Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 36 references

Electron temperature and emission measure of HII regions in the central molecular zone (CMZ) from H40 \alpha recombination line and continuum emissions by ALMA CMZ Exploration Survey - ACES -

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper maps electron temperature and emission measure across the Galactic center's HII regions, finding a nearly uniform mean temperature of 5,872 K and emission measures spanning three orders of magnitude.

desk verdict Useful first CMZ-wide Te/EM maps from a simple method, but the headline mean is hostage to an unquantified moment-0 clipping bias; referee with a request for systematics. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10227 v2 pith:75H7RYKC submitted 2026-08-10 astro-ph.GA

Yoshiaki Sofue , Steven N. Longmore , Daniel Walker , Adam Ginsburg , Jonathan D. Henshaw , John Bally , Ashley T. Barnes , Cara Battersby
show 35 more authors
Laura Colzi Paul Ho Izaskun Jimenez-serra Elizabeth Mills Maya A. Petkova Mattia C. Sormani Jennifer Wallace Robin G. Tress Nazar Budaiev Rojita Buddhacharya Christoph Federrath Zi-xuan Feng Pablo García Savannah Gramze Christian Henkel Pei-ying Hsieh Fengwei Xu Katharina Immer Dani Lipman Dariusz C. Lis Álvaro Sánchez-Monge Xing Lu Mark R. Morris Francisco Nogueras-Lara JÜrgen Ott Dylan M. Paré Jaime E. Pineda Víctor M. Rivilla Jairo Armijos-Abendaño Qizhou Zhang 6Denise Riquelme-vásquez Howard a. Smith Marco Donati Q. Daniel Wang N. Bijas
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Galaxy:centerHIIregionsISM:linesandbandsabundanceradiocontinuum:ISMlines:stars:formationelectrontemperature
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

By applying the TeEM method to ALMA's ACES survey of the Central Molecular Zone, the paper derives two-dimensional maps of electron temperature and emission measure for the entire population of HII regions in the Galactic center at about 0.1 parsec resolution. It claims a remarkably uniform mean electron temperature of 5,872 ± 78 (standard error) K across the CMZ, with most regions between 4,000 and 8,000 K. Emission measure, by contrast, varies by orders of magnitude, from roughly $10^{5}$ to 3×$10^{8}$ pc $cm^{-6}$. The maps reveal steep temperature gradients of several thousand kelvin per parsec inside sources like Sgr B2 Main and the Minispiral, and an east-west asymmetry of star-forming regions about Sgr A*. If correct, this gives an extinction-free census of ionized gas in the Milky Way's nuclear region and a direct measurement of the physical conditions of star formation there.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the TeEM ('Te-EM mapping') algorithm, which converts three 2D ACES maps — continuum intensity IC, H40α peak intensity, and integrated intensity IL — into maps of electron temperature Te and emission measure EM. The line width is approximated as Δv = IL / IL_peak, and the electron temperature follows from the standard LTE recombination-line relation, Te/K ≈ 1.845×$10^{5}$ (IC(νL)/IL)^(1/1.15) (Equation 4), with EM then derived from the free-free optical depth (Equation 8). The method's practical power is that it needs only moment maps, skipping spectral cube fitting; its practical safeguard is a dust-contamination mask that drops pixels whose 99.6/86.6 GHz continuum spectral index exceeds +2.

What would settle it

Fit Gaussian or multi-Gaussian profiles to the H40α data cubes in Sgr B2 Main, the Minispiral, and Sgr B1 and compare the per-pixel line widths and Te values with the TeEM maps; if multi-component fits yield systematically higher Te, the single-Gaussian assumption would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the electron temperature and emission measure of HII regions throughout the CMZ can be read directly from three two-dimensional ACES maps — 99.6 GHz continuum intensity, H40α peak intensity, and H40α integrated intensity — using the TeEM algorithm, without fitting individual spectra. From these, the paper derives a grand mean temperature for the CMZ of 5872 ± 78 (SE) ± 3682 (SD) K, finds that the temperature is nearly flat across the region at the ~6000 K level, and finds emission measures spanning $10^{5}$ to 3×$10^{8}$ pc $cm^{-6}$. It further reports local temperature gradients as steep as ~4400 K $pc^{-1}$ in Sgr B2 Main and ~15,000 K in the north-south arm of the Minispiral nearest Sgr A*, interpreting these as internal structure and possible excitation by the central source rather than metallicity variations. The paper also reports that HII regions are strongly concentrated at positive longitudes relative to Sgr A*, indicating asymmetric current star formation in the CMZ.

Load-bearing premise

The result hinges on the assumption that every sight line's H40α line is a single simple Gaussian, so that the integrated-to-peak intensity ratio reliably measures the line width; if multiple velocity components blend together, the width is overestimated and the temperature underestimated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The CMZ's HII regions are essentially isothermal at ~5900 K, so average electron temperature is not a strong function of environment within the central ~100 pc.
  • Emission measure maps, combined with assumed line-of-sight depths, give electron densities ranging from ~10^3 to ~4×10^4 cm^-3, tracing the densest ionized clumps.
  • Combined with Galactic-disk Te data, the CMZ value anchors a temperature gradient of ~300 K kpc^-1 from the center outward, which can be read as a metallicity gradient.
  • The TeEM method can be applied to any interferometric recombination-line plus continuum survey to produce Te and EM maps without per-spectrum fitting, so it may become a standard processing step for such data.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the ~5900 K mean holds up, any CMZ HII region with a Te measurement far above or below this value becomes a candidate for exotic heating or cooling (e.g., X-ray or shock ionization), and one could run that filter automatically over the maps.
  • A natural stress test of the method is to compare TeEM temperatures with per-pixel Gaussian fitting of the same cube in Sgr B2 Main and the Minispiral; if the fitted widths are systematically narrower, the claimed internal gradients would shrink, pointing to line blending rather than physical temperature structure.
  • The same two-frequency dust separation used here could be combined with lower-frequency data to construct a synchrotron-corrected EM map, refining densities in the Radio Arc region.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents the 'TeEM' method applied to ALMA ACES Band 3 data (99.6 GHz continuum, H40α peak intensity, and H40α integrated-intensity maps) to derive two-dimensional electron temperature and emission measure maps of HII regions in the CMZ. From standard radio recombination line and free-free continuum relations (Eqs. 3 and 8), it obtains a CMZ-wide mean <Te>_CMZ = 5872 ± 78 (SE) ± 3682 (SD) K, EM values from ~10^5 to ~3×10^8 pc cm^-6, a radial Te profile, and region-by-region measurements for Sgr B2, Sgr B1, the Sickle, the Pistol, the Bridges, Sgr A HII regions, and the Minispiral. Sgr C is excluded because of insufficient line signal-to-noise. The central claim is that TeEM applied directly to 2D moment maps yields reliable Te and EM maps and a relatively uniform CMZ electron temperature near 5900 K, with steep local gradients in Sgr B2 Main and the Minispiral.

Significance. The strength of the paper is its simplicity and transparency: it applies well-established RRL/free-free formulas (Quireza et al. 2006; Oster 1961) to a public, high-resolution survey, and the resulting mean Te is consistent with independent VLA and ALMA measurements of individual regions. If the maps are validated, they would provide the first systematic ~0.1 pc resolution Te and EM maps across the CMZ, a useful benchmark for star-formation-rate and metallicity-gradient studies. The paper also makes falsifiable predictions, notably the steep Te gradient in Sgr B2 Main and the very high Te in the Minispiral's north-south arm. The main weakness is that several systematic effects are acknowledged but not quantified, so the headline mean and gradients must be treated as conditional on the adopted masking and integration thresholds.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.3.6, Eq. (4)] The statement that clipping of the moment-0 map 'does not affect the calculation of Te and EM' is not supported and is likely incorrect. Because Te = 1.845×10^5 (IC/IL)^(1/1.15), any H40α flux removed by the intensity threshold lowers IL and therefore raises Te. The sharp edges visible in the Te maps are direct evidence that the clipped moment-0 map is entering Eq. (4). The pixels most affected are low-S/N pixels, which also dominate the sample and are the stated reason for excluding Sgr C. I request a quantitative test: recompute IL by directly integrating the line cube with a range of thresholds (or down to the noise floor) and report the resulting variation in <Te>_CMZ and in the Sgr B2 Main gradient. Without this test, the headline mean may be systematically biased high.
  2. [§3.3, Tables 1 and 2] All quoted uncertainties are statistical only (SE or SD). The headline mean and the per-parsec gradient claims need a systematic error budget that includes at least the moment-0 clipping threshold (§2.3.6), the dust-mask threshold (§2.3.3), the continuum zero-level and beam mismatch between the 2.45'' line beam and 2.14'' continuum beam, molecular-line contamination (§2.3.5), and the fixed assumptions [He]/[H]=0.07 and a=0.9 in Eq. (3). As written, the reported ±78 K standard error gives a false impression of the reliability of <Te>_CMZ; the systematic uncertainties are likely much larger than the statistical ones.
  3. [§2.3.3 and Fig. 5] The dust-excess mask is applied at a spectral index threshold of α > +2, but no sensitivity test is shown. Since dust contamination raises IC, it biases Te high wherever the mask is imperfect. The comparison of panels F and G in Fig. 5 shows non-negligible changes in Sgr B2, and the text says 'some differences are found in peaky strong continuum sources.' Please report the number of masked pixels and repeat the <Te>_CMZ calculation for a range of thresholds (e.g., α = 1, 2, 3), or replace the ad hoc mask with a direct free-free/dust decomposition using the 86.6 and 99.6 GHz maps.
  4. [§2.3.1 and Eq. (3)] The single-Gaussian argument in §2.3.1 is not the right justification for Eq. (4), which uses the integrated line intensity and does not require a Gaussian line shape. The more relevant concern is line-of-sight superposition: if two HII components with different Te fall within the beam, IC/IL is an EM-weighted mixture that is biased toward dense, cool gas. The few profiles shown in Fig. 3 do not establish that this effect is negligible over the whole field. I recommend a validation in which a sample of spectra (including Sgr B2 Main and the Minispiral) are fit with single- and multi-component models, and the TeEM results are compared with the fit-based Te values; the expected bias direction and magnitude should be stated.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 1, §2.1, §3.1] The panel labels are inconsistent: the Fig. 1 caption and §2.1 say Panels B, C, D are continuum, integrated intensity, and peak intensity, while §3.1 describes Panel A as continuum and Panel B as peak intensity. Please unify the numbering.
  2. [Eq. (3)] The citation 'Rohlsfs and Wilson 2000' is a typo; it should be 'Rohlfs and Wilson 2000.'
  3. [§4.6] The text refers to both the 'NS arm' and the 'SN arm' of the Minispiral; the latter is the correct expression for the north-south arm. Please use one nomenclature consistently.
  4. [§4.8] The stated reason for excluding Sgr C—that the integrated intensity is too weak to calculate the velocity width by dividing by peak intensity—is confusing, because Eq. (4) uses the integrated intensity directly. Please rephrase to say that the H40α integrated-intensity map has no significant detection above the clipping threshold in the Sgr C field.
  5. [§4.1 and §5.3] The Sgr B2 Main gradient is quoted as ~3000 K pc^-1 in §4.1 and as ~4400 K pc^-1 in §5.3. Make the values consistent or state explicitly that they are measured along different cuts or with different averaging.
  6. [§2.6 and Table 2] The electron densities in Table 2 use L ~ 2r with no uncertainty or discussion of the geometry; please state explicitly that n_e is an order-of-magnitude estimate, or propagate a plausible range of L.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Te and EM are computed from standard external radio recombination-line formulas with fixed literature constants, not fitted to the target values.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks. The electron temperature is obtained from the observed continuum-to-integrated-line intensity ratio IC/IL via the standard LTE relations of Quireza et al. (2006) and Mezger & Henderson (1967), written as Eq. (3) and reduced to Eq. (4) with explicitly fixed constants a(99 GHz, ~8000 K) = 0.9 and [He]/[H] = 0.07. The emission measure follows from the continuum intensity and the already-derived Te through the Oster (1961) formula in Eqs. (5)-(8), again with fixed A = 5.87 at the stated frequency and temperature. None of these constants is adjusted to reproduce any CMZ measurement; they are all quoted from prior external literature. The headline mean Te = 5872 +/- 78 (SE) +/- 3682 (SD) K is a simple pixel average of the independently computed Te map, not a fitted parameter, and the regional values in Table 2 are likewise direct outputs of the same formulas. The paper does not invoke a uniqueness theorem, does not smuggle in an ansatz via self-citation for the central method (TeEM is introduced in this paper), and does not rename a known empirical relation as a new result. The acknowledged approximations — single-Gaussian line profiles, fixed correction factor, moment-0 clipping, and dust masking — are potential systematic errors or simplifications, but none of them makes a predicted quantity equal to an input by construction. There is no load-bearing self-citation: ACES data papers are cited for data products, and the authors' own kinematic papers are used only for auxiliary interpretation of the Sickle, Pistol, and Minispiral velocities, not for the Te/EM derivation. Accordingly, no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Central claim rests on standard LTE formulas for radio recombination lines (Quireza et al. 2006) plus three domain assumptions: single-Gaussian line profiles, a fixed helium abundance, and a two-component (free-free + dust) model for the continuum with fixed spectral indices. No new entities are introduced. The dust mask threshold alpha>+2 is a hand-chosen selection that affects the maps.

free parameters (1)
  • Dust masking spectral index threshold = alpha > +2.0
    Pixels with continuum spectral index exceeding +2.0 (between 86.6 and 99.6 GHz) are masked as dust-dominated. This threshold is a hand-chosen value that affects which regions survive to the Te and EM maps (Section 2.3.3).
assumptions (5)
  • standard math LTE formulas of Quireza et al. (2006) relating Te to continuum/line ratio and Delta v (Equations 2-4)
    The derivation of Te from radio continuum and recombination line intensities rests on these standard relations.
  • domain assumption H40 alpha line profiles are simple, single-Gaussian across the field, so IL/peak = Delta v
    Used in Section 2.4 to reduce the Te formula to Equation (4) without explicit line widths. The paper notes exceptions and claims they are rare.
  • domain assumption Free-free continuum has spectral index alpha=-0.1 and dust has alpha=+3.5 between 86.6 and 99.6 GHz
    Used to separate free-free and dust emission and set the mask threshold (Section 2.3.3), following Schmiedeke et al. (2016) and Xu et al. (2025).
  • domain assumption Helium abundance [He]/[H] = 0.07
    Adopted in Equation (4) to convert the continuum-to-line ratio to Te.
  • domain assumption Distance to Galactic center R0 = 8.178 kpc
    Used to convert angular beam sizes to linear scales (Section 2.1), from Gravity Collaboration et al. (2019).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electron temperature and emission measure of HII regions in the central molecular zone (CMZ) from H40 \alpha recombination line and continuum emissions by ALMA CMZ Exploration Survey - ACES -." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/75H7RYKC

@misc{pith2026260810227,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electron temperature and emission measure of HII regions in the central molecular zone (CMZ) from H40 \alpha recombination line and continuum emissions by ALMA CMZ Exploration Survey - ACES -},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/75H7RYKC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10227}
}
abstract

Star formation activity in the Central Molecular Zone (CMZ) directly manifests itself as radio continuum free-free emission (Bremsstrahlung) and radio recombination line emission from HII regions surrounding newly formed massive stars. We derive the overall distribution of the HII regions and their fundamental properties: electron temperature ($\Te$) and emission measure ($EM$), and hence electron density in the form of two dimensional distribution maps over the CMZ by analyzing the ACES (ALMA CMZ Exploration Survey) \h40 (99.02 GHz) recombination line and 99.6 GHz continuum emission data with synthesized beam widths of $2''.45$ (0.097 pc at 8.2 kpc) and $2''.14$, respectively. We apply the 'TeEM' method ($\Te$--$EM$ mapping), which creates $\Te$ and $EM$ maps from input 2D maps of the continuum and integrated line intensity. The analysis covers the entire ACES field from $l\sim -0^\circ.6$ to $+0^\circ.8$ and from $b\sim -0^\circ.2$ to $+0^\circ.1$. The area analyzed is complete and includes previously known HII regions such as Sgr B2, Sgr B1, the Sickle, the Pistol, thermal filaments (Bridges), Sgr A HII regions, the Minispiral, and many other known HII regions. Sgr C is not included in the analysis due to the insufficient signal-to-noise ratio in the recombination line map. The mean electron temperature over the CMZ is determined to be $\Tcmz= 5872 \pm 78 ~{\rm (SE)} ~\pm 3682~{\rm (SD)}$ K (SE:standard error of the mean, SD: pixel-to-pixel standard deviation). Some HII regions, such as Sgr B2 Main and the Minispiral, exhibit large scatter and an internal $\Te$ gradient of several thousand K per parsec. The $EM$ distribution is more diverse, varying by orders of magnitude from $\sim 10^5$ to $\sim 3\times 10^8$ \emunit within the CMZ, as well as within individual HII regions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10227 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ACES distribution maps of the CMZ. Panel A: CS (J = 2 − 1) peak intensity map (in Jy beam−1 ) for comparison; Panels B, C, and D: 93.7 GHz continuum intensity (99.6 GHz map is almost identical) (Jy beam−1 ), H40α integrated intensity (Jy beam−1 km s−1 ), and H40α peak intensity (Jy beam−1 ) maps, respectively; Panels E and F: The resulting Te (in K) and EM (in pc cm−6 ) maps of the HII regions, respectively; Panel G… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. TeEM flowchart using input 2D maps of the continuum intensity, line peak intensity and line integrated intensity to create the continuum-to-line intensity ratio, δV , Te and EM maps. If ∆V and continuum-to-line ratio are not necessary, the top panel creates the same result. Alt text: TeEM flowchart. ∼ 1 percent of the main beam center intensity, which is generally much less than the H40α line intensities in the CMZ,… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. H40α line profiles at representative positions of the analyzed re￾gions, showing the profiles are relatively simple and the assumption of single Gaussian is plausible to approximate the line width by dividing inte￾grated intensity by peak intensity. is more clearly demonstrated by the longitude-velocity diagram shown in figure 1-D. Therefore, we are neglecting the effect of line contamination in the analysis. 2.3.6 … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: [Top] Maps of the thermally emitting Sickle and Pistol overlap￾ping the Radio Arc at 93.7 and 1.3 GHz (Heywood et al. 2022) contin￾uum, demonstrating the advantage of using mm-waves over microwaves. [Bottom] Same, but in cross section along the line inserted in the top…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: [A] Free-free and [B] dust emission maps separated using 86.6 and 99.6 GHz continuum maps in order to confirm that the dust contribution is small. [C, D] Same as panels A and B, respectively, but enlarged for Sgr B2 and B1 regions. The units are J beam−1 for all panels…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: [Top] 99.6GHz continuum around Sgr A∗and a cross section along the inserted line through a ’quiet’ region, showing that the side lobe level is < ∼ 1% of the main beam center intensity. [Bottom] Same in H40α-peak intensity. Sgr A∗appears as a sharp absorption. Alt text:…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: [Top] Input 2D maps for TeEM: (left) the continuum intensity, (middle) H40α line integrated intensity, and (right) peak intensity of the Pistol region. [Middle row] (left) Continuum-to-line intensity ratio, (right) Velocity width. [Bottom] Resulting maps by TeEM: (left…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as bottom two panels of figure 1, but enlarged. Te (top and 3rd) and EM (2nd and bottom) maps. Circles indicate representative regions. Alt text: Te maps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Radial variation of averaged Te of HII regions in the CMZ as a function of the projected distance R from Sgr A∗ , as measured using figure 1. Running averaged Te and the standard errors by radial binning with interval and width of ∆R = 0.1 pc and pixel number greater t…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Electron temperature, emission measure and continuum maps of the individual regions in the CMZ. Alt text: Electron temperature, emission measure and continuum maps of the individual regions in the CMZ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as figure 10, but for other well known sources. Alt text: Same as figure 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as figure 10, but for isolated sources. Alt text: Same as figure 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: [Top] Electron temperature and emission measure maps of Sgr B2 Main. Contours are at every 107 pc cm−6 . [Bottom] Cross sections of Te and EM of Sgr B2 Main along the lines in the top panels. Alt text: Electron temperature and emission measure across Sgr B2 Main. 5300…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Minispiral maps at [top left] 93.7 GHz continuum, [top middle] H40α line integrated intensity, [top right] H40α peak intensity (see also figure 6), [middle left] velocity width, [middle] electron temperature, Te, and [middle right] emission measure EM. The bottom pane…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Same as figure 9, but with Te in the whole Milky Way taken from Khan et al. (2024) by triangles in linear (top) and logarithmic (bottom) scal￾ings. The lines represents a linear relation between Te and R given by equation 12. Alt text: Electron temperature as a functi…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Comparison of the results on Te and EM with the infrared view of the central region : Red – NICMOS 187 µm(sensitive primarily to Paschen￾α (Wang et al. 2010)) + IRAC 8.0 µm(hot dust); Orange – IRAC 5.8 µm(stars and very hot dust); Green – IRAC 4.5 microns (stars); Blu…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D., Cotera, A., Stolovy, S., Morris, M

    Dong, H., Wang, Q. D., Cotera, A., Stolovy, S., Morris, M. R., Mauerhan, J., Mills, E. A., Schneider, G., Calzetti, D. and Lang, C., 2011, MNRAS, 417, 114-135 Arellano-Córdova, K. Z., Esteban, C., García-Rojas, J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 2, 1,

    work page 2011

  2. [27]

    ALMA Central molecular zone Exploration Survey (ACES) VI: ALMA Large Program Reveals a Highly Filamentary Central Molecular Zone

    Battersby, C., Santa-Maria, M. G., Lipman, D., et al. 2026, arXiv:2602.20262. Belloche, A., Müller, H. S. P., Menten, K. M., et al. 2013, A&A, 559, A47. Bittner, A., Sánchez-Blázquez, P., Gadotti, D. A., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A65. De Pree, C. G., Goss, W. M., & Gaume, R. A. 1998, ApJ, 500, 2,

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  3. [31]

    M., Yusef-Zadeh, F., Palmer, P., et al

    Mehringer, D. M., Yusef-Zadeh, F., Palmer, P., et al. 1992, ApJ, 401,

    work page 1992

  4. [37]

    M., Lang, C

    Paré, D. M., Lang, C. C., Morris, M. R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 2,

    work page 2019

  5. [45]

    E., Wilson, T

    Wink, J. E., Wilson, T. L., & Bieging, J. H. 1983, A&A, 127,

    work page 1983

  6. [50]

    M., Feng, Z.-X., Hu, Y ., et al

    Paré, D. M., Feng, Z.-X., Hu, Y ., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1000, 1,

    work page 2026

  7. [53]

    2016, A&A, 588, A143

    Schmiedeke, A., Schilke, P., Möller, T., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, A143. Sofue, Y . 2022, MNRAS, 516, 1,

    work page 2016

  8. [80]

    T., Immer, K., et al

    Nonhebel, M., Barnes, A. T., Immer, K., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A70. O’Dell, C. R., Peimbert, M., & Peimbert, A. 2003, AJ, 125, 5,

    work page 2024

Show all 36 references
  1. [83]

    2022, ApJ, 925,

    Heywood, I., Rammala, I., Camilo, F., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925,

    2022

  2. [94]

    2019, PASJ, 71, 6,

    Tsuboi, M., Kitamura, Y ., Uehara, K., et al. 2019, PASJ, 71, 6,

    2019

  3. [128]

    L., Ginsburg, A., Barnes, A

    Walker, D. L., Ginsburg, A., Barnes, A. T., et al. 2026, arXiv:2602.20276. Wang, Q. D., Dong, H., Cotera, A., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 2,

    2026

  4. [143]

    C., Tress, R

    Feng, Z.-X., Sormani, M. C., Tress, R. G., et al. 2026, arXiv:2605.16192. Ginsburg, A., et al. submitted to MNRAS. Gravity Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, L10. Henshaw, J. D., Barnes, A. T., Battersby, C., et al. 2023, Protostars and Planets VII, 534,

    2026 arXiv

  5. [165]

    L., Ginsburg, A., et al

    Hsieh, P.-Y ., Walker, D. L., Ginsburg, A., et al. 2026, arXiv:2603.00863. Kennicutt, R. C. & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50,

    2026

  6. [168]

    M., Palmer, P., Goss, W

    Mehringer, D. M., Palmer, P., Goss, W. M., et al. 1993, ApJ, 412,

    1993

  7. [170]

    G., Gaume, R

    de Pree, C. G., Gaume, R. A., Goss, W. M., et al. 1996, ApJ, 464,

    1996

  8. [211]

    2025, A&A, 697, A164

    Xu, F., Lu, X., Wang, K., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A164. Zhao, J.-H., Desai, K., Goss, W. M., et al. 1993, ApJ, 418, 235

    2025

  9. [249]

    2019, A&A, 630, A73

    Meng, F., Sánchez-Monge, Á., Schilke, P., et al. 2019, A&A, 630, A73. Meng, F., Sánchez-Monge,Á., Schilke, P., et al. 2022, A&A, 666,A31. Mezger, P. G. & Henderson, A. P. 1967, ApJ, 147,

    2019

  10. [252]

    2019, PASJ, 71, 4,

    Nagoshi, H., Kubose, Y ., Fujisawa, K., et al. 2019, PASJ, 71, 4,

    2019

  11. [275]

    C., Goss, W

    Lang, C. C., Goss, W. M., & Morris, M. 2001, AJ, 121, 5,

    2001

  12. [362]

    A., McGee, R

    Shaver, P. A., McGee, R. X., Newton, L. M., et al. 1983, MNRAS, 204,

    1983

  13. [436]

    N., Bally, J., Barnes, A

    Longmore, S. N., Bally, J., Barnes, A. T., et al. 2026, arXiv:2602.20340. Lu, X., Walker, D. L., Ginsburg, A., et al. 2026, arXiv:2602.20445. Martínez-Hernández, I. R., Méndez-Delgado, J. E., Esteban, C., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 546, 4, stag149. Mazoochi, F., Tabatabaei, F. S., Ba...

    2026

  14. [471]

    Mezger, P. G. & Hoglund, B. 1967, ApJ, 147,

    1967

  15. [490]

    Mezger, P. G. & Wink, J. E. 1986, A&A, 157,

    1986

  16. [531]

    R., Brunthaler, A., et al

    Khan, S., Rugel, M. R., Brunthaler, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A81. Lang, C. C., Goss, W. M., & Wood, O. S. 1997, ApJ, 474, 1,

    2024

  17. [536]

    C., Sobacchi, E., & Sanders, J

    Sormani, M. C., Sobacchi, E., & Sanders, J. L. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 4,

    2024

  18. [684]

    E., Esteban, C., García-Rojas, J., et al

    Méndez-Delgado, J. E., Esteban, C., García-Rojas, J., et al. 2023, Nature, 618, 7964,

    2023

  19. [687]

    N., et al

    Sofue, Y ., Oka, T., Longmore, S. N., et al. 2025b, PASJ, 77, 4, L55. Sofue, Y ., Longmore, S. N., Walker, D., et al. 2026, PASJ, 78, 2,

    2026

  20. [788]

    T., Bania, T

    Quireza, C., Rood, R. T., Bania, T. M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 653, 2,

    2006

  21. [847]

    M., Longmore, S

    Federrath, C., Rathborne, J. M., Longmore, S. N., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 2,

    2016

  22. [895]

    L., Bania, T

    Wilson, T. L., Bania, T. M., & Balser, D. S. 2015, ApJ, 812, 1,

    2015

  23. [1051]

    S., Rood, R

    Balser, D. S., Rood, R. T., Bania, T. M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 738, 1,

    2011

  24. [1226]

    Rohlfs, K., & Wilson, T. L. 2000, in ’Tools of Radio Astronomy’ (New York: Springer), p.337. Rubin, R. H., Martin, P. G., Dufour, R. J., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 2,

    2000

  25. [2590]

    1961, AJ, 66,

    Oster, L. 1961, AJ, 66,

    1961

  26. [2681]

    Lockman, F. J. & Brown, R. L. 1976, ApJ, 207,

    1976

  27. [2918]

    2017, ApJ, 842, 2,

    Tsuboi, M., Kitamura, Y ., Uehara, K., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, 2,

    2017

  28. [5742]

    C., Barnes, A

    Sormani, M. C., Barnes, A. T., Sun, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 2,

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.