Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Observing planetary gaps in the gas of debris disks

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In the thin CO gas of old debris disks, planets as small as half a Jupiter-mass should open gaps that ALMA can see.

desk verdict A genuinely new observable channel for planets in debris-disk gas, with a testable HD138813 prediction, but the headline planet masses rest on a single viscosity assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14241 v1 pith:4INC47YZ submitted 2024-11-21 astro-ph.EP

C. Bergez-Casalou , Q. Kral This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords debrisdisksplanet-diskinteractionsCOgasALMAobservationsplanetarygapskinksexoplanetindirectdetectionhydrodynamicalsimulations
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

Debris disks around old stars carry far less gas than the planet-forming disks of their youth, and this paper argues that the difference makes planet-carved gaps visible for the first time in gas emission. Combining hydrodynamical simulations, radiative transfer, and simulated ALMA observations, the authors show that in disks with a few $10^{-3}\,M_\oplus$ of CO, a giant planet empties its gap so thoroughly that the leftover gas radiates below ALMA's $3\sigma$ sensitivity while the surrounding disk stays bright. Planets as small as 0.5 Jupiter masses can do this in the lightest disks. The paper also derives a simple flux criterion (Eq. 9) that predicts when a gap is observable, and applies it to HD138813, where a Jupiter-mass planet at about 70 AU should produce a resolvable gap in a roughly 7-hour ALMA observation. If correct, the result turns debris-disk gas into a new indirect exoplanet detector, reaching cold giant planets that direct imaging cannot see.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is an observability criterion built from a geometric resolution condition and a flux condition. The gap width is tied to the planet's Hill sphere, $w_{\rm gap}=4r_{\rm H}=4r_p(q/3)^{1/3}$, which the simulations find matches the width at the bottom of the gap. The flux inside the gap is $F_{\rm gap}=h\nu_{u,l}A_{u,l}x_u S_{\rm beam}\Sigma_{\rm gap}/(4\pi d^2 m_{\rm mol})$ (Eq. 9), with $\Sigma_{\rm gap}$ taken directly from the hydrodynamical runs rather than from an analytic gap-depth formula. A gap is observable when it is resolved and $F_{\rm gap}<3F_{\rm sens}$. The mechanism works because the absolute surface density of debris-disk gas is low: the same fractional gap depth that hides gaps in protoplanetary disks pushes debris-disk gaps below the sensitivity floor. The half-Jupiter threshold and the HD138813 prediction both rest on this criterion.

What would settle it

Observe HD138813's CO $J=2$-$1$ emission with ALMA in the C-7 configuration (beam $\sim$0.09 arcseconds) for about 7 hours. If the moment-zero map shows no surface-brightness depression centered near 70 AU with width $\sim$0.14 arcseconds, the paper's headline prediction for a Jupiter-mass planet fails. A second check: measure the turbulent $\alpha$ of any debris-disk gas, as attempted for $\beta$ Pictoris; a value near 0.1 would imply that the half-Jupiter threshold is too optimistic by orders of magnitude at the assumed scale height.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that planet-gas interactions in the late, H2-poor stage of disk evolution are observable in a way that the protoplanetary stage is not. In a protoplanetary disk the gas surface density is high enough that even a deep gap remains luminous, so gaps are hard to see in CO; in a debris disk the same relative gap depth leaves an absolute column inside the gap so small that its emission falls below the ALMA detection threshold. The paper demonstrates this for planets of 0.5, 1, and 5 Jupiter masses at 10, 50, and 100 AU, in disks of $10^{-5}$, $10^{-3}$, and $10^{-1}$ Earth masses, and finds that gap observability is governed by the absolute amount of gas remaining in the gap, not by the relative depth. It condenses this into a criterion: the gap must be resolved, with its width set by four Hill radii of the planet, and the flux from one beam inside the gap, computed from the residual surface density, must lie below $3F_{\rm sens}$. Applied to HD138813, the criterion predicts that a Jupiter-mass planet at roughly 70 AU would be detectable.

Load-bearing premise

The disk is modeled as a thin, weakly turbulent single-fluid disk with a fixed turbulence parameter $\alpha=10^{-3}$ and scale height $h=0.01\,(r/1\,\mathrm{AU})^{0.25}$; if real debris-disk gas is substantially more turbulent or thicker, the same planets would carve shallower gaps and the predicted observable masses would rise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In a $10^{-3}\,M_\oplus$ CO disk at 40 pc, simulated ALMA images show gaps for planets as small as $0.5\,M_{\rm J}$ when the planet sits at 50-100 AU; at 10 AU the gap is not resolved.
  • For $10^{-1}\,M_\oplus$ disks, gaps become too luminous to see, but kinks in the channel maps become observable for planets more massive than about $1\,M_{\rm J}$.
  • The flux criterion is disk-agnostic: it applies to any line and any disk, including low-mass protoplanetary disks, provided the gas outside the gap is detected and the gap is resolved.
  • HD138813, HD121191, and HD156623 are identified as ideal targets; for HD138813 a Jupiter-mass planet at 70 AU would produce an easily resolvable $\sim$0.14 arcsecond gap in a 7-hour ALMA C-7 observation.
  • Observed gaps would permit a planet-mass estimate through the Hill-sphere relation $m_p=3M_*(w_{\rm gap}/4r_p)^3$, probing giant planets too cold for direct imaging.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the gap depth scales as $\Sigma_{\rm gap}/\Sigma_0 \simeq 1/(1+0.04K)$ with $K=q^2h^{-5}\alpha^{-1}$, the paper's half-Jupiter threshold is tied to $\alpha=10^{-3}$ and a thin flaring disk; if independent measurements show $\alpha\sim0.1$, the required mass rises by orders of magnitude, so a search should prioritize disks with low inferred turbulence.
  • The criterion could be inverted: a measured gap flux and gap width in a debris disk would jointly constrain planet mass and local viscosity, complementing dust-gap analyses that cannot easily locate the planet.
  • An efficient observational test would be a high-resolution ALMA survey of disks with CO masses between $10^{-4}$ and $10^{-2}\,M_\oplus$, looking for surface-brightness depressions before attempting deep direct imaging.
  • Because kinks and gaps are visible in complementary disk-mass regimes, observing both in one disk could distinguish a low-mass planet in a low-mass disk from a massive planet in a massive disk, though the paper does not work out that degeneracy.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript combines FARGO3D hydrodynamic simulations, RADMC-3D radiative transfer, and CASA synthetic ALMA observations to ask when a giant planet embedded in a low-mass CO debris disk produces an observable gas gap. It explores planet masses 0.5, 1, and 5 M_J at 10, 50, and 100 AU; disk masses 10^-5, 10^-3, and 10^-1 M_Earth; and distances 40, 100, and 130 pc. A one-beam LTE flux estimate (Eq. 9) is compared with the 3-sigma ALMA sensitivity to define gap observability, and the criterion is checked against the synthetic images (Fig. 8). The same machinery is applied to HD 138813, predicting that a Jupiter-mass planet near 70 AU would open a resolvable gap in roughly 7 hours of ALMA C-7 observations. The central claim is that, unlike protoplanetary disks, debris-disk gas is so tenuous that residual gas in planetary gaps falls below ALMA's detection threshold, making planets as small as 0.5 M_J indirectly detectable.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are robust, the paper opens a practical new channel for detecting cold giant planets around old stars, and the gap/kink dichotomy is a clean observable distinction. The modeling pipeline is standard and the synthetic-observation setup is realistic; the HD 138813 prediction is a genuine, falsifiable target that can be checked with new ALMA data. The transparent analytical criterion in Eq. 9 is a useful tool even if its absolute calibration needs refinement. However, the headline mass threshold and the target prediction are tied to two fixed disk parameters, alpha=10^-3 and h=0.01(r/1AU)^0.25, and the validation of the criterion in Fig. 8 uses the same hydrodynamical surface densities that produce the synthetic images, so the evidence is not yet as strong as the abstract's phrasing suggests.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sect. 5.2.1, Eq. (10)] The fixed viscosity alpha=10^-3 in Sect. 2.2 is load-bearing: the abstract's '0.5 M_J' claim and the Sect. 5.1 HD 138813 Jupiter-mass prediction are computed at this single value. The paper itself notes that beta Pic allows alpha up to 0.1 (Sect. 5.2.1). Because the gap-depth parameter scales as K=q^2 h^-5 alpha^-1 (Eq. 10), an increase of alpha by two orders of magnitude moves a 0.5 M_J planet from the deep-gap regime to a shallow partial gap; recovering the same depth requires roughly an order of magnitude more planet mass. The manuscript acknowledges this in words but provides no simulation or re-derived threshold for higher alpha, leaving the headline claim as a one-parameter extrapolation. Please add an alpha sweep (at least alpha=10^-2 and 10^-1 at the fiducial planet locations) or, if this is too costly, an explicit analytic bound with the caveat prominently reflected in the abstract and conclusions.
  2. [Fig. 8, Eq. (9)] The validation of the observability criterion is partly by construction. The F_gap/(3F_sens) map in Fig. 8 is computed (Eq. 9) from the same FARGO3D Sigma_gap fields that generate the synthetic images used for the red/green dots, so the agreement measures internal consistency rather than predictive power. The application to HD 138813 is independent and therefore valuable, but the claim in Sect. 4 that the criterion is 'an efficient way to determine whether gaseous gaps can be observed' should be supported by an out-of-sample test, for example a leave-one-configuration-out check or a comparison with an independently calibrated gap-depth relation. In light of Fig. 11, the latter option requires acknowledging that published relations can differ by more than an order of magnitude.
  3. [Sect. 5.3, Fig. 11] Fig. 11 shows that the Kanagawa, Fung, and Pichierri gap-depth formulas disagree with the simulations by more than an order of magnitude in low-mass cases. This has two consequences for the paper's logic. First, Eq. 10 cannot be used as a reliable quantitative cross-check for the alpha sensitivity discussed in my first comment, although the direction of the effect is not in doubt. Second, because the simulations are the only source for Sigma_gap, the authors should state more explicitly that the numerical results, not the analytic scaling, set the quantitative thresholds; this strengthens the need for a documented resolution/convergence check and for additional hydrodynamical parameters (viscosity, aspect ratio) before the mass threshold is quoted as a general result.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] The article contains many typographical errors from spacing ('di fferent', 'wether', 'critera', 'us thus') and a copyediting pass is needed before publication.
  2. [Eq. (6), Appendix B] The text defines the gap width by w_gap=4r_H and then cautions that Eq. 6 should use the width at the bottom of the gap; since observers will measure an intensity profile, please state explicitly how the measured full width and the inclination projection enter Eq. 6.
  3. [Fig. 8] The dot colors in Fig. 8 are described in the caption and text, but the orange and blue cases are only explained later; adding a legend to the figure would improve readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Partial circularity in the Fig. 8 validation loop: the observability criterion and the synthetic images share the same hydrodynamical Sigma_gap, so their agreement is partly by construction; the central 0.5 M_J threshold and the HD138813 prediction are otherwise independent forward-model outputs.

  1. other [Sect. 4 (Fig. 8) and Sect. 5.3]
    "In Fig. 8, we show the ratios Fgap/(3Fsens) where Fgap is the flux determined from Eq. 9 ... Overlaid are dots representing what we find from our images. ... In our study, Sigma_gap was directly determined from our hydrodynamical simulations in order to be consistent with our synthetic images (see Appendix B)."

    The validation loop is closed by construction: Eq. 9 computes F_gap from Sigma_gap taken from the FARGO3D runs, while the 'observed/not observed' dots are read from RADMC-3D+CASA images generated from those same FARGO3D surface densities. The color map and the dots therefore share the same hydrodynamical input, so agreement is partly guaranteed rather than independently tested. The paper explicitly admits that Sigma_gap was chosen to be consistent with the synthetic images. This makes Fig. 8 a self-consistency check rather than an independent confirmation of the observability criterion. The criterion itself and the HD138813 application remain genuine forward-model predictions that are not fitted to ALMA data, so the circularity is only partial.

full rationale

No fully circular derivation chain is present. The central claim that planets as small as 0.5 M_J can open observable gaps is a forward-model result from FARGO3D + RADMC-3D + CASA at fixed alpha = 1e-3; it is not fitted to the observed CO fluxes, and the HD138813 prediction uses only literature disk parameters and an assumed planet orbit, so it is externally testable. The alpha = 1e-3 choice is a stated modeling assumption whose sensitivity is discussed in Sect. 5.2.1; that is a robustness concern, not circularity. Self-citations such as Cui et al. 2024 for the alpha value and Kral et al. 2019 for the temperature profile are ordinary domain citations, not load-bearing uniqueness theorems. The one genuine circular element is the internal validation in Fig. 8: Eq. 9 and the synthetic images both derive from the same hydrodynamical Sigma_gap fields, and the paper acknowledges this by stating that Sigma_gap was determined from the simulations 'in order to be consistent with our synthetic images'. The agreement of the criterion with the simulated images is therefore partly by construction. This raises the score to 3 but does not invalidate the paper's independent predictive content.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a set of chosen disk parameters (alpha = 1e-3, thin flaring h, temperature profile, surface-density power law, disk mass grid, pure-CO composition) and on standard machinery: 2D locally isothermal alpha-disk hydrodynamics, vertical hydrostatic extrapolation, LTE radiative transfer, and the ALMA sensitivity model. The most fragile inputs are alpha and h because the gap depth scales as alpha^-1 h^-5. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • turbulent viscosity parameter alpha = 10^-3
    Fixed for all runs (Sect. 2.2); gap depth scales as K proportional to alpha^-1 (Eq. 10), and observations allow alpha up to about 0.1 (Sect. 5.2.1), so this choice directly sets the minimum planet mass for observable gaps.
  • disk aspect ratio h = 0.01 (r/1AU)^0.25
    Flaring profile fixed in Sect. 2.2; gap depth scales as K proportional to h^-5, so a thicker disk would weaken the predicted gaps at a given planet mass.
  • gas temperature profile = T = 171 K (r/1AU)^-0.5
    Chosen from second-generation gas models (Kral et al. 2019); sets the scale height and the CO excitation, and feeds the partition function in Eq. 8.
  • initial surface density power law = Sigma proportional to r^-1
    Power-law index and normalization chosen so the disk mass matches the grid (10^-5, 10^-3, 10^-1 M_Earth CO); the radial gas distribution affects the contrast between the gap and the surrounding disk.
  • gas mean molecular weight = mu = 28 (pure CO)
    Radiative transfer assumes the gas is entirely CO (Sect. 2.3); a realistic CO+C+O mixture has lower mean molecular weight, raising the scale height and changing both the gap dynamics and the line excitation.
  • disk mass grid = 10^-5, 10^-3, 10^-1 M_Earth CO
    Three masses spanning the observed population (Fig. 1); the headline '0.5 MJ' observability result is tied to the intermediate 10^-3 M_Earth case.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption 2D locally isothermal Navier-Stokes equations with alpha-viscosity describe the debris-disk CO gas, and vertical hydrostatic equilibrium gives the 3D distribution (Eqs. 1, 2, 4).
    Standard protoplanetary-disk machinery applied to H2-poor debris disks; ignores 3D effects and thermal stratification, acknowledged in Sect. 5.2.2 as a simplification.
  • domain assumption LTE for CO J=2-1 excitation with a single gas temperature field (Sect. 2.3).
    Justified by Matra et al. 2015 and Kral et al. 2019 for the disk mass range studied; plausible but not independently verified in this paper.
  • domain assumption The planet is on a fixed circular orbit and does not accrete gas (Sect. 2.2).
    Simplifies the problem; the paper's own runs show eccentricity for the 5 MJ planet at 10 AU, and accretion is known to alter gap density (Bergez-Casalou et al. 2020 cited).
  • domain assumption Integration for 10^4 orbits at 5.2 AU reaches a quasi-steady gap state (Sect. 2.2).
    Convergence is assumed without an explicit convergence test; the mass taper is long (up to 5000 orbits) and the final state is taken as steady.
  • domain assumption The gas is initialized as a smooth power-law disk and the planet is tapered in; there is no continuous gas source from the planetesimal belt (Sect. 2.2).
    Represents a fully viscously spread disk; real debris disks release gas continually from colliding planetesimals, which could partially refill the gap.
  • domain assumption The CASA simple-noise model and the ALMA sensitivity calculator reproduce real ALMA observations (Sect. 2.4).
    Synthetic noise is simplified thermal noise; real observations include calibration errors, side lobes, and weather effects.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observing planetary gaps in the gas of debris disks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4INC47YZ

@misc{pith2026241114241,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observing planetary gaps in the gas of debris disks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4INC47YZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14241}
}
abstract

Recent ALMA observations discovered consequent amounts (i.e., up to a few $10^{-1}\; \rm M_\oplus$) of CO gas in debris disks that were expected to be gas-free. This gas is in general estimated to be mostly composed of CO, C, and O (i.e., $\rm H_2$-poor), unlike the gas present in protoplanetary disks ($\rm H_2$-rich). At this stage, the majority of planet formation already occurred, and giant planets might be evolving in these disks. While planets have been directly observed in debris disks (e.g., $\beta$ Pictoris), their direct observations are challenging due to the weak luminosity of the planets. In this paper, with the help of hydrodynamical simulations (with FARGO3D) coupled with a radiative transfer code (RADMC-3D) and an observing tool (CASA), we show that planet-gas interactions can produce observable substructures in this late debris disk stage. While it is tricky to observe gaps in the CO emission of protoplanetary disks, the unique properties of the gaseous debris disks allow us to observe planetary gaps in the gas. Depending on the total mass of the gaseous debris disk, kinks can also be observed. We derive a simple criterion to estimate in which conditions gaps would be observable and apply it to the known gaseous debris disk surrounding HD138813. In our framework, we find that planets as small as $0.5 \; \rm M_J$ can produce observable gaps and investigate under which conditions (i.e., gas and planets characteristics) the substructure become observable with ALMA. The first observations of planet-gas interactions in debris disks can lead to a new way to indirectly detect exoplanets, reaching a population that could not be probed before, such as giant planets that are too cold to be detected by direct imaging.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14241 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. CO masses derived from CO observations as function of distance from the Sun. The color-scale represents the median estimated age of the system in million years. We note the particular case of Fomalhaut, which is particularly old compared to the other disks. The masses and distances investigated in this paper are marked by the horizontal and vertical dashed lines, respectively. produce important gaseous pressure grad… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. CO(J = 2-1) integrated fluxes as function of CO masses. The black dots represent the observations as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Moment-zero maps for three different planet masses (columns) located at three different semi-major axes (rows). We show the maps issued from RADMC-3D and CASA. The disk’s mass is 10−3 M⊕ of CO and located at 40 pc. The dashed red lines show the gap edges in the radiative transfer outputs. When the planet is located too close to the star (10 AU), the gap is hardly distinguishable given our ALMA resolution (beam of 0.… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Channel maps at dv = 0.0 km/s (top panels) and two radial profiles of the gas emission along two radial axes (bottom panels). Here, the planet is mp = 1 MJ , located, respectively, at 10 AU (left column) and 50 AU (right column). The upper and lower slices are the radi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Moment-zero maps for two different disk masses hosting planets located at two different semi-major axes (rows) for three different planet masses (columns). We show the maps issued from RADMC-3D and CASA. The disks are located at 40 pc. The disk’s mass is 10−3 M⊕ of CO …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Combined channel maps at dv = -1.8; 0; 1.8 km/s (two first rows) and dv = -1.0; 0; 1.0 km/s (two last rows) for two different disk masses hosting planets located at two different semi-major axes (rows). The planet mass increases in the columns from left to right. We sh…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Moment-zero and combined channel maps at different dv for two different configurations. Here, the selected channels are the ones where the gas emission is located closest to the planet in order to clearly see its impact on the gas. In the first top rows, a Jupiter-mass…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Value of our observability criterion Fgap/(3Fsens) (color map) in different configurations explored. Here, the disks are located at 40 pc. Both disk masses are shown in the top (low-mass disk) and bottom (high-mass disk) squares. Each panel of each square represents a …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Simulated images of CO(J = 2-1) emission of HD138813 in three different configurations. In the first column, the disk does not host any planet and is to be compared to the two other columns where a Jupiter-mass planet (center) and a five-Jupiter-mass planet (right) ha…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Ratio between averaged surface density inside the gaps in our hydrodynamical simulations Σgap,hydro and the surface density estimated from different criteria Σgap,criterion. In red are the estimates from Kana￾gawa et al. (2015), in orange those from Pichierri et al. (…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Longest-period Young Transiting Exoplanets. A Duo of Puffy Giants inside a Debris Disk

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    HD 114082 hosts two puffy, moderate-to-low-mass giants on nearly circular, coplanar, near-resonant orbits of 225.55 and ~314 days, the longest-period young transiting exoplanets known.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Armitage , P. J. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2201.07262

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    2024, , 683, A16

    Barraza-Alfaro , M., Flock , M., & Henning , T. 2024, , 683, A16

    2024

  3. [3]

    & Masset , F

    Ben \' tez-Llambay , P. & Masset , F. S. 2016, , 223, 11

    2016

  4. [4]

    T., & Pinilla , P

    Bergez-Casalou , C., Bitsch , B., Kurtovic , N. T., & Pinilla , P. 2022, , 659, A6

    2022

  5. [5]

    Bergez-Casalou , C., Bitsch , B., Pierens , A., Crida , A., & Raymond , S. N. 2020, , 643, A133

    2020

  6. [6]

    S., & Lega , E

    Bitsch , B., Crida , A., Libert , A. S., & Lega , E. 2013, , 555, A124

    2013

  7. [7]

    & Kley , W

    Bitsch , B. & Kley , W. 2010, , 523, A30

    2010

  8. [8]

    J., & Pinte , C

    Bollati , F., Lodato , G., Price , D. J., & Pinte , C. 2021, , 504, 5444

    2021

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    C., Marino , S., et al

    Bonsor , A., Wyatt , M. C., Marino , S., et al. 2023, , 526, 3115

    2023

  2. [10]

    Booth , M., Matr \`a , L., Su , K. Y. L., et al. 2019, , 482, 3443

    2019

  3. [11]

    2016, , 591, A27

    Brandeker , A., Cataldi , G., Olofsson , G., et al. 2016, , 591, A27

    2016

  4. [12]

    2022, , 134, 114501

    CASA Team , Bean , B., Bhatnagar , S., et al. 2022, , 134, 114501

    2022

  5. [13]

    2023, , 951, 111

    Cataldi , G., Aikawa , Y., Iwasaki , K., et al. 2023, , 951, 111

    2023

  6. [14]

    2014, , 563, A66

    Cataldi , G., Brandeker , A., Olofsson , G., et al. 2014, , 563, A66

    2014

  7. [15]

    2020, , 892, 99

    Cataldi , G., Wu , Y., Brandeker , A., et al. 2020, , 892, 99

    2020

  8. [16]

    2006, , 181, 587

    Crida , A., Morbidelli , A., & Masset , F. 2006, , 181, 587

    2006

  9. [17]

    2024, , 530, 1766

    Cui , C., Marino , S., Kral , Q., & Latter , H. 2024, , 530, 1766

    2024

  10. [18]

    Dent , W. R. F., Wyatt , M. C., Roberge , A., et al. 2014, Science, 343, 1490

    2014

  11. [19]

    2020, , 635, A94

    Di Folco , E., P \'e ricaud , J., Dutrey , A., et al. 2020, , 635, A94

    2020

  12. [20]

    K., Lebreton , J., Roberge , A., Augereau , J

    Donaldson , J. K., Lebreton , J., Roberge , A., Augereau , J. C., & Krivov , A. V. 2013, , 772, 17

    2013

  13. [21]

    P., Isella , A., Andrews , S

    Dullemond , C. P., Isella , A., Andrews , S. M., Skobleva , I., & Dzyurkevich , N. 2020, , 633, A137

    2020

  14. [22]

    P., Juhasz , A., Pohl , A., et al

    Dullemond , C. P., Juhasz , A., Pohl , A., et al. 2012, RADMC-3D: A multi-purpose radiative transfer tool

    2012

  15. [23]

    M., Kalas , P., Fitzgerald , M

    Esposito , T. M., Kalas , P., Fitzgerald , M. P., et al. 2020, , 160, 24

    2020

  16. [24]

    2021, , 161, 271

    Faramaz , V., Marino , S., Booth , M., et al. 2021, , 161, 271

    2021

  17. [25]

    J., Rosenthal , L

    Fulton , B. J., Rosenthal , L. J., Hirsch , L. A., et al. 2021, , 255, 14

    2021

  18. [26]

    2014, , 782, 88

    Fung , J., Shi , J.-M., & Chiang , E. 2014, , 782, 88

    2014

  19. [27]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023, , 674, A1

    2023

  20. [28]

    & Rafikov , R

    Goodman , J. & Rafikov , R. R. 2001, , 552, 793

    2001

  21. [29]

    2019, , 884, 142

    Gyeol Yun , H., Kim , W.-T., Bae , J., & Han , C. 2019, , 884, 142

    2019

  22. [30]

    S., Gorti , U., Carpenter , J

    Hales , A. S., Gorti , U., Carpenter , J. M., Hughes , M., & Flaherty , K. 2019, , 878, 113

    2019

  23. [31]

    S., Marino , S., Sheehan , P

    Hales , A. S., Marino , S., Sheehan , P. D., et al. 2022, , 940, 161

    2022

  24. [32]

    M., & Lin , M.-K

    Hammer , M., Kratter , K. M., & Lin , M.-K. 2017, , 466, 3533

    2017

  25. [33]

    P., et al

    Haugb lle , T., Weber , P., Wielandt , D. P., et al. 2019, , 158, 55

    2019

  26. [34]

    E., K \'o sp \'a l , \'A ., Mo \'o r , A., Nomura , H., & Yamamoto , S

    Higuchi , A. E., K \'o sp \'a l , \'A ., Mo \'o r , A., Nomura , H., & Yamamoto , S. 2020, , 905, 122

    2020

  27. [35]

    2023, , 522, 6150

    Imaz Blanco , A., Marino , S., Matr \`a , L., et al. 2023, , 522, 6150

    2023

  28. [36]

    F., Testi , L., Facchini , S., Rosotti , G

    Izquierdo , A. F., Testi , L., Facchini , S., Rosotti , G. P., & van Dishoeck , E. F. 2021, , 650, A179

    2021

  29. [37]

    F., Testi , L., Facchini , S., et al

    Izquierdo , A. F., Testi , L., Facchini , S., et al. 2023, , 674, A113

    2023

  30. [38]

    D., Muto , T., Tanaka , H., et al

    Kanagawa , K. D., Muto , T., Tanaka , H., et al. 2016, , 68, 43

    2016

  31. [39]

    D., Tanaka , H., Muto , T., Tanigawa , T., & Takeuchi , T

    Kanagawa , K. D., Tanaka , H., Muto , T., Tanigawa , T., & Takeuchi , T. 2015, , 448, 994

    2015

  32. [40]

    2019, , 625, A118

    Keppler , M., Teague , R., Bae , J., et al. 2019, , 625, A118

    2019

  33. [41]

    & Dirksen , G

    Kley , W. & Dirksen , G. 2006, , 447, 369

    2006

  34. [42]

    2013, , 776, 77

    K \'o sp \'a l , \'A ., Mo \'o r , A., Juh \'a sz , A., et al. 2013, , 776, 77

    2013

  35. [43]

    2020 a , Nature Astronomy, 4, 769

    Kral , Q., Davoult , J., & Charnay , B. 2020 a , Nature Astronomy, 4, 769

    2020

  36. [44]

    & Latter , H

    Kral , Q. & Latter , H. 2016, , 461, 1614

    2016

  37. [45]

    C., Kama , M., & Matr \`a , L

    Kral , Q., Marino , S., Wyatt , M. C., Kama , M., & Matr \`a , L. 2019, , 489, 3670

    2019

  38. [46]

    M., Marino , S., & Wyatt , M

    Kral , Q., Matr \`a , L., Kennedy , G. M., Marino , S., & Wyatt , M. C. 2020 b , , 497, 2811

    2020

  39. [47]

    C., & Kennedy , G

    Kral , Q., Matr \`a , L., Wyatt , M. C., & Kennedy , G. M. 2017, , 469, 521

    2017

  40. [48]

    F., et al

    Kral , Q., Wyatt , M., Carswell , R. F., et al. 2016, , 461, 845

    2016

  41. [49]

    M., Meunier , N., Rubini , P., et al

    Lagrange , A. M., Meunier , N., Rubini , P., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 1135

    2019

  42. [50]

    J., Loomis , R

    Law , C. J., Loomis , R. A., Teague , R., et al. 2021, , 257, 3

    2021

  43. [51]

    & Lin , M.-K

    Les , R. & Lin , M.-K. 2015, , 450, 1503

    2015

  44. [52]

    M., Carpenter , J

    Lieman-Sifry , J., Hughes , A. M., Carpenter , J. M., et al. 2016, , 828, 25

    2016

  45. [53]

    B., Kennedy , G

    Lovell , J. B., Kennedy , G. M., Marino , S., et al. 2021, , 502, L66

    2021

  46. [54]

    C., et al

    Marino , S., Carpenter , J., Wyatt , M. C., et al. 2018, , 479, 5423

    2018

  47. [55]

    2020, , 492, 4409

    Marino , S., Flock , M., Henning , T., et al. 2020, , 492, 4409

    2020

  48. [56]

    2016, , 460, 2933

    Marino , S., Matr \`a , L., Stark , C., et al. 2016, , 460, 2933

    2016

  49. [57]

    P., Milli , J., Choquet , E., et al

    Marshall , J. P., Milli , J., Choquet , E., et al. 2023, , 521, 5940

    2023

  50. [58]

    Matr \`a , L., Dent , W. R. F., Wyatt , M. C., et al. 2017 a , , 464, 1415

    2017

  51. [59]

    A., Kalas , P., et al

    Matr \`a , L., MacGregor , M. A., Kalas , P., et al. 2017 b , , 842, 9

    2017

  52. [60]

    I., Wilner , D

    Matr \`a , L., \"O berg , K. I., Wilner , D. J., Olofsson , J., & Bayo , A. 2019, , 157, 117

    2019

  53. [61]

    C., & Dent , W

    Matr \`a , L., Pani \'c , O., Wyatt , M. C., & Dent , W. R. F. 2015, , 447, 3936

    2015

  54. [62]

    2017, , 849, 123

    Mo \'o r , A., Cur \'e , M., K \'o sp \'a l , \'A ., et al. 2017, , 849, 123

    2017

  55. [63]

    2019, , 884, 108

    Mo \'o r , A., Kral , Q., \'A brah \'a m , P., et al. 2019, , 884, 108

    2019

  56. [64]

    2020, , 638, A1

    Morbidelli , A. 2020, , 638, A1

    2020

  57. [65]

    Papaloizou , J. C. B., Nelson , R. P., & Masset , F. 2001, , 366, 263

    2001

  58. [66]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Pascucci , I., Cabrit , S., Edwards , S., 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 , 567

    2023

  59. [67]

    D., Launhardt , R., Ostermann , R., et al

    Pearce , T. D., Launhardt , R., Ostermann , R., et al. 2022, , 659, A135

    2022

  60. [68]

    Pearce , T. D. & Wyatt , M. C. 2015, , 453, 3329

    2015

  61. [69]

    2017, , 600, A62

    P \'e ricaud , J., Di Folco , E., Dutrey , A., Guilloteau , S., & Pi \'e tu , V. 2017, , 600, A62

    2017

  62. [70]

    2023, , 670, A148

    Pichierri , G., Bitsch , B., & Lega , E. 2023, , 670, A148

    2023

  63. [71]

    2012, , 545, A81

    Pinilla , P., Benisty , M., & Birnstiel , T. 2012, , 545, A81

    2012

  64. [72]

    2018 a , , 609, A47

    Pinte , C., M \'e nard , F., Duch \^e ne , G., et al. 2018 a , , 609, A47

    2018

  65. [73]

    J., M \'e nard , F., et al

    Pinte , C., Price , D. J., M \'e nard , F., et al. 2018 b , , 860, L13

    2018

  66. [74]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Pinte , C., Teague , R., Flaherty , K., 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 , 645

    2023

  67. [75]

    2022, , 509, 693

    Rebollido , I., Ribas , \'A ., de Gregorio-Monsalvo , I., et al. 2022, , 509, 693

    2022

  68. [76]

    M., Fu , B., et al

    Ricci , L., Carpenter , J. M., Fu , B., et al. 2015, , 798, 124

    2015

  69. [77]

    C., et al

    Riviere-Marichalar , P., Barrado , D., Augereau , J. C., et al. 2012, , 546, L8

    2012

  70. [78]

    2013, , 771, 69

    Roberge , A., Kamp , I., Montesinos , B., et al. 2013, , 771, 69

    2013

  71. [79]

    A., Andrews , S

    Rosenfeld , K. A., Andrews , S. M., Hughes , A. M., Wilner , D. J., & Qi , C. 2013, , 774, 16

    2013

  72. [80]

    P., et al

    Schneiderman , T., Matr \`a , L., Jackson , A. P., et al. 2021, , 598, 425

    2021

  73. [81]

    Shakura, N. I. & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 55, X- and Gamma-Ray Astronomy, ed. H. Bradt & R. Giacconi , 155

    1973

  74. [82]

    Su , K. Y. L., Rieke , G. H., Malhotra , R., et al. 2013, , 763, 118

    2013

  75. [83]

    A., Birnstiel , T., & Foreman-Mackey , D

    Teague , R., Bae , J., Bergin , E. A., Birnstiel , T., & Foreman-Mackey , D. 2018, , 860, L12

    2018

  76. [84]

    F., & Black , J

    Visser , R., van Dishoeck , E. F., & Black , J. H. 2009, , 503, 323

    2009

  77. [85]

    Wyatt , M. C. 2008, , 46, 339

    2008

  78. [86]

    S., Law , C

    Zhang , K., Booth , A. S., Law , C. J., et al. 2021, , 257, 5

    2021

  79. [87]

    2018, , 869, L47

    Zhang , S., Zhu , Z., Huang , J., et al. 2018, , 869, L47

    2018

  80. [88]

    2022, , 164, 5

    Zhu , W. 2022, , 164, 5

    2022

  81. [89]

    & Zhang , R

    Zhu , Z. & Zhang , R. M. 2022, , 510, 3986

    2022

  82. [90]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sent...

  83. [91]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

  84. [92]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should not add it explicitly Type <Return> for now, but then later remove the command natbib from the document \@ifclassloaded aguplus natbib The aguplus class already includes natbib codin...

  85. [93]

    @stdbsttrue NAT@ctr \@lbibitem[ NAT@ctr ] \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 [ @natanchorstart #2\@extra@b@citeb \@biblabel @num @natanchorend] @ifc...

  86. [94]

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifundefined NAT@sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifundefined bib@heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel NAT@ctr \@bib...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.