pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.00976 · v1 · pith:E72IITW7new · submitted 2026-07-01 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

The Milky Way Atlas for Linear Filaments III: Giant filaments and magnetic fields as evidence of a bubbly Galactic disk

Naval K. Bhadari , Ke Wang , Shu-ichiro Inutsuka , Mingke Sun This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-02 08:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords Milky Way filamentsmagnetic field orientationsupernova bubblesGalactic disk structurepolarization observationsfilament formationsuper-Alfvenic regime
0
0 comments X

The pith

Giant Milky Way filaments lack strong alignment with the ambient magnetic field, favoring supernova-driven bubbles over magnetic dominance in disk structure.

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

The paper compares orientations of Milky Way linear filaments to the plane-of-sky magnetic field using ACT DR6 and Planck polarization data. It reports no strong preferential alignment between filaments and the field, even though the field itself aligns with the Galactic plane. Filament orientations instead show a bimodal pattern relative to the plane, with a clear perpendicular preference at heights beyond 90 pc from the midplane. These patterns are interpreted as evidence that magnetic forces play a subdominant role, consistent with filaments forming in supernova-driven shells. The work concludes that a face-on Milky Way would display a network of bubbles similar to JWST views of galaxies like M74.

Core claim

Large-scale B-fields do not dominate MWLF formation; instead the data favor a super-Alfvénic regime where magnetic forces are dynamically subdominant, as expected for filaments tied to supernova-driven shells, with the overall disk therefore structured as a network of bubbles when viewed face-on.

What carries the argument

Statistical comparison of filament and B-field position angles, with projection effects and significance quantified via Monte Carlo simulations of three-dimensional vector pairs.

If this is right

  • Magnetic forces are dynamically subdominant during giant filament formation.
  • Filaments far from the midplane align perpendicular to both the Galactic plane and the B-field.
  • Filaments near the midplane show a bimodal orientation distribution.
  • The Milky Way disk, viewed face-on, would appear as a network of supernova-driven bubbles.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar bubble networks should appear in face-on views of other spiral galaxies at comparable resolution.
  • The height-dependent orientation shift may trace the vertical reach of supernova feedback.
  • Local alignments inside individual shells could still exist even if global statistics show none.

Load-bearing premise

The Monte Carlo simulations of three-dimensional vector pairs correctly capture the true projection effects and any selection biases present in the filament catalog.

What would settle it

New polarization or kinematic data that demonstrate a statistically significant parallel alignment between the majority of filaments and the local B-field direction after identical projection corrections would falsify the no-preferential-alignment result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.00976 by Ke Wang, Mingke Sun, Naval K. Bhadari, Shu-ichiro Inutsuka.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Galactic distribution of Milky Way linear filaments overlaid on the ACT 220 GHz intensity map in the equatorial Mollweide projection. Red crosses mark filament centers from Wang et al. (2024), with black-box labels indicating filaments within ACT coverage (i.e., 20 MWLFs) and plain-text labels showing those outside the survey footprint. at higher angular resolution using ACT, and to assess whether these or… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparison between ACT and Planck-derived B-fields at 5′ resolution, showing B-field vector overlay on the ACT’s Stokes I map (left; I > 2000 µK) and alignment measure (AM; right), where AM = cos(2θ) and θ is the relative angle (0◦ -90◦ ) between the two pseudovectors. AM = +1 indicates perfect alignment, while AM = −1 indicates perpendicular orientation. Red vectors represent ACT 220 GHz (ACT–Planck coadd… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Plane-of-sky magnetic field morphology of the exemplary giant filament F4, as traced by ACT 220 GHz ob￾servations (white: 1.5 ≤ P/σP < 2; cyan: P/σP ≥ 2). The filament and background subregions are displayed along with the filament spine (white line) and associated clumps (lime circles). The background image is an RGB composite con￾structed from Herschel 250 (Red), 160 (Green), and 70 µm (Blue) emission. T… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: a) Comparison of filament orientations relative to the ambient B-field. Colored boxes show Monte Carlo weighted mean relative angles θF −θB (weights = 1/σ2 θB ), with error bars representing ±1σ from 1000 realizations. Color-coding indicates H2 column density. Red dots show background-corrected angles. Values indicate angles (top) and column density in 1020 cm−2 (bottom). Shaded regions highlight parallel … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Scatter plot matrix (corner plot) showing correlations among θFB,orig, θFB,corr, θFG, θBG, and Galactic latitude (|b|) for ACT (blue, 20 MWLFs) and Planck (red, 42 MWLFs). Diagonal panels show histograms with KDE. Lower panels display scatter points, 2D density contours, and best-fit linear trends (solid for ACT, dashed for Planck). Kendall’s τ (rank correlation coefficient) is reported for each dataset, w… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cumulative distribution functions of the relative angles θFB,orig, θFB,corr, θFG, and θBG derived from ACT and Planck observations. The dashed curves show the best among tested MC simulation models of projected relative angles for the corresponding intrinsic orientation ranges. KS test statistics for each data–simulation comparison are labelled. Alfv´en Mach number is defined as MA = v/vA, where v = √ 3σv … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) statistics comparing the observed angle distributions with simulated Monte Carlo models for ACT (left) and Planck (right). Colors indicate the magnitude of the KS statistic. Hatched cells denote models rejected at p < 0.05, and black boxes highlight the best-fitting models corresponding to the minimum KS values. KS statistics and their associated p-values are labeled in each cell. h… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Cumulative distribution functions of θFG (top) and θFB (bottom) for filaments with |z| ≤ 90 pc (blue) and |z| > 90 pc (red). Histograms (shaded) show the observed distributions. Dashed curves show the Monte Carlo models for bimodal and perpendicular cases (KS statistic and p-value in legend). The left column shows results for ACT (20 MWLFs), while the right column shows results for Planck (42 MWLFs). with … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Linear filamentary structures are fundamental constituents of the interstellar medium and play a central role in star formation. Their relative orientation with respect to the ambient magnetic field (B-field) provides key constraints on filament formation mechanisms. We investigate the relative orientation between Milky Way linear filaments (MWLFs) and the plane-of-sky B-field using polarization observations from the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT) DR6, complemented by Planck data. Filament orientations are compared with the local B-field and the Galactic plane, while projection effects and statistical significance are quantified using Monte Carlo simulations of vector pairs in three-dimensions. We find no strong preferential alignment between MWLFs and the ambient B-field. Although the B-field is preferentially aligned with the Galactic plane with relative angles $\theta_{\rm BG} \sim0-25\deg$, filament orientations exhibit a bimodal distribution, being either parallel or perpendicular to the plane ($\theta_{\rm FG} \sim0-15\deg$ and $\sim75-90\deg$). Filaments located far from the Galactic midplane ($|z|>90$ pc) preferentially show perpendicular alignment with both the plane and the B-field, whereas those near the midplane exhibit a bimodal orientation. These results indicate that large-scale B-fields do not dominate the formation of MWLFs and instead favor a super-Alfv\'enic regime in which magnetic forces are dynamically subdominant, as expected for filaments associated with supernova-driven shells. Overall, our findings suggest that a face-on view of the Milky Way would resemble nearby disk galaxies such as M74, as observed in JWST images, with its disk structured by a network of supernova-driven bubbles (i.e., a bubbly disk).

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 / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes orientations of Milky Way linear filaments (MWLFs) relative to the plane-of-sky B-field using ACT DR6 and Planck polarization data. Filament angles θ_FG and θ_FB are compared to the Galactic plane and local B-field, with projection effects and significance assessed via Monte Carlo simulations of 3D vector pairs. The authors report no strong preferential alignment between MWLFs and B-fields, a bimodal θ_FG distribution (parallel or perpendicular to the plane), z-dependent trends (|z|>90 pc filaments preferentially perpendicular), and conclude this favors a super-Alfvénic regime with supernova-driven bubbles structuring a bubbly Galactic disk.

Significance. If the statistical results hold, the findings provide useful constraints on filament formation in the ISM by indicating that large-scale B-fields are dynamically subdominant. Strengths include the use of public polarization datasets and Monte Carlo tests to address projection effects, which support reproducibility and allow direct comparison to observations of nearby galaxies like M74.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the Monte Carlo simulations of 3D vector pairs are load-bearing for the central claim of no strong preferential alignment and the reported z-dependent bimodality in θ_FB and θ_FG. The description does not specify whether the simulations condition on the observed |z| distribution of the MWLF catalog, the length-to-width selection function, or line-of-sight integration effects in the ACT/Planck maps; without this, the null distribution may be incorrect and the statistical significance of the no-alignment result cannot be evaluated.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: filament selection criteria, error propagation for the measured angles, and potential systematics in the bimodal bins (e.g., θ_FG ~0-15° and ~75-90°) are not described. These details are required to assess whether the reported distributions and |z| trends are robust or could arise from catalog construction choices.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful review and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to provide the requested details and clarifications.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the Monte Carlo simulations of 3D vector pairs are load-bearing for the central claim of no strong preferential alignment and the reported z-dependent bimodality in θ_FB and θ_FG. The description does not specify whether the simulations condition on the observed |z| distribution of the MWLF catalog, the length-to-width selection function, or line-of-sight integration effects in the ACT/Planck maps; without this, the null distribution may be incorrect and the statistical significance of the no-alignment result cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract provides only a high-level description and does not specify the conditioning details of the Monte Carlo simulations. In the revised manuscript we will update the abstract and add an explicit methods subsection describing that the simulations (i) draw random 3D vector pairs conditioned on the observed |z| distribution of the MWLF catalog, (ii) incorporate the length-to-width selection function by matching the simulated filament aspect ratios and lengths to the catalog, and (iii) account for line-of-sight integration by resampling polarization angles directly from the ACT DR6 and Planck maps at the observed filament positions. These additions will allow readers to evaluate the appropriateness of the null distribution and the reported statistical significance. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: filament selection criteria, error propagation for the measured angles, and potential systematics in the bimodal bins (e.g., θ_FG ~0-15° and ~75-90°) are not described. These details are required to assess whether the reported distributions and |z| trends are robust or could arise from catalog construction choices.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the abstract does not describe these elements. The filament selection criteria (linear structure identification with length and aspect-ratio cuts) and angle error propagation (standard propagation from filament position-angle fits and polarization uncertainties) are presented in Section 2 and Appendix A of the manuscript. To address potential systematics in the bimodal bins, we have performed additional robustness checks by varying bin edges and excluding filaments near selection boundaries; the bimodality and |z|-dependent trends persist. In the revision we will add a concise summary of the selection criteria, error treatment, and robustness tests to the abstract and expand the discussion in the main text. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper's central result—no strong preferential alignment between MWLFs and the B-field, favoring a super-Alfvénic bubbly-disk picture—is obtained by measuring observed angles θ_FB and θ_FG and comparing them directly to null distributions generated from Monte Carlo draws of random 3D vector pairs. This comparison is a standard statistical test and does not reduce any fitted parameter or self-citation to a renamed prediction. The filament catalog originates in prior papers of the series, but those works supply only the input positions and orientations; they do not furnish the alignment statistics, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes that would make the present conclusions circular by construction. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review based on abstract only; limited visibility into exact parameter choices or data cuts. The z=90 pc threshold and angle bins appear chosen to separate populations after inspection.

free parameters (2)
  • midplane distance threshold = 90 pc
    Separates near- and far-from-plane populations that show different alignment behaviors
  • parallel/perpendicular angle bins = 0-15 deg and 75-90 deg
    Defines the bimodal categories reported for filament-galactic plane angles
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Polarization data from ACT DR6 and Planck trace the plane-of-sky magnetic field direction without major contamination
    Standard assumption required to interpret observed angles as B-field orientations
  • domain assumption Identified linear filaments have well-defined orientations that can be compared to local B-field and galactic plane
    Required for the orientation statistics

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5864 in / 1524 out tokens · 52658 ms · 2026-07-02T08:46:37.660549+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

75 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2016, A&A, 590, A131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527674

    Abreu-Vicente, J., Ragan, S., Kainulainen, J., et al. 2016, A&A, 590, A131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527674

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527674 2016

  2. [2]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 2825, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz508 Andr´ e, P

    Alina, D., Ristorcelli, I., Montier, L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 2825, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz508 Andr´ e, P. 2017, Comptes Rendus Geoscience, 349, 187, doi: 10.1016/j.crte.2017.07.002 Andr´ e, P., Di Francesco, J., Ward-Thompson, D., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz508 2019

  3. [4]

    2011, A&A, 529, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116596 14N

    Arzoumanian, D., Andr´ e, P., Didelon, P., et al. 2011, A&A, 529, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116596 14N. K. Bhadari et al. T able 1.Derived Physical Parameters of Giant Filaments Traced by ACT Fil.l b d L z θFIfQfUfpfθB,fθFB,fIbQbUbpbθB,bθFB,bθFB,corrθFGθBGNH2,fσv,fMA,fMA,b ID (◦) (◦) (kpc)(pc) (pc) (◦) (µK) (µK) (µK) (◦) (◦) (µK) (µK) (µK) (◦) (◦) (◦)...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116596 2011

  4. [5]

    2022, A&A, 660, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141699 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Arzoumanian, D., Russeil, D., Zavagno, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141699 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Magnetic Fields of Milky W ay Linear Filaments17 Figure A4.Distribution of B-field relative angles in filament and clump regions. His...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141699 2022

  5. [6]

    2020, ApJ, 890, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab66b6

    Baug, T., Wang, K., Liu, T., et al. 2020, ApJ, 890, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab66b6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab66b6 2020

  6. [7]

    K., Dewangan, L

    Bhadari, N. K., Dewangan, L. K., Ojha, D. K., Pirogov, L. E., & Maity, A. K. 2022, ApJ, 930, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac65e9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac65e9 2022

  7. [8]

    K., Dewangan, L

    Bhadari, N. K., Dewangan, L. K., Pirogov, L. E., & Ojha, D. K. 2020, ApJ, 899, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba2c6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba2c6 2020

  8. [9]

    O., Chuss, D

    Butterfield, N. O., Chuss, D. T., Guerra, J. A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad12b9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad12b9 2024

  9. [10]

    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

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

  10. [11]

    Cho, J., & Vishniac, E. T. 2000, ApJ, 539, 273, doi: 10.1086/309213

    work page doi:10.1086/309213 2000

  11. [12]

    D., S´ anchez-Monge,´A., Williams, G

    Clarke, S. D., S´ anchez-Monge,´A., Williams, G. M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 3098, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3212

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3212 2023

  12. [13]

    Hubber, D. A. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 2489, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx637

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx637 2017

  13. [14]

    Corradi, R. L. M., Aznar, R., & Mampaso, A. 1998, MNRAS, 297, 617, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01532.x Coud´ e, S., Stephens, I. W., Myers, P. C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.25832, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.25832

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

  14. [15]

    Cox, N. L. J., Arzoumanian, D., Andr´ e, P., et al. 2016, A&A, 590, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527068

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527068 2016

  15. [16]

    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

  16. [17]

    2015, ApJ, 799, 64, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/64

    Fierlinger, K. 2015, ApJ, 799, 64, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/64

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/1/64 2015

  17. [18]

    Dobbs, C. L. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 844, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13939.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13939.x 2008

  18. [19]

    S., et al

    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

  19. [20]

    M., Ade, P

    Fissel, L. M., Ade, P. A. R., Angil` e, F. E., et al. 2016, ApJ, 824, 134, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/134

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/824/2/134 2016

  20. [21]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 3060, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae680

    Ge, W., Du, F., & Yuan, L. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 3060, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae680

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae680 2024

  21. [22]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4a76

    Ge, Y., & Wang, K. 2022, ApJS, 259, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4a76

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4a76 2022

  22. [23]

    2023, A&A, 675, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245784

    Ge, Y., Wang, K., Duarte-Cabral, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245784

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245784 2023

  23. [24]

    A., Alves, J., Beaumont, C

    Goodman, A. A., Alves, J., Beaumont, C. N., et al. 2014, ApJ, 797, 53, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/1/53 18N. K. Bhadari et al. Figure A5.Plane-of-sky magnetic-field morphology of filaments F1–F8 as traced by ACT observations at 220 GHz (white: 1.5≤P/σ P <2; cyan:P/σ P ≥2). The background image is an RGB composite constructed fromHerschel250 (Red), 160 (Gre...

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/797/1/53 2014

  24. [25]

    Green, D. A. 2025, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 46, 14, doi: 10.1007/s12036-024-10038-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s12036-024-10038-4 2025

  25. [26]

    E., Hensley, B

    Guan, Y., Clark, S. E., Hensley, B. S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac133f Magnetic Fields of Milky W ay Linear Filaments19 Figure A6.Same as Figure A5, but for filaments F9–F15 and F23

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac133f 2021

  26. [27]

    E., Heitsch, F., et al

    Hacar, A., Clark, S. E., Heitsch, F., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 153, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09562

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.09562 2023

  27. [28]

    A., Runyan, M

    Harper, D. A., Runyan, M. C., Dowell, C. D., et al. 2018, Journal of Astronomical Instrumentation, 7, 1840008, doi: 10.1142/S2251171718400081 20N. K. Bhadari et al. Figure A7.Same as Figure A5, but for filaments F24, F25, F26, and F42

    work page doi:10.1142/s2251171718400081 2018

  28. [29]

    Harris and K

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

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

  29. [30]

    Hartmann, L., Ballesteros-Paredes, J., & Bergin, E. A. 2001, ApJ, 562, 852, doi: 10.1086/323863

    work page doi:10.1086/323863 2001

  30. [31]

    2019, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 5, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2019.00005

    Hennebelle, P., & Inutsuka, S.-i. 2019, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 5, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2019.00005

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2019.00005 2019

  31. [32]

    Hull, C. L. H., & Zhang, Q. 2019, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 3, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2019.00003

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2019.00003 2019

  32. [33]

    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

  33. [34]

    M., et al

    Hwang, J., Sanhueza, P., Girart, J. M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.25078, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.25078

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.25078 2025

  34. [35]

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

    Inutsuka, S.-i., Inoue, T., Iwasaki, K., & Hosokawa, T. 2015, A&A, 580, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425584

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

  35. [36]

    M., Finn, S

    Jackson, J. M., Finn, S. C., Chambers, E. T., Rathborne, J. M., & Simon, R. 2010, ApJL, 719, L185, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/719/2/L185

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/719/2/l185 2010

  36. [37]

    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

  37. [38]

    Joung, M. K. R., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2006, ApJ, 653, 1266, doi: 10.1086/508795

    work page doi:10.1086/508795 2006

  38. [39]

    A., & Mandel, E

    Joye, W. A., & Mandel, E. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 295, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XII, ed. H. E

    2003

  39. [40]

    Gravoturbulent Star Cluster Formation

    Klessen, R. S., Ballesteros-Paredes, J., Li, Y., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2004, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 322, The Formation and Evolution of Massive Young Star Clusters, ed. H. J. G. L. M. Lamers, L. J. Smith, & A. Nota, 299–308, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0403469

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0403469 2004

  40. [41]

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

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

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

  41. [42]

    2013, MNRAS, 436, 3707, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1849

    Li, H.-b., Fang, M., Henning, T., & Kainulainen, J. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 3707, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1849

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1849 2013

  42. [43]

    K., et al

    Li, H.-B., Goodman, A., Sridharan, T. K., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 101–123, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816531240-ch005

    work page doi:10.2458/azu 2014

  43. [44]

    S., McKee, C

    Li, P. S., McKee, C. F., Klein, R. I., & Fisher, R. T. 2008, ApJ, 684, 380, doi: 10.1086/589874

    work page doi:10.1086/589874 2008

  44. [45]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1395

    Lu, X., Liu, J., Pillai, T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1395

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1395 2024

  45. [46]

    2016, MNRAS, 460, 1934, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1061

    Malinen, J., Montier, L., Montillaud, J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1934, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1061

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1061 2016

  46. [47]

    A., Whitworth, A

    Marsh, K. A., Whitworth, A. P., & Lomax, O. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 4282, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2248

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2248 2015

  47. [48]

    A., Whitworth, A

    Marsh, K. A., Whitworth, A. P., Lomax, O., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 2730, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1723

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1723 2017

  48. [49]

    2010, A&A, 518, L100, doi: 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

  49. [50]

    Mouschovias, T. C. 1976, ApJ, 207, 141, doi: 10.1086/154478

    work page doi:10.1086/154478 1976

  50. [51]

    J., et al

    Naess, S., Guan, Y., Duivenvoorden, A. J., et al. 2025, JCAP, 2025, 061, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/061

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/061 2025

  51. [52]

    2008, ApJ, 687, 354, doi: 10.1086/591641

    Nakamura, F., & Li, Z.-Y. 2008, ApJ, 687, 354, doi: 10.1086/591641

    work page doi:10.1086/591641 2008

  52. [53]

    2004, ApJL, 604, L49, doi: 10.1086/383308

    Padoan, P., Jimenez, R., Juvela, M., & Nordlund, ˚A. 2004, ApJL, 604, L49, doi: 10.1086/383308

    work page doi:10.1086/383308 2004

  53. [54]

    2013, A&A, 550, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220500 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Palmeirim, P., Andr´ e, P., Kirk, J., et al. 2013, A&A, 550, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220500 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 586, A138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525896

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220500 2013

  54. [55]

    M., Padovani, M., et al

    Sanhueza, P., Girart, J. M., Padovani, M., et al. 2021, ApJL, 915, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac081c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac081c 2021

  55. [56]

    S., et al

    Schuller, F., Csengeri, T., Urquhart, J. S., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628933

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628933 2017

  56. [57]

    S., Csengeri, T., et al

    Schuller, F., Urquhart, J. S., Csengeri, T., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 3064, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2369

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2369 2021

  57. [58]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 2410, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1458

    Seifried, D., & Walch, S. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 2410, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1458

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1458 2015

  58. [59]

    Shetty, R., & Ostriker, E. C. 2006, ApJ, 647, 997, doi: 10.1086/505594

    work page doi:10.1086/505594 2006

  59. [60]

    Soler, J. D. 2019, A&A, 629, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935779

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935779 2019

  60. [61]

    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

  61. [62]

    W., Coude, S., Myers, P

    Stephens, I. W., Coude, S., Myers, P. C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.05933, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.05933

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.05933 2025

  62. [63]

    M., Ostriker, E

    Stone, J. M., Ostriker, E. C., & Gammie, C. F. 1998, ApJL, 508, L99, doi: 10.1086/311718

    work page doi:10.1086/311718 1998

  63. [64]

    2025, A&A, 698, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553795

    Suin, P., Arzoumanian, D., Zavagno, A., & Hennebelle, P. 2025, A&A, 698, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553795

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202553795 2025

  64. [65]

    G., Ostriker, E

    Vestuto, J. G., Ostriker, E. C., & Stone, J. M. 2003, ApJ, 590, 858, doi: 10.1086/375021

    work page doi:10.1086/375021 2003

  65. [66]

    E., et al

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

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

  66. [67]

    2021, MST: Minimum Spanning Tree algorithm for identifying large-scale filaments, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2102.002, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2201.01555

    Wang, K., & Ge, Y. 2021, MST: Minimum Spanning Tree algorithm for identifying large-scale filaments, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2102.002, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2201.01555

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2201.01555 2021

  67. [68]

    2024, A&A, 686, L11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450296

    Wang, K., Ge, Y., & Baug, T. 2024, A&A, 686, L11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450296

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450296 2024

  68. [69]

    2016, ApJS, 226, 9, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/226/1/9

    Wang, K., Testi, L., Burkert, A., et al. 2016, ApJS, 226, 9, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/226/1/9

    work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/226/1/9 2016

  69. [70]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 4043, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv735

    Wang, K., Testi, L., Ginsburg, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 4043, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv735

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv735 2015

  70. [71]

    2012, ApJL, 745, L30, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/745/2/L30

    Wang, K., Zhang, Q., Wu, Y., Li, H.-b., & Zhang, H. 2012, ApJL, 745, L30, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/745/2/L30

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/745/2/l30 2012

  71. [72]

    2017, ApJ, 842, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa70a0

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

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

  72. [73]

    J., Barnes, A

    Watkins, E. J., Barnes, A. T., Henny, K., et al. 2023, ApJL, 944, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca6e4

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aca6e4 2023

  73. [74]

    2026, A&A, 708, A251, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557480

    Xu, F., Wang, K., Schneider, N., et al. 2026, A&A, 708, A251, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557480

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557480 2026

  74. [75]

    2024, MNRAS, 535, 940, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2379

    Xu, X., Wang, K., Gou, Q., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 940, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2379

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2379 2024

  75. [76]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab517d

    Zucker, C., Smith, R., & Goodman, A. 2019, ApJ, 887, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab517d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab517d 2019