Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

JWST Imaging of Edge-on Protoplanetary Disks. IV. Mid-infrared Dust Scattering in the HH 30 disk

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read JWST mid-infrared images of the edge-on disk HH 30 show that grains of about 3 µm or larger are fully mixed to the disk surface, while millimeter grains settle only moderately.

desk verdict A careful, data-rich paper that convincingly shows mid-IR scattering and mixed micron grains in HH 30's surface, but the absolute millimeter-grain scale height is more model-dependent than the abstract suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07523 v2 pith:LSWQHOLH submitted 2024-12-10 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Ryo Tazaki , François Ménard , Gaspard Duchêne , Marion Villenave , Álvaro Ribas , Karl R. Stapelfeldt , Marshall D. Perrin , Christophe Pinte
show 5 more authors
Schuyler G. Wolff Deborah L. Padgett Jie Ma Laurine Martinien Maxime Roumesy
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords protoplanetarydisksedge-ondustsettlingmid-infraredscatteringHH30JWSTimagingradiativetransfergrainsizes
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

This paper uses new JWST near- and mid-infrared images of the edge-on protoplanetary disk HH 30, combined with archival HST optical images and a high-resolution ALMA 1.3 mm image, to ask where dust grains of different sizes sit in the disk. The paper argues that the mid-infrared light from the disk is scattered light, not thermal emission, and that reproducing the observed bright, thick mid-infrared reflection nebulae requires grains of about 3 µm in radius or larger to be fully mixed up to the disk surface out to tens of au. At the same time, the paper finds that millimeter-sized grains are only moderately settled, with a scale height greater than about 1 au at 100 au, unlike the very thin layers seen in some other evolved disks. If correct, this places HH 30 as an intermediate case between highly settled and barely settled disks, and it shows that mid-infrared imaging can directly probe micron-sized grains in disk surfaces.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the size-dependent dust-scale-height prescription $H_d(a) = \max\{H_{\mathrm{floor}},\, H_g \min\{1,\,(a/a_{\mathrm{mix}})^{-1/2}\}\}$, where $H_g$ is the gas scale height, $a_{\mathrm{mix}}$ is the largest grain radius that remains fully mixed with the gas, and $H_{\mathrm{floor}}/r = 0.01$ is a numerical floor on settling. The key parameter is $a_{\mathrm{mix}}$: it controls how the vertical height of the dust layer shrinks with grain size, which in turn sets the observed separation between the two reflection nebulae as a function of wavelength. The paper scans $a_{\mathrm{mix}}$ in radiative-transfer models against the measured separations at 2, 4.4, 7.7, and 12.8 µm, and compares the resulting vertical brightness profiles with the high-resolution ALMA continuum image.

What would settle it

Resolve the vertical structure of the 1.3 mm continuum with an ALMA observation at roughly 0.02 arcsecond resolution: if the millimeter dust layer's scale height at 100 au turns out to be below about 1 au (comparable to HL Tau), the claim of moderate settling fails. Alternatively, a mid-infrared spectrum of the disk surface would distinguish scattered light (featureless continuum) from thermal dust (broad silicate features around 9.7 µm); if the 7.7 µm flux is largely thermal, the scattering-dominated interpretation and the 3 µm mixing requirement are weakened.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a single smooth, flared radiative-transfer disk model can reproduce the wavelength-dependent nebular separation of HH 30's reflection nebulae only if the maximum grain size that is fully mixed with the gas is $a_{\mathrm{mix}} \gtrsim 3\,\mu$m, while the vertical brightness profile of the 1.3 mm continuum requires the millimeter grains to have a scale height of roughly 4.7 au (and at least 1.5 au) at 100 au. A corollary is that the 7.7 µm and 12.8 µm images are scattering-dominated: switching off scattering in the model removes the mid-infrared flux. The paper also reports a tension in the disk inclination angle, with optical and near-infrared images favoring $i \approx 84^\circ$–$86^\circ$ while the ALMA image requires $i \gtrsim 89^\circ$, and it reports the first detection of proper motion of a 12.8 µm jet knot, moving at 121 km s$^{-1}$.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the assumed settling law $H_d(a) = \max\{H_{\mathrm{floor}},\, H_g \min\{1,\,(a/a_{\mathrm{mix}})^{-1/2}\}\}$ with a fixed gas scale height of 15 au at 100 au and a numerical floor of $H_{\mathrm{floor}}/r = 0.01$; if the real settling is not a single power law in grain size, or if the gas scale height differs, then both the $a_{\mathrm{mix}} \gtrsim 3\,\mu$m threshold and the '>1 au' millimeter scale height change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 7.7 and 12.8 µm images of edge-on disks can be read as direct tracers of micron-sized grains in the surface layer, not just as maps of warm dust.
  • HH 30 joins a small set of disks where the vertical settling of millimeter grains is measured to be moderate ($\gtrsim$1–4 au at 100 au), distinguishing it from highly settled disks like HL Tau and Oph 163131.
  • If the inclination tension is real, the HH 30 disk has a more intricate geometry than a smooth flared disk, possibly a warped or misaligned inner region, and optical/near-infrared surface-brightness ratios alone should not be used to set the inclination.
  • The measured proper motion of the 12.8 µm knot supports the interpretation that the mid-infrared jet traces the same outflow as the optical knots, providing a new way to measure jet kinematics in the mid-infrared.
  • The uniform, boxy appearance of the ALMA image indicates that the disk is nearly exactly edge-on and optically thick at 1.3 mm, which future higher-resolution observations must reproduce.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not model the spiral-like structure or the tail; a natural next step would be to test whether the spiral's pattern speed matches the 7.58-day photometric variability, which would favor a temperature- or shadow-driven spiral over a flyby.
  • The inferred $a_{\mathrm{mix}} \gtrsim 3\,\mu$m sets a lower bound on turbulent mixing: if future gas-turbulence measurements in HH 30 find much lower values, the settling/mixing balance used here would need revision.
  • A longer time baseline of 12.8 µm images could measure whether the jet knot accelerates and where it was launched, connecting the mid-infrared jet to the inner edge of the conical outflow.
  • The similarity of HH 30's wavelength-dependent flux-ratio reversal to that of IRAS 04302 suggests a common geometric cause, such as a misaligned inner disk, rather than a unique event; scattered-light modeling with warped inner disks could test this directly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents new JWST/NIRCam and MIRI broadband imaging of the edge-on disk HH 30 at 2.0, 4.4, 7.7, 12.8, and 21 microns, combined with archival HST optical/near-IR images and a new high-resolution ALMA Band 6 continuum image. The authors measure the wavelength-dependent nebular separation and top/bottom surface flux ratio of the reflection nebulae, identify a conical outflow and spiral-like structure, detect a moving knot in the 12.8-micron jet, and resolve the vertical and horizontal structure of the 1.3-mm dust continuum. Using RADMC-3D radiative transfer models with a size-dependent dust settling law, they conclude that grains of roughly 3 microns or larger must be fully vertically mixed in the outer disk surface to explain the mid-IR scattered light, while millimeter grains are settled into a layer of scale height greater than about 1 au at 100 au. They also report a tension between the inclination angle inferred from optical/near-IR images (84-86 degrees) and from the ALMA image (greater than about 89 degrees).

Significance. If the main conclusions hold, this is an important multiwavelength benchmark for dust settling: it would demonstrate that the mid-IR emission of HH 30 is scattering-dominated, that micron-sized grains populate the disk surface out to tens of au, and that the millimeter grains are only moderately settled relative to disks like HL Tau and Oph 163131. The paper's observational strengths are substantial: the data reduction is carefully documented, including subtraction of the MIRI cruciform artifact, the XZ Tau diffraction spike, and 1/f noise; the multi-epoch and multi-instrument comparison is internally consistent; and the no-scattering model provides a direct, falsifiable test that mid-IR flux requires scattering. The first proper-motion measurement of a mid-IR jet knot in HH 30 and the compilation of nebular separation and flux ratio across edge-on disks are valuable in themselves. The modeling conclusions are plausible but rest on a few fixed assumptions that need to be tested before the quantitative settling claims can be regarded as secure.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1, Eq. (1); Section 5.1.2, Figs. 15-16; Abstract] The absolute scale height of millimeter grains is not an independent measurement: Eq. (1) prescribes Hd(a)/Hg = (a/amix)^-0.5 and Section 4.1 fixes Hg through h100 = 15 au and beta = 1.3, so the quoted values of 4.7 au and 1.5 au at 100 au are directly proportional to the adopted h100. Since h100 is taken from earlier scattered-light models rather than measured for HH 30, the numerical comparison with HL Tau and Oph 163131 is insecure; a cooler outer disk with h100 close to 10 au would reduce the best-fit and thin-layer values to about 3.1 au and 1.0 au. In addition, the numerical floor Hfloor/r = 0.01 in Section 4.1 means that no model with Hd(1 mm) below 1 au at 100 au was computed, so the abstract's 'greater than about 1 au' lower limit is partly an artifact of the grid rather than a measured bound. I recommend reporting the constraint in normalized form Hd/Hg and testing at least one alternative h100 value together with a model below the numerical floor.
  2. [Section 5.1.2, Fig. 16] The exclusion of the thin-layer model (Hd(1 mm) = 1.5 au at 100 au) rests on the argument that matching the observed vertical profile would require a disk dust mass of about 2e-3 solar masses, which with a gas-to-dust ratio of 100 would imply a total disk mass comparable to the stellar mass. This is a plausibility prior rather than an observational constraint, and no gas surface density measurement is presented for HH 30. Because the vertical brightness profile depends on both the dust scale height and the optical depth, the paper should quantify how the lower bound on the millimeter-grain scale height changes if the disk mass or gas-to-dust ratio is allowed to vary within reasonable limits.
  3. [Section 5.1.1, Eq. (1), Figs. 13-14; Section 6.1] The claim that grains of about 3 microns or larger are fully mixed is derived within the adopted model using the DIANA opacity, the DHS irregularity parameter fmax = 0.8, and the one-parameter settling law of Eq. (1). Because the amix values are selected by comparing model images and SEDs to the same data that motivate the models, the threshold should be framed as 'amix greater than about 3 microns for this opacity and settling model' rather than as a direct, model-independent physical grain-size measurement. The no-scattering test in Figure 14 and the 2 pi a / lambda criterion robustly support scattering dominance, so this comment is about the quantitative threshold rather than about the scattering-dominated nature of the mid-IR emission.
  4. [Section 5.2, Figs. 17-19] The reported inclination-angle tension is built on two model-dependent comparisons: the optical/near-IR flux ratio from model C and the ALMA vertical and horizontal profiles from an increased-mass model that the authors themselves describe as physically unfavorable. Because the model scattering phase function is acknowledged to be too forward-throwing in Section 6.2, the inferred IR inclination of 84-86 degrees may be biased, and because the ALMA inclination lower limit is obtained with the high-mass model, it may be coupled to the mass/thickness degeneracy noted in Section 5.1.2. The qualitative tension is plausible, but the quantitative values should be softened or supported by a sensitivity study varying the phase function and disk mass.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract vs. Section 7] The abstract states a millimeter-grain scale height of 'greater than about 1 au at 100 au' while Section 7 states 'greater than 1.5 au at 100 au'; please harmonize these statements and specify precisely which quantity is constrained by the model grid.
  2. [Figure 6 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'Verical intensity profiles' should read 'Vertical intensity profiles'.
  3. [Figure 10 axis labels] The minor-axis and major-axis plots in Figure 10 have axis labels such as 'FWHM=0.15" mJy beam 1'; these appear to mix a spatial FWHM with a flux-density unit and should be clarified.
  4. [Section 5.1.1, Fig. 14] The comparison between model and observed SEDs is presented visually; adding quantitative residuals or a goodness-of-fit measure for the amix grid would make the claimed threshold easier to evaluate.
  5. [Section 3.1.4, Fig. 9] The proper motion of the jet knot is measured after manual alignment of the two epochs based on disk emission; please state the uncertainty in this alignment and how it propagates into the quoted knot velocity of 121 km/s.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The central inferences are self-contained radiative-transfer fits; the abstract's '≳1 au' mm-grain scale-height lower bound is, however, the model's numerical floor by construction.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.1 (Eq. 1) and Abstract]
    "Section 4.1: “For numerical convenience, we set the floor value of the dust scale height as Hfloor/r = 0.01. Therefore, if sufficiently large grains are present, a dust scale height can be as small as 1 au at r = 100 au but not less than that.” Abstract: “millimeter-sized grains are settled into a layer with a scale height of ≳1 au at 100 au from the central star.”"

    The abstract's ‘≳1 au’ lower limit is exactly the floor imposed in Eq. (1), Hd(a) = max{Hfloor, ...}, with Hfloor/r = 0.01, so Hd(1 mm) ≥ 1 au at 100 au holds for every model regardless of the ALMA data. Because no model with Hd(1 mm) < 1 au was computed, the headline bound is an input rather than a data-derived prediction. The body's stronger exclusion of the 1.5-au model (Section 5.1.2) is an independent, data-driven result, so the by-construction element affects only the summary lower bound and not the entire settling conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's main derivation chain is a conventional radiative-transfer fit, not a circular reduction. The amix ≥ 3 µm result is obtained by varying a free settling parameter and comparing model images and SEDs to HST/JWST/ALMA data; it is not a renamed input, and the no-scattering control model independently shows that mid-IR flux is scattering-dominated, consistent with the 2πa/λ scattering criterion and earlier SED modeling (Wood et al. 2002). The millimeter-grain settling inference is also externally anchored: the ALMA vertical profile discriminates among models with Hd(1 mm) = 15, 4.7, and 1.5 au, and the rejection of 1.5 au yields the body's '>1.5 au' conclusion. The adopted gas scale height h100 = 15 au and the Hfloor/r = 0.01 numerical floor are model assumptions inherited from previous (partly same-team) scattered-light modeling; these affect the absolute values but do not by themselves force the amix or scattering conclusions. The one genuine by-construction element is the abstract's '≳1 au' lower bound, which coincides with the grid floor in Eq. (1). That is a partial circularity in the headline wording, though the paper's detailed conclusion (>1.5 au) is stronger and data-driven. Overall, the central claims retain independent content, so the circularity score is moderate rather than severe.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central conclusions are model-dependent: a single-parameter settling law, a fixed gas scale height, a chosen opacity model, and mass/luminosity normalization all feed into the inferred grain-size constraints. The paper is transparent about the simple model but does not explore the full degeneracy space.

free parameters (5)
  • amix = >=3 um (matches mid-IR morphology and SED)
    Maximum grain size fully mixed with gas; controls vertical distribution in Eq. (1); values 0.3, 1, 3, 10, 100 um compared; >=3 um fits MIRI nebular separation and SED.
  • Disk dust mass = (2-7) x 10^-4 Msun for models A-D; up to 2 x 10^-3 Msun in tests
    Scaled to reproduce the 2-um nebular separation and flux; affects mid-IR optical depth and vertical profile.
  • Stellar bolometric luminosity = 0.4-0.9 Lsun
    Scaled to match the 2-um integrated flux; affects heating and scattered-light brightness.
  • Disk inclination angle = i = 84-86 deg (optical/near-IR), i >= 89 deg (ALMA)
    Free parameter varied to match bottom/top flux ratio; the mismatch between wavelengths is the reported tension.
  • Outer radius of large grains (a > 10 amix) = 100 au
    Set to match the ALMA disk size; affects the radial extent of the 1.3 mm model image (Section 4.1).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Gaussian vertical profile with power-law surface density and Eq. (1) settling law
    Adopted disk structure; the central inference of grain scale heights depends on this parameterization (Section 4.1).
  • domain assumption DIANA opacity model with DHS (fmax = 0.8) represents dust in HH 30
    Scattering albedo and opacity law set the mid-IR brightness and nebular separation; if grains are more absorbing, the inferred sizes change.
  • domain assumption Single star and axisymmetric disk
    HH 30 may be a binary or warped disk; the model excludes these, and the inclination tension suggests geometry beyond the assumed model.
  • domain assumption Power-law grain size distribution n(a) proportional to a^-3.5 from 0.01 to 10^4 um
    The grain size distribution sets the relative abundance of micron and millimeter grains; this shape is standard but not independently measured for HH 30.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of JWST Imaging of Edge-on Protoplanetary Disks. IV. Mid-infrared Dust Scattering in the HH 30 disk." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LSWQHOLH

@misc{pith2026241207523,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: JWST Imaging of Edge-on Protoplanetary Disks. IV. Mid-infrared Dust Scattering in the HH 30 disk},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LSWQHOLH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07523}
}
abstract

We present near- and mid-infrared (IR) broadband imaging observations of the edge-on protoplanetary disk around HH 30 with the James Webb Space Telescope/Near Infrared Camera (NIRCam) and the Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI). We combine these observations with archival optical/near-IR scattered light images obtained with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) and a millimeter-wavelength dust continuum image obtained with the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) with the highest spatial resolution ever obtained for this target. Our multiwavelength images clearly reveal the vertical and radial segregation of micron-sized and sub-mm-sized grains in the disk. In the near- and mid-IR, the images capture not only bi-reflection nebulae separated by a dark lane but also diverse dynamical processes occurring in the HH 30 disk, such as spiral- and tail-like structures, a conical outflow, and a collimated jet. In contrast, the ALMA image reveals a flat dust disk in the disk midplane. By performing radiative transfer simulations, we show that grains of about 3 $\mu$m in radius or larger are fully vertically mixed to explain the observed mid-IR scattered light flux and its morphology, whereas millimeter-sized grains are settled into a layer with a scale height of $\gtrsim1$ au at $100$ au from the central star. We also find a tension in the disk inclination angle inferred from optical/near-IR and mm observations with the latter being closer to an exactly edge-on. Finally, we report the first detection of the proper motion of an emission knot associated with the mid-IR collimated jet detected by combining two epochs of our MIRI 12.8-$\mu$m observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07523 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An RGB color composite image of HST 0.6 µm (blue), JWST 2 µm (green), 4.4 µm (red), and ALMA 1.3 mm (white contours) images. The HST and JWST images are shown with a logarithmic stretch with a common scale, each normalized to the peak value. The ALMA contour corresponds to the 5σ values. The field of view of the image is 10′′×10′′. The image is rotated such that the jet (a position angle of 31.6 ◦ ) is pointing upwa… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spiral-like structure seen at three epochs: 1998 and 2008 (HST/WFPC2-PC1/F814W) and 2023 (JWST/NIRCam/F200W). All images are shown with a square root stretch from zero to the peak value except for the JWST image, which we applied a further stretch to stand the spiral out. also captures the jet and tail, although those were al￾ready detected in the early HST images (Burrows et al. 1996) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The JWST/NIRCam 2-µm image with a loga￾rithmic stretch without (top) and with annotations to high￾light major features seen in the image (bottom). The field of view of the image is 10′′×10′′ . feature was seen only vaguely in previously published HST images (Burrows et al. 1996; Cotera et al. 2001; Watson & Stapelfeldt 2007), whereas our JWST and HST (taken in 2008) images reveal it even more clearly ( [PITH_FULL_I… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (18 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Image gallery of the HST and JWST images with a logarithmic stretch and the ALMA Band 6 image with a linear stretch. All of them are shown with the same angular scale and the corresponding beam is shown in the bottom right of each panel. The diagonal feature seen in th…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Compilation of the nebular separation (left) and the bottom/top flux ratio (right) of various edge-on disks, including all our JWST/Cycle 1 targets (Tau042021, IRAS 04302, Oph163131, HH 30). Distance to all targets shown here lie in a similar range of 130-161 pc. In th…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Fitting of the conical structure and the jet. Left panel shows the extracted locations of the local intensity peaks. Right panel shows the results of the Bayesian linear regression for the jet and conical structure with a linear base function. The color gradation indic…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: shows a wider field of view image of the mid￾IR jet we detected in the MIRI/F1280W (12.8 µm) im￾ages. The jet extends up to ∼ 8 ′′ from the disk midplane. 2 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 3 y ( a r c s e c ) 2 1 0 1 2 x (arcsec) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (Left) Movement of a jet knot seen in MIRI/F1280W image between two epochs. The contours are the value at 10−1.5 relative to the peak. (Right) Vertical intensity profile of the F1280W images measured along the jet, as indicated with the white dotted line on the left pa…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Top row: (Left) ALMA Band 6 image of the dust continuum emission of HH 30 with a linear stretch from zero to the peak value. We combined the extended and compact configurations with a robust parameter of 1.0, and the corresponding beam size is 0. ′′046 × 0. ′′023, as …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The vertical thickness of the disk at three differ￾ent locations (SE: southeast, C: center, and NW: northwest) for the ALMA images with a robust parameter of 1.0. The gray marker in the middle of each panel shows the beam size. the robust=1.0 image. The full thickness…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Multiwavelength radiative transfer model images with a square root stretch from zero to the peak value. All images are shown with the same angular scale with the field of view of 4 ′′ × 4 ′′. The inclination angle is 89.9 ◦ . The models C and D appear nearly identical…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Side-by-side comparison of 2-µm (top row) and 7.7-µm (bottom row) images between models and the observations. Here we adopt an inclination angle of 88◦ to mimic the brightness contrast between the two surfaces, as seen in the observed MIRI image. The horizontal dashed…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: (Left) The nebula separation as a function of wavelengths with various degrees of vertical dust settling. The inclination angle of the models is 89.9 ◦ , as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The vertical intensity cut of the ALMA Band 6 image (robust=1.0). Dashed, solid, and dot-dashed lines represent the model with a dust scale height of mm-sized grains of 15 au (no settling), 4.7 au (model D), and 1.5 au (model C), respectively. 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 vert…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_16.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Band 6 model images compared with the observation with a linear stretch from zero to the peak value. The inclination angle of the model disk is varied from 89.9 ◦ to 82◦ . As the disk is inclined only by two degrees from the exact edge-on view, the brightness profiles…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Normalized brightness profiles of the images shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Subtraction of a diffraction spike in the HH 30 region. Each panel consists of three panels: from left to right, before and after the diffraction spike subtraction and the diffraction spike model used in the subtraction. Each panel has the field of view of 15′′×15′′. …
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: All JWST images obtained in our program with observational wavelengths from 2 µm to 21 µm. All images are shown with the same angular scale and a logarithmic stretch. The corresponding PSF size is shown in the bottom right of each plot. 4 2 0 2 4 4 2 0 2 4 y (a r c s …
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: MIRI 7.7 µm images and orientations of possible artifacts. Two images are centered on the brightest pixel. Dotted and dashed lines represent the orientation of the cruciform artifact (Gáspár et al. 2021) and the diffraction spikes. The alignment of the native detector…
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: (a) The extinction opacity laws for amax = 0.3, 1, 3, 10 µm normalized to 2.04 µm. The gray dashed line represents the extinction curve of the interstellar grains (with RV = 3.1, see Draine 2003, for more details). The square and the circle symbols represent the opaci…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 16 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. JWST Edge-on Disk Ice (JEDIce): Vibrationally hot, rotationally cold H$_2$ in the outer disk of Oph 163131 non-thermally excited by UV and cosmic rays

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    Outer-disk H2 in Oph 163131 is v-hot and J-cold from combined UV and cosmic-ray excitation plus collisions, implying an effective CR ionization rate of order 10^{-15} s^{-1}.

  2. A JWST, ALMA and VLA survey of the Ophiuchus-A star-forming region: Unveiling hidden dust mass and connecting infrared outflows to their radio origins

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A multi-wavelength survey of 20 Ophiuchus protostars finds dust masses tens to hundreds of times larger than millimetre-only estimates, if the adopted dust-opacity model is correct.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2355

    Krasnopolsky, R. 2024, ApJ, 964, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2355

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2355 2024

  2. [2]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 4777, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3494

    Aly, H., Nealon, R., & Gonzalez, J.-F. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 4777, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3494

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3494 2024

  3. [3]

    2007, AJ, 133, 2799, doi: 10.1086/517493

    Anglada, G., López, R., Estalella, R., et al. 2007, AJ, 133, 2799, doi: 10.1086/517493

    doi:10.1086/517493 2007

  4. [4]

    K., Pontoppidan, K., et al

    Arulanantham, N., McClure, M. K., Pontoppidan, K., et al. 2024, ApJL, 965, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad35c9

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad35c9 2024

  5. [5]

    P., Schmid, H

    Avenhaus, H., Quanz, S. P., Schmid, H. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 781, 87, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/781/2/87 JWST obser v ations of the HH 30 disk 27

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/781/2/87 2014

  6. [6]

    Bate, M. R. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 5618, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty169

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty169 2018

  7. [7]

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

    Benisty, M., Dominik, C., Follette, 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, 605

    2023

  8. [8]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 2055, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad182

    Binkert, F., & Birnstiel, T. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 2055, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad182

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad182 2023

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.13287, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.13287

    Birnstiel, T. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.13287, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.13287

    2023 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Bishop, C. M. 2006, Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning (Springer)

    2006

  3. [11]

    2020, A&A, 637, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038008

    Boccaletti, A., Di Folco, E., Pantin, E., et al. 2020, A&A, 637, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038008

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    F., & Huffman, D

    Bohren, C. F., & Huffman, D. R. 1983, Absorption and scattering of light by small particles (New York: Wiley)

    1983

  5. [13]

    J., Stapelfeldt, K

    Burrows, C. J., Stapelfeldt, K. R., Watson, A. M., et al. 1996, ApJ, 473, 437, doi: 10.1086/178156

    1996 doi

  6. [14]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245, doi: 10.1086/167900

    1989 doi

  7. [15]

    D., et al

    Chen, M., Lawson, K., Brandt, T. D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.09038. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.09038

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    M., Hillenbrand, L

    Cody, A. M., Hillenbrand, L. A., & Rebull, L. M. 2022, AJ, 163, 212, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5b73

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    Cohen, M., & Jones, B. F. 1987, ApJ, 321, 846, doi: 10.1086/165677

    1987 doi

  10. [18]

    2024, A&A, 681, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347109

    Columba, G., Rigliaco, E., Gratton, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347109

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    S., Whitney, B

    Cotera, A. S., Whitney, B. A., Young, E., et al. 2001, ApJ, 556, 958, doi: 10.1086/321627

    2001 doi

  12. [20]

    Cuello, N., Ménard, F., & Price, D. J. 2023, European Physical Journal Plus, 138, 11, doi: 10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-03602-w

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 504, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2938 D’Alessio, P., Calvet, N., & Hartmann, L

    Cuello, N., Louvet, F., Mentiplay, D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 504, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2938 D’Alessio, P., Calvet, N., & Hartmann, L. 2001, ApJ, 553, 321, doi: 10.1086/320655 D’Alessio, P., Calvet, N., Hartmann, L., Franco-Hernández, R., & Servín, H. 2006, ApJ, 638, 314, d...

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.19400, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.19400

    Delabrosse, V., Dougados, C., Cabrit, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.19400, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.19400

    2024 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    2005, PASJ, 57, S1, doi: 10.1093/pasj/57.sp1.S1

    Dobashi, K., Uehara, H., Kandori, R., et al. 2005, PASJ, 57, S1, doi: 10.1093/pasj/57.sp1.S1

    2005 doi

  16. [24]

    2021, ApJ, 912, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe5a6 —

    Doi, K., & Kataoka, A. 2021, ApJ, 912, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe5a6 —. 2023, ApJ, 957, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf5df

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    2021, OpTool: Command-line driven tool for creating complex dust opacities, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2104.010

    Dominik, C., Min, M., & Tazaki, R. 2021, OpTool: Command-line driven tool for creating complex dust opacities, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2104.010

    2021

  18. [26]

    2016, ApJ, 826, 75, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/75

    Dong, R., Fung, J., & Chiang, E. 2016, ApJ, 826, 75, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/75

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    R., & Stone, J

    Dong, R., Zhu, Z., Rafikov, R. R., & Stone, J. M. 2015, ApJL, 809, L5, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/809/1/L5

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    Draine, B. T. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 241, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094840

    2003 arXiv

  21. [29]

    1995, Icarus, 114, 237, doi: 10.1006/icar.1995.1058 Duchêne, G., McCabe, C., Pinte, C., et al

    Dubrulle, B., Morfill, G., & Sterzik, M. 1995, Icarus, 114, 237, doi: 10.1006/icar.1995.1058 Duchêne, G., McCabe, C., Pinte, C., et al. 2010, ApJ, 712, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/1/112 Duchêne, G., Ménard, F., Stapelfeldt, K. R., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 77, doi: 10.3847/153...

    1995

  22. [30]

    P., & Dominik, C

    Dullemond, C. P., & Dominik, C. 2004, A&A, 421, 1075, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040284

    2004 doi

  23. [31]

    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, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1202.015. http://ascl.net/1202.015

    2012

  24. [32]

    P., Küffmeier, M., Goicovic, F., et al

    Dullemond, C. P., Küffmeier, M., Goicovic, F., et al. 2019, A&A, 628, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832632 Durán-Rojas, M. C., Watson, A. M., Stapelfeldt, K. R., &

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    2009, AJ, 137, 4330, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4330

    Hiriart, D. 2009, AJ, 137, 4330, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4330

    2009 doi

  26. [34]

    A., Carter, M., Cheng, J., et al

    Ediss, G. A., Carter, M., Cheng, J., et al. 2004, in Fifteenth International Symposium on Space Terahertz Technology, ed. G. Narayanan, 181–188

    2004

  27. [35]

    2012, AJ, 144, 61, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/2/61

    Estalella, R., López, R., Anglada, G., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 61, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/2/61

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    2006, ApJL, 636, L153, doi: 10.1086/500128 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J

    Fukagawa, M., Tamura, M., Itoh, Y., et al. 2006, ApJL, 636, L153, doi: 10.1086/500128 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1...

    2006 doi

  29. [37]

    Galli, P. A. B., Loinard, L., Bouy, H., et al. 2019, A&A, 630, A137, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935928

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    2018, A&A, 620, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833872

    Garufi, A., Benisty, M., Pinilla, P., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833872

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    2020, A&A, 633, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936946 Gáspár, A., Rieke, G

    Garufi, A., Avenhaus, H., Pérez, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936946 Gáspár, A., Rieke, G. H., Guillard, P., et al. 2021, PASP, 133, 014504, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/abcd04

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    2021, ApJL, 908, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abdf57

    Ginski, C., Facchini, S., Huang, J., et al. 2021, ApJL, 908, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abdf57

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    2003, ApJ, 586, 296, doi: 10.1086/367557 28 Tazaki et al

    Grosso, N., Alves, J., Wood, K., et al. 2003, ApJ, 586, 296, doi: 10.1086/367557 28 Tazaki et al

    2003 doi

  34. [42]

    M., van der Marel, N., Di Francesco, J., et al

    Guerra-Alvarado, O. M., van der Marel, N., Di Francesco, J., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347685

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    2008, A&A, 478, L31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20079053

    Guilloteau, S., Dutrey, A., Pety, J., & Gueth, F. 2008, A&A, 478, L31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20079053

    2008 doi

  36. [44]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020 doi

  37. [45]

    2011, ApJL, 729, L17, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/729/2/L17

    Hashimoto, J., Tamura, M., Muto, T., et al. 2011, ApJL, 729, L17, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/729/2/L17

    2011 doi

  38. [46]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  39. [47]

    M., Ma, J., et al

    Hunziker, S., Schmid, H. M., Ma, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040166

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    E., Hook, R

    Krist, J. E., Hook, R. N., & Stoehr, F. 2011, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8127, Optical Modeling and Performance Predictions V, ed. M. A. Kahan, 81270J

    2011

  41. [49]

    P., Reissl, S., & Goicovic, F

    Kuffmeier, M., Dullemond, C. P., Reissl, S., & Goicovic, F. G. 2021, A&A, 656, A161, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039614

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    J., Spoon, H

    Lebouteiller, V., Barry, D. J., Spoon, H. W. W., et al. 2011, ApJS, 196, 8, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/196/1/8

    2011 doi

  43. [51]

    D., Li, Z.-Y., Tobin, J

    Lin, Z.-Y. D., Li, Z.-Y., Tobin, J. J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd5c9 López-Vázquez, J. A., Lee, C.-F., Fernández-López, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad132a

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    2018, A&A, 618, A120, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731733

    Louvet, F., Dougados, C., Cabrit, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 618, A120, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731733

    2018 doi

  45. [53]

    Lynds, B. T. 1962, ApJS, 7, 1, doi: 10.1086/190072

    1962 doi

  46. [54]

    2012, A&A, 543, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117615

    Madlener, D., Wolf, S., Dutrey, A., & Guilloteau, S. 2012, A&A, 543, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117615

    2012 doi

  47. [55]

    2011, ApJ, 727, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/727/2/90 Ménard, F., Cuello, N., Ginski, C., et al

    McCabe, C., Duchêne, G., Pinte, C., et al. 2011, ApJ, 727, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/727/2/90 Ménard, F., Cuello, N., Ginski, C., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038356

    2011 doi

  48. [56]

    W., & de Koter, A

    Min, M., Hovenier, J. W., & de Koter, A. 2005, A&A, 432, 909, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041920

    2005 doi

  49. [57]

    2016, A&A, 585, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526048

    Min, M., Rab, C., Woitke, P., Dominik, C., & Ménard, F. 2016, A&A, 585, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526048

    2016 doi

  50. [58]

    D., Harries, T

    Monnier, J. D., Harries, T. J., Bae, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafe87

    2019 doi

  51. [59]

    2016, ApJL, 823, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/823/1/L8

    Montesinos, M., Perez, S., Casassus, S., et al. 2016, ApJL, 823, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/823/1/L8

    2016 doi

  52. [60]

    2013, A&A, 549, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219522

    Schneider, G. 2013, A&A, 549, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219522

    2013 doi

  53. [61]

    Mundt, R., & Fried, J. W. 1983, ApJL, 274, L83, doi: 10.1086/184155

    1983 doi

  54. [62]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 4951, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz346

    Dipierro, G. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 4951, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz346

    2019 doi

  55. [63]

    2024, A&A, 683, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347748

    Nowak, M., Rowther, S., Lacour, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347748

    2024 doi

  56. [64]

    L., Brandner, W., Stapelfeldt, K

    Padgett, D. L., Brandner, W., Stapelfeldt, K. R., et al. 1999, AJ, 117, 1490, doi: 10.1086/300781

    1999 doi

  57. [65]

    L., Cabrit, S., et al

    Pascucci, I., Beck, T. L., Cabrit, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.18033, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.18033

    2024 doi arXiv

  58. [66]

    D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al

    Perrin, M. D., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lajoie, C.-P., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. J. Oschmann, Jacobus M., M. Clampi...

    2014

  59. [67]

    2006, A&A, 458, 841, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065814

    Pety, J., Gueth, F., Guilloteau, S., & Dutrey, A. 2006, A&A, 458, 841, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065814

    2006 doi

  60. [68]

    T., & Stammler, S

    Pinilla, P., Lenz, C. T., & Stammler, S. M. 2021, A&A, 645, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038920

    2021 doi

  61. [69]

    Pinte, C., Dent, W. R. F., Ménard, F., et al. 2016, ApJ, 816, 25, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/816/1/25

    2016 doi

  62. [70]

    F., & Dullemond, C

    Dishoeck, E. F., & Dullemond, C. P. 2007, ApJL, 658, L111, doi: 10.1086/514817

    2007 doi

  63. [71]

    J., Cuello, N., Pinte, C., et al

    Price, D. J., Cuello, N., Pinte, C., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1270, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty647

    2018 doi

  64. [72]

    R., Watson, A

    Stapelfeldt, K. R., Watson, A. M., Krist, J. E., et al. 1999, ApJL, 516, L95, doi: 10.1086/312001

    1999 doi

  65. [73]

    A., McClure, M

    Sturm, J. A., McClure, M. K., Law, C. J., et al. 2023a, A&A, 677, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346052

    doi

  66. [74]

    A., McClure, M

    Sturm, J. A., McClure, M. K., Beck, T. L., et al. 2023b, A&A, 679, A138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347512

    doi

  67. [75]

    A., McClure, M

    Sturm, J. A., McClure, M. K., Harsono, D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.09627, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.09627

    2024 doi arXiv

  68. [76]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.12659, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.12659

    Su, Z., & Bai, X.-N. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.12659, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.12659

    2024 doi arXiv

  69. [77]

    Takasao, S., Tomida, K., Iwasaki, K., & Suzuki, T. K. 2022, ApJ, 941, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9eb1

    2022 doi

  70. [78]

    2023, ApJL, 944, L43, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb824

    Tazaki, R., Ginski, C., & Dominik, C. 2023, ApJL, 944, L43, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb824

    2023 doi

  71. [79]

    Tazaki, R., Murakawa, K., Muto, T., Honda, M., & Inoue, A. K. 2021, ApJ, 921, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1f8c

    2021 doi

  72. [80]

    2020, ApJ, 900, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba8f6

    Uyama, T., Currie, T., Christiaens, V., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba8f6

    2020 doi

  73. [81]

    Villenave, M., Ménard, F., Dent, W. R. F., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A164, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038087

    2020 doi

  74. [82]

    R., Duchêne, G., et al

    Villenave, M., Stapelfeldt, K. R., Duchêne, G., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5fae JWST obser v ations of the HH 30 disk 29

    2022 doi

  75. [83]

    2023, ApJ, 946, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb92e

    Villenave, M., Podio, L., Duchêne, G., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb92e

    2023 doi

  76. [84]

    R., Duchêne, G., et al

    Villenave, M., Stapelfeldt, K. R., Duchêne, G., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 961, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0c4b

    doi

  77. [85]

    R., Duchene, G., et al

    Villenave, M., Stapelfeldt, K. R., Duchene, G., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.00156, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.00156

    doi arXiv

  78. [86]

    M., & Stapelfeldt, K

    Watson, A. M., & Stapelfeldt, K. R. 2004, ApJ, 602, 860, doi: 10.1086/381142 —. 2007, AJ, 133, 845, doi: 10.1086/510455

    2004 doi

  79. [87]

    J., & Hillenbrand, L

    White, R. J., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2004, ApJ, 616, 998, doi: 10.1086/425115

    2004 doi

  80. [88]

    J., Benisty, M., & Andrews, S

    Winter, A. J., Benisty, M., & Andrews, S. M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.08451, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.08451

    2024 doi arXiv

  81. [89]

    2016, A&A, 586, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526538

    Woitke, P., Min, M., Pinte, C., et al. 2016, A&A, 586, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526538

    2016 doi

  82. [90]

    1998, ApJL, 506, L43, doi: 10.1086/311643

    Wood, K., & Whitney, B. 1998, ApJL, 506, L43, doi: 10.1086/311643

    1998 doi

  83. [91]

    J., Bjorkman, J

    Wood, K., Wolff, M. J., Bjorkman, J. E., & Whitney, B. 2002, ApJ, 564, 887, doi: 10.1086/324285

    2002 doi

  84. [92]

    N., & Lithwick, Y

    Youdin, A. N., & Lithwick, Y. 2007, Icarus, 192, 588, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.07.012

    2007 doi

  85. [93]

    2024, ApJL, 974, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad815f

    Zhang, S., & Zhu, Z. 2024, ApJL, 974, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad815f

    2024 doi

  86. [94]

    P., Birnstiel, T., Benisty, M., & Nelson, R

    Ziampras, A., Dullemond, C. P., Birnstiel, T., Benisty, M., & Nelson, R. P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.13932, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.13932

    2024 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.