks such as stellar parallax measurements or kinematic distances from other gas tracers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.02028 by Ji Yang, Juan Mei, Lixia Yuan, Miaomiao Zhang, Min Fang, Qing-Zeng Yan, Shiyu Zhang, Xuepeng Chen, Yang Su, Zhibo Jiang, Zhiwei Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The left panel shows selected on-cloud stars (green) and boundary-adjacent off-cloud stars (yellow) for MWISP G211.613+02.405+007.49. The red, purple, and black contours mark the cloud boundary, and its first and second extrapolated boundaries. The right panel displays the distributions of AV vs. distance for the corresponding stellar populations. To implement this approach, we first define two stellar sam… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left panel: KS test statistic (blue) and corresponding p-value (red) as functions of distance in the initial optimization. The convergence of minimum KS statistic and maximum p-value identifies a distance (black) with uncertainty, corresponding to a 3σ confidence region (gray box) used to constrain subsequent parameter refinement. Right panel: Ensemble analysis of 100 independent Monte Carlo repetitions pe… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Distance of MWISP G211.613+02.405+007.49 based on statistical analysis of extinction-distance distributions. (a) Extinction map corresponding to ±20% of the measured cloud distance. (b) The 12CO integrated intensity map of the cloud. The maps in (a) and (b) are presented at a 2′ resolution, with the red contour tracing the cloud boundary identified from the 12CO emission. (c) The extinction-distance distri… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left panel: The extinction–distance modulus relation along the example sightline. The extinction profile is inter￾polated (orange), differentiated (green), smoothed (blue), and fitted with a multi-Gaussian model (red). Right panel: K-means clustering results. Points represent the fitted Gaussian components, colored by cluster label. We then group these components to identify coherent structures. We apply t… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Reconstructed extinction maps from K-means clustering results and their Pearson correlation with 12CO integrated intensity maps. Columns 1 and 3 display the reconstructed dust extinction maps. Columns 2 and 4 show the corresponding maps of the Pearson correlation between AV and WCO at the resultant distance for each cluster derived from the K-means clustering. The result marked with a red frame exhibits mo… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distance of MWISP G211.613+02.405+007.49 based on the AV vs. WCO Pearson correlation from distance-sliced dust map. Panels (a), (b), and (d) are identical to those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Histogram of distances (left) and Venn diagram (right) for cataloged molecular clouds measured by three independent methods. Colors distinguish the methods: statistical (red), morphological match (blue), distance-sliced (green). Vertical dashed lines in the histogram indicate the median distance for each method, and numbers in the Venn diagram segments show the count of clouds identified by the correspondi… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Angular area distribution of molecular clouds, with the top panel showing the number of all clouds and the bottom panel showing the fraction of clouds with distance measurements. 4.1.1. Comparison of the three distance estimation methods To evaluate the robustness of our results, we cross-compare the distances derived from the three independent tech￾niques: the statistical KS test (DKStest), the K-means cl… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of molecular cloud distances derived using three independent methods in this work: statistical method based on extinction–distance distribution differences (DKStest), morphological matching method (DKmeans), and correlation analysis of distance-sliced dust maps (DCorrelation). The top and bottom rows show pairwise comparisons and their corresponding difference plots, respectively: (a, d) DKStest… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of molecular cloud distances from this work with previous results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: compares our distance estimates with kinematic distances derived using the Galactic rotation curve model (A5) from M. J. Reid et al. (2014) and its updated version from M. J. Reid et al. (2019), as shown in panels (a) and (b). For this comparison, we adopt the “near” kinematic distance solution from the M. J. Reid et al. (2019) model. While a general linear correlation is evident, the data exhibit signifi… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The l–b distribution of molecular clouds cataloged in this work. The background is the integrated intensity map of 12CO emission. Colored contours outline the boundaries of the clouds identified in this study, where the color scale indicates the distance to each cloud. The top, middle, and bottom panels show clouds in the Galactic longitude ranges of 9.75◦ –90◦ , 80◦ –160◦ , and 150◦ –229.75◦ , respective… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The spatial distribution of the molecular clouds identified in the current work (red hollow circles), Q.-Z. Yan et al. (2021, yellow) and C. Zucker et al. (2020, green) in the Galactic coordinates. The background is an extinction map from J. L. Vergely et al. (2022) of the Galactic dust of disc vertical height |Z| < 0.4 kpc. The Cygnus (S. Zhang et al. 2024, 2025), Aquila Rift (Y. Su et al. 2020), and Mon… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The histogram distributions of the physical properties, including linear radii (left) and masses (right) of our cataloged molecular clouds. The colored vertical dashed lines are median values. dpac/consortium). Funding for the DPAC has been provided by national institutions, in particular the institutions participating in the Gaia Multilateral Agreement. Facilities: PMO 13.7 m, Science Data Bank (ScienceD… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Accurate distances to molecular clouds are crucial for determining their physical properties, understanding star formation, and tracing Galactic spiral structure. A number of 103,517 molecular clouds has been identified by the DBSCAN algorithm in the MWISP Phase I CO survey (l = 9.75-229.75 deg, |b| <= 5.25 deg), most of which lack reliable distances. In this work, we propose three independent methods, all of which match the molecular cloud's velocity-integrated intensity maps of 12CO lines from the MWISP with the three-dimensional dust extinction maps derived from Gaia, Pan-STARRS 1, and 2MASS, to determine molecular cloud distances. We present a catalog of 1,573 molecular clouds with robust distances ranging from approximately 150 pc to 3000 pc, 90 percent of which are measured for the first time, with typical statistical and systematic uncertainties of approximately 20% and 10%, respectively. We also derive their physical properties, such as their mass and sizes. This publicly available catalog of molecular clouds with distances provides a foundation for testing molecular cloud scaling relations and probing how cloud conditions influence star formation across diverse Galactic environments.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript identifies 103,517 molecular clouds via DBSCAN in the MWISP Phase I 12CO survey (l=9.75–229.75°, |b|≤5.25°) and develops three independent methods that match each cloud's velocity-integrated 12CO intensity map against 3D dust extinction cubes from Gaia, Pan-STARRS 1, and 2MASS to assign distances. It delivers a catalog of 1,573 clouds (90 % new) spanning ~150–3000 pc with quoted typical uncertainties of 20 % statistical and 10 % systematic, plus derived masses and sizes.

Significance. A vetted catalog of this size with homogeneous distances would enable statistical tests of cloud scaling relations and environment-dependent star formation across a wide Galactic baseline. The multi-survey matching approach and public release are constructive; however, the result's utility hinges on whether the matching procedure demonstrably recovers correct distances amid line-of-sight overlaps.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the assertion that the three methods yield 'robust distances' with 20 % / 10 % uncertainties is unsupported by any reported validation (recovery tests on synthetic multi-layer sightlines, comparison to parallax or kinematic distances for a control sample, or quantitative assessment of projection coincidences).
  2. [Abstract] Abstract / Methods description: velocity-integrated maps discard the PPV information used in the original DBSCAN cloud identification; no test is described that quantifies the fraction of sightlines where multiple extinction layers or velocity-crowded components produce ambiguous matches.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract: the one-to-one spatial correspondence between integrated CO morphology and a single dust feature is assumed without demonstrated safeguards against differential gas-dust distributions or chance alignments in the crowded inner Galaxy strip.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that physical properties (mass, size) are derived but does not specify the adopted CO-to-H2 conversion factor or how distance uncertainty propagates into those quantities.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional validation and clarifications.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the assertion that the three methods yield 'robust distances' with 20 % / 10 % uncertainties is unsupported by any reported validation (recovery tests on synthetic multi-layer sightlines, comparison to parallax or kinematic distances for a control sample, or quantitative assessment of projection coincidences).

    Authors: We agree that the abstract claim requires explicit supporting validation. The revised manuscript adds a dedicated validation section presenting recovery tests on synthetic multi-layer sightlines, direct comparisons to Gaia parallax distances for a control sample, and a quantitative assessment of projection coincidences. These tests underpin the quoted statistical and systematic uncertainties. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract / Methods description: velocity-integrated maps discard the PPV information used in the original DBSCAN cloud identification; no test is described that quantifies the fraction of sightlines where multiple extinction layers or velocity-crowded components produce ambiguous matches.

    Authors: DBSCAN was performed in full PPV space to isolate velocity-coherent structures; the integrated maps are used only for spatial matching to the velocity-unresolved extinction cubes. The revision adds a quantitative test that measures the fraction of sightlines showing multiple extinction layers or velocity crowding and evaluates the resulting ambiguity rate against the original PPV cubes. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the one-to-one spatial correspondence between integrated CO morphology and a single dust feature is assumed without demonstrated safeguards against differential gas-dust distributions or chance alignments in the crowded inner Galaxy strip.

    Authors: The three independent dust surveys already provide cross-validation against chance alignments. The revision adds explicit discussion of differential gas-dust effects and inner-Galaxy crowding, together with quantitative checks that require consistency across the three methods and flag potential ambiguous cases. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; distances from external map matching

full rationale

The derivation assigns distances by matching integrated 12CO maps to independent 3D extinction cubes from Gaia/Pan-STARRS/2MASS. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are shown that reduce the output distances or catalog to the input cloud properties by construction. The method is presented as observational cross-matching, and the subsequent physical properties follow directly from those distances without load-bearing internal loops.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that dust extinction maps can be reliably matched to CO maps for distance estimation; no free parameters or invented entities are identifiable from the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Three-dimensional dust extinction maps from Gaia, Pan-STARRS 1, and 2MASS accurately trace the spatial distribution of material associated with the identified molecular clouds.
    The distance determination method depends on this correspondence holding for the matching procedure to yield correct distances.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5784 in / 1356 out tokens · 36775 ms · 2026-06-28T14:04:26.623156+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

48 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Anders, F., Khalatyan, A., Queiroz, A. B. A., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142369 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

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

  2. [2]

    2013, ApJ, 768, 132, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/132

    Bauermeister, A., Blitz, L., Bolatto, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 132, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/132

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/768/2/132 2013

  3. [3]

    Blitz, L., & Williams, J. P. 1999, in NATO Advanced Study Institute (ASI) Series C, Vol. 540, The Origin of Stars and Planetary Systems, ed. C. J. Lada & N. D. Kylafis, 3

    1999

  4. [4]

    1993, A&A, 275, 67

    Brand, J., & Blitz, L. 1993, A&A, 275, 67

    1993

  5. [5]

    J., Luri, X., et al

    Castro-Ginard, A., McMillan, P. J., Luri, X., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A162, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039751

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039751 2021

  6. [6]

    M., Laha, R

    Chakravarti, I. M., Laha, R. G., & Roy, J. 1967, Handbook of Methods of Applied Statistics, Volume 1: Techniques of Computation (New York: John Wiley & Sons)

    1967

  7. [7]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 4637, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1827

    Chen, B., Wang, S., Hou, L., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 4637, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1827

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1827 2020

  8. [8]

    Q., Huang, Y., Hou, L

    Chen, B. Q., Huang, Y., Hou, L. G., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 1400, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1357

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1357 2019

  9. [9]

    Q., Li, G

    Chen, B. Q., Li, G. X., Yuan, H. B., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 351, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa235

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa235 2020

  10. [10]

    The Milky Way in Molecular Clouds: A New Complete CO Survey

    Dame, T. M., Hartmann, D., & Thaddeus, P. 2001, ApJ, 547, 792, doi: 10.1086/318388

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/318388 2001

  11. [11]

    Summary of the contents and survey properties

    Ester, M., Kriegel, H.-P., Sander, J., & Xu, X. 1996, in Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD’96). Proceedings of a conference held August 2-4, 226–331 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039657 1996

  12. [12]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    Finkbeiner, D. 2019, ApJ, 887, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362 2019

  13. [13]

    L., Chen, B

    Guo, H. L., Chen, B. Q., & Liu, X. W. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2302, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac213

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac213 2022

  14. [14]

    L., Chen, B

    Guo, H. L., Chen, B. Q., Yuan, H. B., et al. 2021, ApJ, 906, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc68a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc68a 2021

  15. [15]

    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 18

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

  16. [16]

    Heyer, M., & Dame, T. M. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 583, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122324

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122324 2015

  17. [17]

    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

  18. [18]

    C., & Evans, N

    Kennicutt, R. C., & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610 2012

  19. [19]

    L., et al

    Lallement, R., Babusiaux, C., Vergely, J. L., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834695

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834695 2019

  20. [20]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.05796, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2206.05796

    Marton, G., ´Abrah´ am, P., Rimoldini, L., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.05796, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2206.05796

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.05796 2022

  21. [21]

    Malicious User Experience Design Research for Cybersecurity

    McKee, C. F., & Ostriker, E. C. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 565, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110602

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110602 2007

  22. [22]

    2024, A&A, 685, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347952 Miville-Deschˆ enes, M.-A., Murray, N., & Lee, E

    Mei, J., Chen, Z., Jiang, Z., Zheng, S., & Feng, H. 2024, A&A, 685, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347952 Miville-Deschˆ enes, M.-A., Murray, N., & Lee, E. J. 2017, ApJ, 834, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/57

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347952 2024

  23. [23]

    Queiroz, A. B. A., Anders, F., Santiago, B. X., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 2556, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty330

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty330 2018

  24. [24]

    J., Menten, K

    Reid, M. J., Menten, K. M., Brunthaler, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 783, 130, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/130

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/783/2/130 2014

  25. [25]

    J., Menten, K

    Reid, M. J., Menten, K. M., Brunthaler, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a11

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a11 2019

  26. [26]

    S., Goodman, A

    Rice, T. S., Goodman, A. A., Bergin, E. A., Beaumont, C., & Dame, T. M. 2016, ApJ, 822, 52, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/52

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/822/1/52 2016

  27. [27]

    Russeil, D., Adami, C., & Georgelin, Y. M. 2007, A&A, 470, 161, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066051

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066051 2007

  28. [28]

    2019, ApJS, 240, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaf1c8

    Su, Y., Yang, J., Zhang, S., et al. 2019, ApJS, 240, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaf1c8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaf1c8 2019

  29. [29]

    2020, ApJ, 893, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7fff

    Su, Y., Yang, J., Yan, Q.-Z., et al. 2020, ApJ, 893, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7fff

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7fff 2020

  30. [30]

    2024, AJ, 168, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad7b2f

    Sun, M., Jiang, B., Guo, H., & Cui, W. 2024, AJ, 168, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad7b2f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad7b2f 2024

  31. [31]

    2021a, ApJS, 254, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abf929

    Sun, M., Jiang, B., Yuan, H., & Li, J. 2021a, ApJS, 254, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abf929

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abf929

  32. [32]

    2021b, ApJS, 256, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1601

    Sun, M., Jiang, B., Zhao, H., & Ren, Y. 2021b, ApJS, 256, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1601

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac1601

  33. [33]

    L., Lallement, R., & Cox, N

    Vergely, J. L., Lallement, R., & Cox, N. L. J. 2022, A&A, 664, A174, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243319

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243319 2022

  34. [34]

    2025a, ApJS, 280, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aded89

    Wang, T., Yuan, H., Chen, B., et al. 2025a, ApJS, 280, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aded89

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aded89

  35. [35]

    2025b, ApJS, 280, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adea39

    Wang, T., Yuan, H., Chen, B., et al. 2025b, ApJS, 280, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adea39

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/adea39

  36. [36]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7378

    Xie, Y.-H., Li, G.-X., & Chen, B.-Q. 2024, ApJ, 975, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7378

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7378 2024

  37. [37]

    2018, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 18, 146, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/18/12/146

    Xu, Y., Hou, L.-G., & Wu, Y.-W. 2018, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 18, 146, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/18/12/146

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/18/12/146 2018

  38. [38]

    J., Zheng, X

    Xu, Y., Reid, M. J., Zheng, X. W., & Menten, K. M. 2006, Science, 311, 54, doi: 10.1126/science.1120914

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1120914 2006

  39. [39]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9f9c

    Yan, Q.-Z., Yang, J., Su, Y., Sun, Y., & Wang, C. 2020, ApJ, 898, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9f9c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9f9c 2020

  40. [40]

    2021, ApJ, 922, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac214f

    Yan, Q.-Z., Yang, J., Su, Y., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac214f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac214f 2021

  41. [41]

    2019, ApJ, 885, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab458e

    Yan, Q.-Z., Yang, J., Sun, Y., Su, Y., & Xu, Y. 2019, ApJ, 885, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab458e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab458e 2019

  42. [42]

    2026, ApJS, 282, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae29e7

    Yang, J., Yan, Q.-Z., Su, Y., et al. 2026, ApJS, 282, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae29e7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae29e7 2026

  43. [43]

    , keywords =

    Zhang, M. 2023, ApJS, 265, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acc1e8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acc1e8 2023

  44. [44]

    2024, AJ, 167, 220, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad2fcb

    Zhang, S., Su, Y., Chen, X., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 220, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad2fcb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad2fcb 2024

  45. [45]

    2025, AJ, 170, 185, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adf49b

    Zhang, S., Su, Y., Chen, X., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 185, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adf49b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adf49b 2025

  46. [46]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 202, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3552

    Zhuang, Z., Su, Y., Zhang, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 202, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3552

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3552 2024

  47. [47]

    , keywords =

    Zucker, C., Speagle, J. S., Schlafly, E. F., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936145

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936145 2020

  48. [48]

    S., Schlafly, E

    Zucker, C., Speagle, J. S., Schlafly, E. F., et al. 2019, ApJ, 879, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2388

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2388 2019