adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: A Submillimeter Survey of Faint Galaxies behind 10 Strong Lensing Clusters
Authors: L. L. Cowie, A. J. Barger, F. E. Bauer, C.-C. Chen, L. H. Jones, C. Orquera-Rojas, M. J. Rosenthal, A. J. Taylor
Figure caption: Centered in the image is an example of an optical/NIR dark, faint SMG at R.A. = 0h14m19.ˢ50, decl. ﹩=-30^\circ 22^{\prime} 48\buildrel{\prime\prime}\over{.} 7﹩ in A2744 with z phot = 4.16 (see Table 9). It has an F160W magnitude of 27.0 and a demagnified SCUBA-2 850 μm flux of 0.9 mJy. The color image (18″ on a side) shows the HFF data for F105W (blue), F125W (green), and F160W (red). The white contours show the ALMA 1.2 mm image (ALMA program #2017.1.01219.S; PI: F. Bauer) offset by 1.″2 in the horizontal direction so its optical/NIR counterpart may be more clearly seen (i.e., the ALMA source is coincident with the faint red galaxy at the center of the image). Note that the SMG in the upper right (R.A. = 0h14m19.ˢ12, decl. = −30°22′42.″2) has an F160W magnitude of 23.5 and a similar demagnified SCUBA-2 flux to the example source.
Paper: A Submillimeter Survey of Faint Galaxies behind 10 Strong Lensing Clusters
Authors: L. L. Cowie, A. J. Barger, F. E. Bauer, C.-C. Chen, L. H. Jones, C. Orquera-Rojas, M. J. Rosenthal, A. J. Taylor
Figure caption: SCUBA-2 450–850 μm flux ratio vs. redshift for A370 (red), MACSJ1149 (blue), MACSJ0717 (green), and the remaining cluster fields (black). Solid symbols show speczs, and open symbols show photzs. The AGN in A370 is marked with a large open square. Only sources detected above the 2σ level in the 850 μm images are shown. The power-law fit (solid line) is taken from Barger et al. (2022) and is based on the CDF-N and CDF-S.
Paper: A Submillimeter Survey of Faint Galaxies behind 10 Strong Lensing Clusters
Authors: L. L. Cowie, A. J. Barger, F. E. Bauer, C.-C. Chen, L. H. Jones, C. Orquera-Rojas, M. J. Rosenthal, A. J. Taylor
Figure caption: Observed 450 μm flux vs. observed 850 μm flux for SMGs in the central regions (﹩\lt 1\buildrel{\,\prime}\over{.} 75﹩ radius) of the SCUBA-2 850 μm cluster sample, after excluding BCGs and pairs. The measured 450 μm fluxes are shown with 1σ errors. If the 450 μm flux is negative, then the source is shown at a nominal 450 μm flux of 2.2 mJy. SMGs with ALMA counterparts are shown with red large squares.
Paper: A Submillimeter Survey of Faint Galaxies behind 10 Strong Lensing Clusters
Authors: L. L. Cowie, A. J. Barger, F. E. Bauer, C.-C. Chen, L. H. Jones, C. Orquera-Rojas, M. J. Rosenthal, A. J. Taylor
Figure caption: Ratio of 1.6 μm flux to SCUBA-2 850 μm flux vs. demagnified SCUBA-2 850 μm flux, color-coded by redshift (gold—z < 1; blue—z = 1–2; green—z = 2–3.5; red—z = 3.5–4.5). The color-coded lines show the fitted relationship given in Equation (1) computed at the labeled redshifts.
Paper: A Submillimeter Survey of Faint Galaxies behind 10 Strong Lensing Clusters
Authors: L. L. Cowie, A. J. Barger, F. E. Bauer, C.-C. Chen, L. H. Jones, C. Orquera-Rojas, M. J. Rosenthal, A. J. Taylor
Figure caption: Distribution of offsets between 450 μm source position and nearest ALMA/SMA counterpart, if there is one within 5″, for sources with >4σ 450 μm detections in either the SCUBA-2 cluster sample or the CDF-N and CDF-S samples. Only sources with 450 μm rms errors <3 mJy are included.
Paper: A Submillimeter Survey of Faint Galaxies behind 10 Strong Lensing Clusters
Authors: L. L. Cowie, A. J. Barger, F. E. Bauer, C.-C. Chen, L. H. Jones, C. Orquera-Rojas, M. J. Rosenthal, A. J. Taylor
Figure caption: (Lower histogram) Distribution of observed 850 μm flux for the ALMA sources with SCUBA-2 850 μm flux >1.6 mJy (black). (Upper histogram) Distribution of demagnified 850 μm flux (red).
Paper: A Submillimeter Survey of Faint Galaxies behind 10 Strong Lensing Clusters
Authors: L. L. Cowie, A. J. Barger, F. E. Bauer, C.-C. Chen, L. H. Jones, C. Orquera-Rojas, M. J. Rosenthal, A. J. Taylor
Figure caption: Redshift distributions for the five HFFs contained in the ALMA cluster sample with either speczs or photzs. Sources with z > 6 are shown in the z = 5.5–6 bin.
Paper: A Submillimeter Survey of Faint Galaxies behind 10 Strong Lensing Clusters
Authors: L. L. Cowie, A. J. Barger, F. E. Bauer, C.-C. Chen, L. H. Jones, C. Orquera-Rojas, M. J. Rosenthal, A. J. Taylor
Figure caption: Distribution of fitted redshifts (calculated using Equation (1)). We use shading to denote which sources already have speczs (red), photzs (black), and neither (open).
Paper: On the Convergence of the Milky Way and M31 Kinematics from Cosmological Simulations
Authors: J. E. Forero-Romero, D. Sierra-Porta
Figure caption: Dependence of the speed scale σ  b  as a function of the inverse of the simulation box size. The symbols present the results from simulations. The dashed line corresponds to the linear theory predictions described in Equation (3), in this case the box size indicates the wavelength cut below which the power spectrum is suppressed. The continuous line corresponds the function in Equation (5) with the parameters that best fit the simulation results.
Paper: On the Convergence of the Milky Way and M31 Kinematics from Cosmological Simulations
Authors: J. E. Forero-Romero, D. Sierra-Porta
Figure caption: Cumulative distribution for the barycenter speed from different cosmological simulations (continuous line) together with its best Maxwell–Boltzmann fit (dashed line). Larger box sizes correspond to distributions skewed toward higher speeds. The vertical stripe indicates the observational value for our LG.
Paper: Temperature and Differential Emission Measure Profiles in Turbulent Solar Active Region Loops
Authors: A. Gordon Emslie, Stephen J. Bradshaw
Figure caption: Normalized DEM profiles for a physical model with collision-dominated conduction in the lower part of the loop and turbulence-dominated conduction in the upper portion, with ﹩{T}_{\max }=3\times {10}^{6}﹩ K, P = 3.0 dyne cm−2, and the values of λ  T  indicated. The corresponding scaled CHIANTI DEM profile inferred from observations is shown for comparison (see text for details).
Paper: Temperature and Differential Emission Measure Profiles in Turbulent Solar Active Region Loops
Authors: A. Gordon Emslie, Stephen J. Bradshaw
Figure caption: Hydrostatic equilibrium solutions for turbulence with spatially uniform scales λ  T  = 100 km (red), 10 km (green), and 1 km (blue). Each solution was found by relaxation from an initially collisional state (λ  T  = ∞;  black). The dashed and dotted–dashed lines show the empirical CHIANTI DEM curves for the quiet Sun and for active regions; see text for discussion.
Paper: Temperature and Differential Emission Measure Profiles in Turbulent Solar Active Region Loops
Authors: A. Gordon Emslie, Stephen J. Bradshaw
Figure caption: Normalized temperature profiles for different values of δ, the temperature index of the thermal conduction coefficient. The case δ = 2.5 corresponds to conduction dominated by collisional transport, while the case δ = −0.5 corresponds to turbulent transport (Equations (5) and (20), respectively). The case δ = 1.0 is also shown to illustrate how the profiles depend on the value of δ. The turbulent (δ = −0.5) solution applies only down to a lower boundary temperature T  o  (see remarks after Equation (26)), here taken to be 0.01× the peak loop temperature ﹩{T}_{\max }﹩.
Paper: Temperature and Differential Emission Measure Profiles in Turbulent Solar Active Region Loops
Authors: A. Gordon Emslie, Stephen J. Bradshaw
Figure caption: Normalized temperature profiles for the hybrid physical model, with ﹩{T}_{\max }=3\times {10}^{6}﹩ K, P = 3.0 dyne cm−2, and the values of λ  T  indicated. The vertical dashed lines indicate the normalized positions ℓ of the interface between the collisional and turbulent regimes; for x < ℓ conduction is collision dominated, while for x > ℓ it is turbulence dominated.
Paper: Temperature and Differential Emission Measure Profiles in Turbulent Solar Active Region Loops
Authors: A. Gordon Emslie, Stephen J. Bradshaw
Figure caption: Variation of the heating parameter ξ (Equation (39)), the collisional/turbulent interface position ℓ (Equations (26) and (49)), and the cooling/heating boundary temperature θ (Equation (40)), all as functions of the quantity η  o  (Equation (32)), which parameterizes the temperature of the collisional/turbulent interface. Asymptotic behaviors of all three parameters as η  o  → 0 and η  o  → 1 are discussed in the text.
Paper: On Detecting Nearby Nanohertz Gravitational Wave Sources via Pulsar Timing Arrays
Authors: Xiao Guo, 潇 郭, Youjun Lu, 由俊 陆, Qingjuan Yu, 清娟 于
Figure caption: Schematic diagrams for PTA experiments with a single MSP (geometrical configuration). The left diagram (a) is for those cases that the distance from the target MSPs to Earth (L) is comparable to or not too much smaller than the distance of the GW source (point S) to Earth (r). The right diagram (b) is for those cases with L ≪ r, in which the GW can be approximated as a plane wave. In diagram (a), Q denotes any point on the path of pulses from the MSP to Earth, l and ﹩r^{\prime} ﹩ denote the distance between Q and Earth, and between Q and GW source, respectively. γ, ζ, and ϑ represent the angles between GW propagation direction ﹩\hat{{\rm{\Omega }}}﹩ and that from Earth to MSP ﹩\hat{p}﹩, between ﹩\hat{{\rm{\Omega }}}﹩ and that from GW source to Earth ﹩{\hat{{\rm{\Omega }}}}_{{\rm{E}}}﹩, and between ﹩-{\hat{{\rm{\Omega }}}}_{{\rm{E}}}﹩ and ﹩\hat{p}﹩, respectively. In diagram (b), the GW source is far from the Earth, the GW propagation directions ﹩\hat{{\rm{\Omega }}}﹩ are assumed to be the same at different points Q. For the far-field regime, we adopt a Cartesian coordinate system shown at the top left of diagram (b), where the x-axis is perpendicular to the paper, and its positive direction ﹩{\hat{e}}_{1}﹩ points toward us.
Paper: On Detecting Nearby Nanohertz Gravitational Wave Sources via Pulsar Timing Arrays
Authors: Xiao Guo, 潇 郭, Youjun Lu, 由俊 陆, Qingjuan Yu, 清娟 于
Figure caption: The angular correlation obtained by a PTA with all pulsars at distances of L = 2 kpc for a GWB due to nearby GW sources at a fixed distance of 10 kpc (magenta solid line), 100 kpc (red solid line), and 106 kpc (cyan solid line), respectively. The black dotted–dashed line shows the Hellings–Downs curve obtained by adopting the far-field approximation (Equation (48); Hellings & Downs 1983). Note here all of these curves are normalized to 1/2 at θ 12 → 0° as done for the Hellings–Downs (HD) curve (see Equation (48)).
Paper: On Detecting Nearby Nanohertz Gravitational Wave Sources via Pulsar Timing Arrays
Authors: Xiao Guo, 潇 郭, Youjun Lu, 由俊 陆, Qingjuan Yu, 清娟 于
Figure caption: Relative difference of ﹩{{\mathscr{P}}}^{+}(f)﹩ resulting from the near-field regime and that from the far-field approximation at different frequencies, defined as ﹩| {{\mathscr{P}}}^{+}(f)-{{\mathscr{P}}}_{{\rm{f}}}^{+}(f)| /\max (| {{\mathscr{P}}}_{{\rm{f}}}^{+}(f)| )﹩. The GW source is assumed to be located at r = 8 kpc and the pulsar distance is assumed to be L = 1 kpc. This figure illustrates that the near-field effect is important at almost all frequencies. See details in Section 5.1.2.
Paper: Deep-learning Reconstruction of Sunspot Vector Magnetic Fields for Forecasting Solar Storms
Authors: Dattaraj B. Dhuri, Shamik Bhattacharjee, Shravan M. Hanasoge, Sashi Kiran Mahapatra
Figure caption: The CNN architecture. (a) CNN architecture used for obtaining vector field features from LOS magnetograms. The architecture incorporates inception modules similar to GoogleNet (Szegedy et al. 2015). The CNN takes in two inputs: (i) LOS magnetograms, and (ii) AR center latitude (λ  c ) and longitude (ϕ  c ). There are no fully connected layers that directly process the magnetogram input, and therefore the CNN can process magnetogram patches of variable sizes. (b) Inception module used in the CNN.
Paper: Analysis of Thermal Emissions of Exoplanets with Axially Symmetric Temperature Gradients
Authors: Jennifer L. Carter
Figure caption: Shown are the photometric variations produced by the two highest ﹩\mathrm{log}Z﹩ models tested on B + E+TN6, C synthetic data with σ = 20 ppm and large thermal variations, with ﹩\mathrm{log}Z﹩ values given in the last two columns of Table 6. (A) (B+E+TNVary6) and (B) (B+E+TN6) show the results if the planetary mass is held fixed, and (C) (B+E+TNVary4) and (D) (B+E+TNVary6) those if it is an estimated parameter. Note that, for the fixed-mass case, the two N = 6 models are strongly favored over others. See Figure 12 for the corner plots for ﹩{T}_{\mathrm{sub}},{T}_{\min }﹩ and M  p  of the above models. In addition, Figure 13 shows the corner plots of all parameters for (A) (B+E+TNVary6, mass fixed).
Paper: Analysis of Thermal Emissions of Exoplanets with Axially Symmetric Temperature Gradients
Authors: Jennifer L. Carter
Figure caption: Shown are plots for ΔΦ (see Equation (16)) for two sets of substellar and minimum temperatures. (A) the temperature values are 2442 K and 2348 K, respectively (Placek et al. 2015). (B) the substellar temperature is 3000 K, and the minimum temperature is 2000 K. Four values of N are shown, N = 4 as a solid blue line, N = 6 as a dashed red line, N = 8 as a dotted–dashed magenta line, and N = 10 as a dotted green line. In each plot, full phase (secondary transit) occurs at fractional periods 0 and 1, and new phase (primary transit) at 0.5 fraction period.
Paper: Analysis of Thermal Emissions of Exoplanets with Axially Symmetric Temperature Gradients
Authors: Jennifer L. Carter
Figure caption: The above plot shows the actual and estimated photometric variations for the B + E+TN6 Ecc. tests. The actual variations gennerated using the parameters in Table 2 are represented as follows: blue diamonds for ellipsoidal variations, red circles for Doppler Boosting, magenta boxes for thermal emissions, and large green asterisk for the sum of the three. The estimated variations generated using the model estimated parameters are represented as a blue solid line for ellipsoidal variations, a red dashed line for Doppler boosting, a magenta dotted–dashed line for thermal variations, and their summation as a thick green dashed line. The residuals are the differences between the synthetic photometric variations and the modeled ones. (A) shows the results for the B + E+Tdn, Ecc model, and (B) those of the B +E+TN6, Ecc model. See Figure 6 for the associated light curve.
Paper: Analysis of Thermal Emissions of Exoplanets with Axially Symmetric Temperature Gradients
Authors: Jennifer L. Carter
Figure caption: Shown are surface plots of the absolute value of ∣ΔΦ∣ (Equation (16)) vs. substellar point temperature, T sub, and minimum temperature, T min, at two phase angles and four values of N. The color bar at right indicates the value of ∣ΔΦ∣. The top row is the surfaces for phase angle, ϵ, of zero, and the bottom row for phase angle of π. Each column is a different value of N, equaling 4, 6, 8, and 10, from left to right.
Paper: Analysis of Thermal Emissions of Exoplanets with Axially Symmetric Temperature Gradients
Authors: Jennifer L. Carter
Figure caption: Shown is the corner plot for a B + E+TN6 C model, with the planetary mass set as a free parameter, run on synthetic data of the same type, generated with σ = 20 ppm. The corresponding photometric variations are shown in Figure 9(A), and ﹩\mathrm{log}Z﹩ values listed in the second two columns in Table 6. The black lines represent the parameter values used to create the synthetic light curve, the magenta dashed lines are those of the highest ﹩\mathrm{log}L﹩ sample given by EXONEST, and the blue dotted–dashed lines are those of the arithmetic mean of the posterior samples. Note the wide range of potential T min values; see text for details.
Paper: Analysis of Thermal Emissions of Exoplanets with Axially Symmetric Temperature Gradients
Authors: Jennifer L. Carter
Figure caption: Shown are the corner plots for the planetary mass, M  p , the substellar point temperature, T sub (or T 1), and the minimum temperature, T min (either T 4 or T 6), for the models tested in last two columns of Table 6. See Figure 11 for the corresponding photometric variation plots. (A) and (B) are the two highest ﹩\mathrm{log}Z﹩ models when the mass is fixed, where (A) is the B + E+TNVary6, C model, and (B) is the B + E+TN6, C model. (C) and (D) are those for which the mass is estimated, corresponding to B + E+TNVary4, C and B + E+TNVary6, C, respectively.
Paper: Analysis of Thermal Emissions of Exoplanets with Axially Symmetric Temperature Gradients
Authors: Jennifer L. Carter
Figure caption: Shown are the photometric variations generated by the parameter estimates of the two highest ﹩\mathrm{log}Z﹩ models tested on B + E+TN6, C synthetic data with σ = 20 ppm, listed in the second two columns of Table 6. (A) (B+E+TN6) and (B) (B+E+TN4) show the highest ﹩\mathrm{log}Z﹩ results if the planetary mass is held fixed, and (C) (B+E+TNVary6) and (D) (B+E+TN6) those if it is an estimated parameter. The corner plots for (A) are shown in Figure 10.
Paper: Analysis of Thermal Emissions of Exoplanets with Axially Symmetric Temperature Gradients
Authors: Jennifer L. Carter
Figure caption: Plotted at top are the simulated light-curve data (gray dots) used in the B + E+TN6 Ecc. model tests. The highest-likelihood fits for the two highest ﹩\mathrm{log}Z﹩ models listed in Table 5 are shown: B + E+Tdn Ecc. model (black line), and B + E+TN6 Ecc. model (red dotted line), respectively. The middle plot displays a zoomed-in version of the light curve to highlight the secondary transit. Residuals for both models are shown at the bottom where those of the B + E+Tdn Ecc. model are black asterisks, and those of the B + E+TN6 Ecc model are red dots. See Figure 7 for plots of the photometric variations.
Paper: Analysis of Thermal Emissions of Exoplanets with Axially Symmetric Temperature Gradients
Authors: Jennifer L. Carter
Figure caption: Shown are the photometric variations generated using the parameter estimates of the two highest ﹩\mathrm{log}Z﹩ models tested on B + E+TN6, C synthetic data with σ = 75 ppm. The ﹩\mathrm{log}Z﹩ values are listed in the first two columns of Table 6. (A) shows the highest-evidence model (TNVary4), and (B) the second-highest model (TNVary6), which were the top two best-fitting models whether or not the planetary mass is held fixed or estimated by EXONEST. Note that neither model includes Ellipsoidal or Boosted variations; therefore, their fitted lines do not appear, and are accounted for by thermal light alone.
Paper: Isolated Massive Star Formation in G28.20-0.05
Authors: Chi-Yan Law, Jonathan C. Tan, Prasanta Gorai, Yichen Zhang, Rubén Fedriani, Daniel Tafoya, Kei E. I. Tanaka, Giuliana Cosentino, Yao-Lun Yang, Diego Mardones, Maria T. Beltrán, Guido Garay
Figure caption: (a) Top left: integrated intensity maps of CO(2–1) emission tracing outflowing gas as observed in C configuration. The blue contours show blueshifted emission from +80 to +95 km s−1. The contours levels are [1.28, 2.5, 5, 10, 20] Jy beam−1 km s−1. The red contours show redshifted emission from +96 to +115 km s−1. The contours levels are [1.28, 2.5, 5, 10, 20] Jy beam−1 km s−1. Only pixels that are above 1σ spectral rms (=0.31 Jy beam−1) are included. The gray scale shading shows the 1.3 mm continuum image (C+I+E). (b) Top right: as (a), but for C+I combined configurations of 12CO(2–1) emission. The contours levels for the blueshifted and the redshifted emissions are [0.16, 0.32, 0.64, 1.28, 2.5, 5] Jy beam−1 km s−1. (c) Bottom left: as (a), but now showing integrated intensity maps of SiO(5-4) emission (C configuration). The blue contours show blueshifted emission from +80 to +95 km s−1. The red contours show redshifted emission from +96 to +115 km s−1. The contours levels are [0.16, 0.32, 0.64, 1.28, 2.56, 5.12] Jy beam−1 km s−1. Only pixels that are above 1σ spectral rms (=0.279 mJy beam−1) are included. (d) Bottom right: as (c), but now for C+I combined configurations of SiO(5-4) emission. The contours levels are [0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.06, 0.08, 0.1, 0.12] Jy beam−1.
Paper: Isolated Massive Star Formation in G28.20-0.05
Authors: Chi-Yan Law, Jonathan C. Tan, Prasanta Gorai, Yichen Zhang, Rubén Fedriani, Daniel Tafoya, Kei E. I. Tanaka, Giuliana Cosentino, Yao-Lun Yang, Diego Mardones, Maria T. Beltrán, Guido Garay
Figure caption: (a) Top left: H30α moment zero map, only considering pixels with integrated intensity above 5σ of the spectral rms measured over emission free velocity channels in the averaged velocity spectrum (note, 1σ ≃ 0.8 mJy beam−1). The black contours show the 1.3 mm continuum emission (0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5, 5, 5.5, 6 Jy arcsec−2). (b) Top right: as (a), but now showing the H30α moment one map, i.e., averaged line-of-sight velocity. (c) Bottom left: as (a), but now showing the H30α moment two map, i.e., the 1D velocity dispersion along the line of sight of the H30α emission. (d) Bottom right: as (a), but now showing the ratio between the integrated intensity of H30α and the continuum intensity.
Paper: Isolated Massive Star Formation in G28.20-0.05
Authors: Chi-Yan Law, Jonathan C. Tan, Prasanta Gorai, Yichen Zhang, Rubén Fedriani, Daniel Tafoya, Kei E. I. Tanaka, Giuliana Cosentino, Yao-Lun Yang, Diego Mardones, Maria T. Beltrán, Guido Garay
Figure caption: Channel maps of H30α emission based on C+I+E configurations. Each panel shows a moment 0 map integrated over the labeled velocity range. The synthesized beam is shown at the lower left corner of each panel. The overlaid C+I+E continuum contours (gray contours) have intensities 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5, 5, 5.5, 6 Jy arcsec−2.
Paper: Isolated Massive Star Formation in G28.20-0.05
Authors: Chi-Yan Law, Jonathan C. Tan, Prasanta Gorai, Yichen Zhang, Rubén Fedriani, Daniel Tafoya, Kei E. I. Tanaka, Giuliana Cosentino, Yao-Lun Yang, Diego Mardones, Maria T. Beltrán, Guido Garay
Figure caption: H30α averaged spectrum toward a circular aperture of 0″.3 radius from the main millimeter continuum peak. The red dotted line is the Gaussian fit to the spectrum. The corresponding dispersion is 14.2 km s−1. The vertical black dotted line represents the systemic velocity of the source.
Paper: Isolated Massive Star Formation in G28.20-0.05
Authors: Chi-Yan Law, Jonathan C. Tan, Prasanta Gorai, Yichen Zhang, Rubén Fedriani, Daniel Tafoya, Kei E. I. Tanaka, Giuliana Cosentino, Yao-Lun Yang, Diego Mardones, Maria T. Beltrán, Guido Garay
Figure caption: Spectral energy distribution (SED) of G28.20-0.05 from 3.6 μm to 6 cm. See Table 3 for the detailed information about the data. Black squares and error bars show the fluxes from near-infrared to submillimeter wavelengths. Green squares and error bars show the fluxes in radio wavelengths from 0.7 to 6 cm. The blue and gray squares and error bars show the fluxes of C+I ALMA configurations measured with assumed 10% error over a circular aperture of 5″.0 and 0″.5, respectively.
Paper: Isolated Massive Star Formation in G28.20-0.05
Authors: Chi-Yan Law, Jonathan C. Tan, Prasanta Gorai, Yichen Zhang, Rubén Fedriani, Daniel Tafoya, Kei E. I. Tanaka, Giuliana Cosentino, Yao-Lun Yang, Diego Mardones, Maria T. Beltrán, Guido Garay
Figure caption: The C-only configuration channel maps of 12CO(2–1) emission. Each panel shows the moment 0 map calculated within the labeled velocity range. The synthesized beam is shown in the lower left corner of each panel. The [0,0] point corresponds to the main continuum peak location (R.A.: 18:42:58.09979, decl.: −04:13:57.64121) and is marked by the red “+” symbol.
Paper: Isolated Massive Star Formation in G28.20-0.05
Authors: Chi-Yan Law, Jonathan C. Tan, Prasanta Gorai, Yichen Zhang, Rubén Fedriani, Daniel Tafoya, Kei E. I. Tanaka, Giuliana Cosentino, Yao-Lun Yang, Diego Mardones, Maria T. Beltrán, Guido Garay
Figure caption: (a) Top: distribution of outflow mass inferred from CO(2–1) vs. velocity. (b) Middle: distribution of outflow momentum inferred from CO(2–1) vs. velocity. (c) Bottom: mass spectra of blueshifted and redshifted outflow components. The equivalent data from the G339.88–1.26 massive protostar (Zhang et al. 2019a) are also shown.