pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.24444 · v1 · pith:XX4TKYXVnew · submitted 2026-06-23 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Statistical Properties of Molecular Clouds in the Milky Way: Insights from Three-Isotopologue CO Observations of the MWISP Project

Xin Zhou , Ji Yang , Qing-Zeng Yan , Yan Sun , Lixia Yuan , Yang Su , Xuepeng Chen , Shaobo Zhang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 23:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords molecular cloudsMilky WayCO isotopologuesturbulencegravitystar formationscaling relationsMWISP survey
0
0 comments X

The pith

Molecular clouds have turbulent 12CO outer layers not tied to star formation, while C18O cores are gravity-dominated.

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

The paper uses simultaneous observations of three CO isotopologues across thousands of Milky Way molecular clouds to map how physical conditions change from outer to inner layers. It establishes that 12CO traces diffuse, turbulent gas in the outer parts that does not directly feed star formation. The 13CO emission marks a transition where gravity starts to dominate the dynamics, and C18O traces the innermost regions that are already gravity-dominated. The analysis draws on a carefully selected sample of over three thousand well-resolved clouds to quantify shapes, velocities, masses, and scaling relations while accounting for distance effects. This layered picture emerges from comparing the same clouds seen in each tracer and from examining how parameters correlate across the population.

Core claim

A comparison across tracers reveals that typical MCs have a turbulent, diffuse, 12CO-bright gas structure in their outer layers that does not contribute directly to star formation. In contrast, 13CO-bright gas represents a turning point where gravity becomes significant; C18O-bright gas is about gravity-dominated.

What carries the argument

The three-isotopologue comparison that separates turbulent outer gas, transitional gas, and gravity-dominated inner gas within the same molecular clouds.

If this is right

  • Star formation is concentrated in the gravity-dominated C18O-bright gas rather than the full cloud volume.
  • 12CO-only structures are small, young clouds that inherit turbulence from the surrounding diffuse medium.
  • The velocity-size relation is flatter than the classic Larson relation, and mass-size relations are strong.
  • Most observed cloud parameters can be estimated from a minimal set of eigenparameters linked by underlying scaling relations.
  • MCs are typically oblate and aligned with the Galactic plane, with distinct properties in spiral arms versus interarm regions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Star-formation prescriptions in simulations could be refined by weighting gas according to which isotopologue it emits in rather than using whole-cloud averages.
  • The 13CO transition point offers a potential observational marker for identifying clouds that are about to collapse.
  • If the layering pattern holds in other galaxies, multi-tracer maps could separate feedback-dominated envelopes from collapsing cores at extragalactic distances.
  • The finding that supra-Larson dispersion clouds are mostly small and young suggests an evolutionary pathway from diffuse turbulent gas to more bound structures.

Load-bearing premise

The sample of 3161 well-resolved clouds accurately represents typical cloud properties without major unaccounted biases from distance selection or standard conversion methods.

What would settle it

Detection of widespread star formation in clouds visible only in 12CO but absent in 13CO and C18O, or absence of gravitational signatures such as bound motions in C18O-bright regions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.24444 by Ji Yang, Lixia Yuan, Qing-Zeng Yan, Shaobo Zhang, Xin Zhou, Xuepeng Chen, Yang Su, Yan Sun.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Flowchart illustrating the method for constructing MC samples. σv( 12CO, 13CO) greater than the corresponding spectral resolutions; (4) 13CO average integrated intensity W( 13CO) ≥ 3σ and 13CO peak temperature of average spectrum T peak( 13CO) ≥ 3σ; and (5) for parameters related to C18O emission, C18O angular area A(C18O) greater than the squared beamwidth ≈ 0.72 arcmin2 , C18O velocity dispersion σv(C18O… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: 12CO (J=1–0) integrated intensity map, along with corresponding Galactic longitude-velocity (l-v) map, for the G120 (left) and G50 (right) regions. The MCs studied here are overlaid in color, with each cloud shown by a distinct random color. The data were initially moment-masked (see Dame 2011, for reference) to suppress noise while integrating over large velocity ranges. The minimum values of the maps are… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Distribution of observational parameters of identified MCs. We select eight observational param￾eters to show as examples. These parameters are Vspan, θ( 12CO), lmaj, ang( 12CO), R2( 13CO), lmin, ang( 13CO), W( 12CO), Tpeak( 13CO), and Wpeak( 13CO). The histograms for the overall MC sample without MCs possibly in the G120 spiral-shock region are shown by black solid lines and are fitted with a Gaussian fun… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Schematic view of the MC structure, illustrated with typical parameter values estimated using 12CO, 13CO, and C18O (J=1–0) lines. The size of each parameter sign indicates the magnitude of its typical value. Color depth indicates H2 number density (n), thick arrows indicate pressure (P), and circular arrows indicate turbulence (∆v). The actual 13CO- and C18O-bright regions are smaller than shown in the sch… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Correlation matrix of different observational (left) and derived physical (right) pa￾rameters of MCs. The observational parameters corresponding to indexes 0 through 30 are 0: log Vspan, (1: R2, 2: θ, 3: e, 4: log lmax, ang) for 12CO, (5: R2, 6: θ, 7: e, 8: log lmaj, ang) for 13CO, (9: R2, 10: θ, 11: e, 12: log lmaj, ang) for C18O, 13&14&15: log σv( 12CO, 13CO, C18O), 16&17&18: log W( 12CO, 13CO, C18O), 19… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Histogram of radius (left), radius-velocity dispersion relation (middle), and radius–mass relation (right) for well-resolved MWISP clouds (12CO, 13CO, and C18O J=1–0), overlaid with those of well-resolved clouds from other literature catalogs. These include GRS (13CO J=1–0; Rathborne et al. 2009; Roman￾Duval et al. 2009, 2010), CfA-Chile (12CO J=1–0; Rice et al. 2016), COHRS (12CO J=3–2; Colombo et al. 201… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Fitting results of various observational parameters as a linear function of six selected obser￾vational eigenparameters. The observational eigenparameters are log Vspan, R2( 13CO), log lmaj, ang( 13CO), log Tpeak( 13CO), log Tpeak(C18O), and log T peak(C18O). These parameters are in log form, so the fit is equiv￾alent to a power-law fit to the original parameters, except for the morphological parameters (R… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a comprehensive statistical analysis of molecular cloud (MC) properties using the MWISP survey's 12CO, 13CO, and C18O (J = 1--0) data toward the inner (l = 45$^\circ$--60$^\circ$) and outer (l = 120$^\circ$--130$^\circ$) Galaxy. From a strict selection of 24,724 identified MCs, a final sample of 3,161 well-resolved MCs is established. We investigate the distributions of observational, morphological, and derived physical parameters, as well as their environmental dependencies and intercorrelations. Our analysis reveals that MCs are typically oblate and tend to align with the Galactic disk. A critical evaluation using a nearby subsample confirms significant distance-dependent selection effects for some parameters, nevertheless, the direction of changes in these parameters can indicate distance influence. We also examine several specific subsamples, revealing the distinct characteristics of MCs in the G120 spiral shock region, MCs in the G50 interarm spurs, C18O-bright MCs, and MCs with supra-Larson velocity dispersion. For instance, MCs with supra-Larson velocity dispersion are predominantly small and likely young clouds inheriting turbulence from the diffuse ISM. Notably, a comparison across tracers reveals that typical MCs have a turbulent, diffuse, 12CO-bright gas structure in their outer layers that does not contribute directly to star formation. In contrast, 13CO-bright gas represents a turning point where gravity becomes significant; C18O-bright gas is about gravity-dominated. Comprehensive correlation analysis confirms a flatter $\sigma_v$-size relation than classic Larson's law and a strong mass-size relation. Incorporating dimensional analysis, we derive minimal sets of eigenparameters from which most other observational and physical parameters can be estimated. This highlights the underlying scaling relations that governing cloud properties.

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 analyzes statistical properties of 3,161 well-resolved molecular clouds identified from MWISP 12CO, 13CO, and C18O (J=1-0) data in two Galactic longitude ranges. It reports distributions of observational and physical parameters, environmental dependencies, subsample differences (e.g., G120, G50, C18O-bright, supra-Larson), a tracer-dependent structural interpretation (12CO tracing turbulent non-star-forming envelopes, 13CO as gravity turning point, C18O as gravity-dominated), a flatter σ_v-size relation than Larson's law, a strong mass-size relation, and derivation of eigenparameters via dimensional analysis from which other quantities can be estimated.

Significance. If the central claims hold after addressing selection biases, the work offers a large-sample, multi-isotopologue observational framework for layered MC structure and the transition to gravity dominance, with direct relevance to star-formation models. Strengths include the scale of the sample, explicit subsample checks, and the eigenparameter approach that reduces the parameter space via scaling relations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sample selection and distance-effects evaluation] The description of the final 3,161-MC sample (selected from 24,724 via a strict resolution cut) and the nearby-subsample check for distance-dependent selection effects: these effects are load-bearing for the tracer-comparison claim, because the cut may preferentially retain clouds bright in multiple lines or alter apparent sizes/masses differently per isotopologue, risking an artifactual 'turning point' at 13CO rather than an intrinsic structural transition.
  2. [Tracer comparison and physical-parameter derivation] The interpretation that 13CO marks the onset of gravity significance and C18O is gravity-dominated (abstract and results sections): this rests on derived sizes, masses, and velocity dispersions whose accuracy depends on standard conversion factors and cloud-identification methods that are not shown to be unbiased across tracers or distances.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states MCs are 'typically oblate and tend to align with the Galactic disk' without specifying the quantitative criteria or measurement method used for axis ratios and orientation.
  2. [Eigenparameter section] The eigenparameter derivation via dimensional analysis is presented as yielding 'minimal sets' from which most parameters can be estimated, but the exact procedure, the number of retained eigenparameters, and the fraction of variance explained are not quantified in the provided summary.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. The two major comments raise valid points about potential selection effects and the robustness of physical parameter derivations. We address each below and outline revisions that will strengthen the manuscript without altering its core conclusions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Sample selection and distance-effects evaluation] The description of the final 3,161-MC sample (selected from 24,724 via a strict resolution cut) and the nearby-subsample check for distance-dependent selection effects: these effects are load-bearing for the tracer-comparison claim, because the cut may preferentially retain clouds bright in multiple lines or alter apparent sizes/masses differently per isotopologue, risking an artifactual 'turning point' at 13CO rather than an intrinsic structural transition.

    Authors: We agree that the resolution cut and multi-tracer selection require careful scrutiny, as they are central to the tracer-comparison results. The manuscript already presents a nearby-subsample analysis that quantifies distance-dependent effects on several parameters. In revision we will expand this section with explicit statistics on the fraction of clouds detected in one, two, or three isotopologues in both the full and nearby samples, and we will tabulate how the resolution cut changes the apparent size and mass distributions per tracer. These additions will directly test whether the observed transition at 13CO could arise from selection rather than intrinsic structure. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Tracer comparison and physical-parameter derivation] The interpretation that 13CO marks the onset of gravity significance and C18O is gravity-dominated (abstract and results sections): this rests on derived sizes, masses, and velocity dispersions whose accuracy depends on standard conversion factors and cloud-identification methods that are not shown to be unbiased across tracers or distances.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the structural interpretation rests on standard X-factor conversions and the cloud-finding algorithm, neither of which has been exhaustively validated for isotopologue-to-isotopologue consistency in this work. The paper discusses the adopted factors and notes their uncertainties, but does not present dedicated bias tests across tracers. In revision we will add a short subsection that (i) summarizes the sensitivity of the reported size, mass, and σ_v values to plausible variations in the conversion factors and (ii) compares the eigenparameter results obtained with the fiducial versus alternative factor choices. We will also tone down the language in the abstract and conclusions to present the gravity-dominance sequence as an interpretation consistent with the data rather than a definitively proven transition. revision: partial

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Eigenparameters section uses data-derived quantities to 'estimate' the same inputs by construction

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "Incorporating dimensional analysis, we derive minimal sets of eigenparameters from which most other observational and physical parameters can be estimated. This highlights the underlying scaling relations that governing cloud properties."

    Eigenparameters are extracted from the correlations among the measured parameters (sizes, masses, velocity dispersions, etc.) of the same 3,161 clouds. Using those eigenparameters to estimate the original parameters is therefore tautological; the estimation step is the fit itself rather than an independent prediction.

full rationale

The paper's core results consist of direct statistical distributions, morphological properties, and tracer comparisons from the 3,161-MC sample. These are observational and not derived from prior fits. The sole load-bearing step that reduces to its inputs is the eigenparameters derivation via dimensional analysis on the observed intercorrelations; by construction such components reconstruct the input parameters. This is a minor, localized instance of fitted-input-called-prediction and does not propagate to the main claims. No self-citation chains, uniqueness theorems, or ansatz smuggling appear in the provided text. Distance-dependent selection is a potential bias concern but is not a circularity issue.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard domain assumptions in millimeter astronomy for cloud property derivation and the representativeness of the selected sample.

free parameters (1)
  • various scaling factors in mass and size derivations
    Physical parameters like mass are derived using standard conversion factors that may be adjusted.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Assumptions underlying the identification of molecular clouds from CO emission maps
    The strict selection of MCs relies on established but unstated criteria for cloud boundaries.
  • domain assumption Standard CO-to-H2 conversion factors and excitation assumptions
    Used to derive physical parameters from line intensities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5913 in / 1457 out tokens · 40439 ms · 2026-06-25T23:42:59.193663+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

73 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2026a, PASJ, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psag021 —

    Baba, J. 2026a, PASJ, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psag021 —. 2026b, PASJ, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psag045

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psag021

  2. [2]

    Prograde rotation of protoplanets by accretion of pebbles in a gaseous environment , ISSN=

    Ballesteros-Paredes, J., Hartmann, L. W., Vázquez-Semadeni, E., Heitsch, F., & Zamora-A vilés, M. A. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 65, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17657.x Properties of MCs in the Milky W ay 25

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17657.x 2011

  3. [3]

    E., & Jackson, A

    Beaumont, C. N., Goodman, A. A., Alves, J. F., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 2579, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21061.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21061.x 2012

  4. [4]

    and Wolfire, Mark and Leroy, Adam K

    Bolatto, A. D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A. K. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 207, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944 2013

  5. [5]

    G., Blackwell, R., et al

    Braiding, C., Burton, M. G., Blackwell, R., et al. 2015, PASA, 32, e020, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2015.20

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2015.20 2015

  6. [6]

    F., Maxted, N

    Braiding, C., Wong, G. F., Maxted, N. I., et al. 2018, PASA, 35, e029, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2018.18

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2018.18 2018

  7. [7]

    1993, A&A, 275, 67

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

    1993

  8. [8]

    1914, Physical Review, 4, 345, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.4.345

    Buckingham, E. 1914, Physical Review, 4, 345, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.4.345

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.4.345 1914

  9. [9]

    G., Braiding, C., Glueck, C., et al

    Burton, M. G., Braiding, C., Glueck, C., et al. 2013, PASA, 30, e044, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2013.22

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2013.22 2013

  10. [10]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0cf8

    Alves, J. 2024, ApJ, 961, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0cf8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0cf8 2024

  11. [11]

    Caselli, P., & Myers, P. C. 1995, ApJ, 446, 665, doi: 10.1086/175825

    work page doi:10.1086/175825 1995

  12. [12]

    D., Jaffa, S

    Clarke, S. D., Jaffa, S. E., & Whitworth, A. P. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 2782, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2318

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2318 2022

  13. [13]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 4291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3283

    Colombo, D., Rosolowsky, E., Duarte-Cabral, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3283

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3283 2019

  14. [14]

    Crutcher, R. M. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 29, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125514

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

  15. [15]

    O., Burton, M

    Cubuk, K. O., Burton, M. G., Braiding, C., et al. 2023, PASA, 40, e047, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2023.44

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2023.44 2023

  16. [16]

    Dame, T. M. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1101.1499. https://arxiv.org/abs/1101.1499

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  17. [17]

    M., Hartmann, D., & Thaddeus, P

    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

  18. [18]

    M., & Thaddeus, P

    Dame, T. M., & Thaddeus, P. 2022, ApJS, 262, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7e53

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac7e53 2022

  19. [19]

    D., et al

    Deharveng, L., Schuller, F., Anderson, L. D., et al. 2010, A&A, 523, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014422

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014422 2010

  20. [20]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2480 , archivePrefix =

    Duarte-Cabral, A., Colombo, D., Urquhart, J. S., et al. 2021, The SEDIGISM survey: molecular clouds in the inner Galaxy, OUP, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2480

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2480 2021

  21. [21]

    Beattie, J. R. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 365, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-01282-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-020-01282-z 2021

  22. [22]

    Fleck, Jr., R. C. 1996, ApJ, 458, 739, doi: 10.1086/176853

    work page doi:10.1086/176853 1996

  23. [23]

    M., Miyamoto, Y., et al

    Fujita, S., Ito, A. M., Miyamoto, Y., et al. 2023, PASJ, 75, 279, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psac104

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psac104 2023

  24. [24]

    2021, ApJ, 915, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abff4a

    Fukui, Y., Sano, H., Yamane, Y., et al. 2021, ApJ, 915, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abff4a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abff4a 2021

  25. [25]

    Gao, Y., & Solomon, P. M. 2004, ApJ, 606, 271, doi: 10.1086/382999

    work page doi:10.1086/382999 2004

  26. [26]

    Heyer, M., Krawczyk, C., Duval, J., & Jackson, J. M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 1092, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1092

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/2/1092 2009

  27. [27]

    H., Carpenter, J

    Heyer, M. H., Carpenter, J. M., & Snell, R. L. 2001, ApJ, 551, 852, doi: 10.1086/320218

    work page doi:10.1086/320218 2001

  28. [28]

    M., et al

    Huang, B., Wang, K., Girart, J. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc532

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc532 2023

  29. [29]

    2015, A&A, 580, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425584

    Hosokawa, T. 2015, A&A, 580, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425584

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425584 2015

  30. [30]

    M., Rathborne, J

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

    work page doi:10.1086/500091 2006

  31. [31]

    Howard, A. D. P. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1940, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty696

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty696 2018

  32. [32]

    2025, A&A, 701, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453608

    Jiao, S., Wu, J., Zhang, Z.-Y., et al. 2025, A&A, 701, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453608

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453608 2025

  33. [33]

    L., Evans, N

    Kauffmann, J., Bertoldi, F., Bourke, T. L., Evans, N. J., I., & Lee, C. W. 2008, A&A, 487, 993, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809481

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809481 2008

  34. [34]

    , keywords =

    Kohno, M., & Sofue, Y. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 9290, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3648

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3648 2024

  35. [35]

    ApJ , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Lada, C. J., Lombardi, M., & Alves, J. F. 2010, ApJ, 724, 687, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/687

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/724/1/687 2010

  36. [36]

    Larson, R. B. 1981, MNRAS, 194, 809, doi: 10.1093/mnras/194.4.809

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/194.4.809 1981

  37. [37]

    B., et al

    Li, S., Zhang, Q., Liu, H. B., et al. 2020, ApJ, 896, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab84f1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab84f1 2020

  38. [38]

    M., & Wolfendale, A

    MacLaren, I., Richardson, K. M., & Wolfendale, A. W. 1988, ApJ, 333, 821, doi: 10.1086/166791

    work page doi:10.1086/166791 1988

  39. [39]

    2004, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Mizuno, A., & Fukui, Y. 2004, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 317, Milky Way Surveys: The Structure and Evolution of our Galaxy, ed. D. Clemens, R. Shah, & T. Brainerd, 59

    2004

  40. [40]

    R., Colombo, D., Duarte-Cabral, A., et al

    Neralwar, K. R., Colombo, D., Duarte-Cabral, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142428

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142428 2022

  41. [41]

    J., Leroy, A

    Neumann, L., Jimenez-Donaire, M. J., Leroy, A. K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.10506, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.10506 26 Zhou et al

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.10506 2024

  42. [42]

    Y., & Simon, R

    Shah, R. Y., & Simon, R. 2009, ApJS, 182, 131, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/182/1/131

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/1/131 2009

  43. [43]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 77, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/77

    Brunthaler, A. 2016, ApJ, 823, 77, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/77

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/77 2016

  44. [44]

    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

  45. [45]

    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

  46. [46]

    J., Moore, T

    Rigby, A. J., Moore, T. J. T., Eden, D. J., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935236

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935236 2019

  47. [47]

    H., Gutermuth, R., Snell, R

    Ripple, F., Heyer, M. H., Gutermuth, R., Snell, R. L., & Brunt, C. M. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 1296

    2013

  48. [48]

    and Heyer, Mark and Johnson, Alexis and Rathborne, Jill and Shah, Ronak and Simon, Robert , number =

    Roman-Duval, J., Jackson, J. M., Heyer, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 699, 1153, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1153

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/2/1153 2009

  49. [49]

    2010, ApJ, 723, 492, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/492

    Rathborne, J., & Simon, R. 2010, ApJ, 723, 492, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/492

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/723/1/492 2010

  50. [50]

    E., & Jackson, A

    Kelly, B. C., & Klessen, R. S. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 720, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21588.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21588.x 2012

  51. [51]

    M., Clemens, D

    Simon, R., Jackson, J. M., Clemens, D. P., Bania, T. M., & Heyer, M. H. 2001, ApJ, 551, 747, doi: 10.1086/320230

    work page doi:10.1086/320230 2001

  52. [52]

    2023, Ap&SS, 368, 74, doi: 10.1007/s10509-023-04231-0

    Sofue, Y. 2023, Ap&SS, 368, 74, doi: 10.1007/s10509-023-04231-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s10509-023-04231-0 2023

  53. [53]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 1851, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2056

    Sofue, Y., & Kohno, M. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 1851, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2056

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2056 2020

  54. [54]

    E., et al

    Sokolov, V., Wang, K., Pineda, J. E., et al. 2018, A&A, 611, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832746

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832746 2018

  55. [55]

    , keywords =

    Yahil, A. 1987, ApJ, 319, 730, doi: 10.1086/165493

    work page doi:10.1086/165493 1987

  56. [56]

    A generator approach to stochastic monotonicity and propagation of order

    Solomon, P. M., & Vanden Bout, P. A. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 677, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.051804.102221

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.43.051804.102221 2005

  57. [57]

    2021, ApJ, 910, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe5ab

    Su, Y., Yang, J., Yan, Q.-Z., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe5ab

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe5ab 2021

  58. [58]

    2020, ApJS, 246, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab5b97

    Sun, Y., Yang, J., Xu, Y., et al. 2020, ApJS, 246, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab5b97

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab5b97 2020

  59. [59]

    2024a, ApJS, 275, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad8237

    Sun, Y., Yang, J., Yan, Q.-Z., et al. 2024a, ApJS, 275, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad8237

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad8237

  60. [60]

    2024b, MNRAS, 527, 8151, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3643

    Sun, Y., Zhang, Z.-Y., Wang, J., et al. 2024b, MNRAS, 527, 8151, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3643

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3643

  61. [61]

    2019, PASJ, 71, S2, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz033

    Torii, K., Fujita, S., Nishimura, A., et al. 2019, PASJ, 71, S2, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz033

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psz033 2019

  62. [62]

    doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx061

    Umemoto, T., Minamidani, T., Kuno, N., et al. 2017, PASJ, 69, 78, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx061 Vázquez-Semadeni, E., Ballesteros-Paredes, J., & Rodríguez, L. F. 1997, ApJ, 474, 292, doi: 10.1086/303432

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psx061 2017

  63. [63]

    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

  64. [64]

    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

  65. [65]

    2025, ApJ, 989, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade98f

    Yuan, L., & Yang, J. 2025, ApJ, 989, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade98f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade98f 2025

  66. [66]

    2021, ApJS, 257, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac242a

    Yuan, L., Yang, J., Du, F., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac242a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac242a 2021

  67. [67]

    2024, AJ, 167, 207, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad323a

    Yuan, L., Yang, J., Chen, X., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 207, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad323a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad323a 2024

  68. [68]

    2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 024, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/1/24

    Yue, N.-N., Li, D., Zhang, Q.-Z., et al. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 024, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/1/24

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/21/1/24 2021

  69. [69]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 4, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/833/1/4

    Zhou, X., Yang, J., Fang, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 4, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/833/1/4

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/833/1/4 2016

  70. [70]

    2025, AJ, 170, 239, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adfe68

    Zhou, X., Yang, J., Sun, Y., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 239, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adfe68

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adfe68 2025

  71. [71]

    2026, Molecular Cloud Properties in the Galactic Longitude 45 ◦–60◦and 120 ◦–130◦revealed by

    Zhou, X., Yang, J., Yan, Q.-Z., et al. 2026, Molecular Cloud Properties in the Galactic Longitude 45 ◦–60◦and 120 ◦–130◦revealed by

    2026

  72. [72]

    MWISP, V1, Science Data Bank, doi: 10.57760/sciencedb.32354

    work page doi:10.57760/sciencedb.32354

  73. [73]

    A., Alves, J., et al

    Zucker, C., Goodman, A. A., Alves, J., et al. 2022, Nature, 601, 334, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04286-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04286-5 2022