Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 73 references

The Ophiuchus DIsk Survey Employing ALMA (ODISEA): A Unified Evolutionary Sequence of Planet-Driven Substructures Explaining the Diversity of Disk Morphologies

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read One evolving model disk reproduces the five observed gap-and-ring stages.

desk verdict A convincing proof of concept that one planet plus standard dust evolution can walk a single disk through all five of C21's morphologies, but the formation-timescale claim is assumed rather than tested because the planet is injected fully grown. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14318 v1 pith:CLLNFXCM submitted 2025-04-19 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Santiago Orcajo , Lucas A. Cieza , Octavio Guilera , Sebastian Perez , Fernando R. Rannou , Camilo Gonzalez-Ruilova , Grace Batalla-Falcon , Trisha Bhowmik
show 16 more authors
Prachi Chavan Simon Casassus Anuroop Dasgupta Kevin Diaz Jose L. Gomez Antonio S. Hales J.M. Miley Marcelo M. Miller Bertolami P.H. Nogueira Maria Paula Ronco Dary Ruiz-Rodriguez Anibal Sierra Julia Venturini Philipp Weber Jonathan P. Williams Alice Zurlo
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords protoplanetarydisksplanet-diskinteractiongapandringsubstructuresdustevolutiongiantplanetformationALMAsyntheticobservationsOphiuchusmolecularcloudevolutionarysequence
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

The paper tries to show that the many gap and ring shapes seen in millimeter images of massive protoplanetary disks are not different kinds of objects but one system photographed at different times. Starting from a smooth massive disk and injecting a single Jupiter-mass planet at 57 au from the star, the authors follow dust growth, drift, and the pressure bump at the planet's gap over roughly a million years. They find the disk passes through five morphologies—no clear gap, narrow gap, wide gap with dust piling up at its edge, bright inner rim with a depleted inner disk, and finally a single narrow ring—that match five disks previously used to define an evolutionary sequence in Ophiuchus. If the sequence is correct, most prominent gaps and rings in massive disks can be read as signposts of forming giant planets, giving a way to infer planets that are too faint to detect directly.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a one-dimensional model of a massive viscous protoplanetary disk coupled to a dust-growth and transport scheme, with a fully formed Jupiter-mass planet suddenly inserted and held fixed at 57 au. The planet's analytic gap profile creates a local minimum in gas pressure; dust drifting inward is slowed and trapped at the pressure maximum at the gap's outer edge, where grains grow to millimeter sizes and build a bright ring. As viscous evolution drains the inner disk and the pressure bump filters out large grains, the same physical setup passes through the morphologies of each stage. The machinery is completed by radiative transfer that converts the evolving density profiles into realistic, noise-included ALMA-like images for direct comparison with observations.

What would settle it

A direct test would be a large age-ordered sample of massive disks: measure stellar ages and classify each disk's morphology by gap depth, gap width, edge brightness, and inner-disk depletion. If young embedded disks frequently show deep, wide, bright-edged gaps, or if old disks frequently retain smooth morphologies, the proposed sequence would fail. A narrower check is to observe a disk resembling the final single-ring stage and find its star to be younger than about 0.1 Myr, which the model forbids.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that planet-disk interaction plus dust evolution alone—no extra physics—can turn one fiducial disk into the full observed diversity of substructure morphologies. The fiducial system is a 0.1 solar-mass disk around a 0.8 solar-mass star with a Jupiter-mass planet placed at 57 au, and its evolution is followed with a one-dimensional disk-evolution model that includes 200 dust size bins, coagulation, fragmentation, radial drift, and an analytic gap profile. Synthetic 1.3 mm images made with radiative transfer and simulated ALMA observations show a smooth disk early on, a narrow gap within a few hundred orbits, a widening gap with dust accumulated at its outer edge by about 0.1 Myr, a brighter inner rim and diminished inner disk by about 0.4 Myr, and a single narrow ring by about 1 Myr. These five snapshots are matched to WLY 2-63, ISO-Oph 17, Elias 2-24, DoAr 44, and RXJ1633.9-2442, the illustrative members of the proposed sequence.

Load-bearing premise

The model injects a fully grown Jupiter-mass planet at 57 au without modeling how the planet's core formed, how it accreted its envelope, or whether it migrated there; if giant planets cannot actually reach that location and mass within the ages of these disks, the sequence still shapes dust but no longer proves that such planets formed there that fast.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the sequence holds, a disk's millimeter morphology is an age-dependent stage, not a fixed type: the same planet can make a disk look smooth, gapped, ringed, or cavity-like at different times.
  • Most gaps and rings in massive disks can be attributed to planets, so high-resolution imaging becomes an indirect census of otherwise undetectable giant planets.
  • The model implies Jupiter-mass planets can form at tens of astronomical units from their stars within roughly a million years, a short timescale that core-accretion theory must accommodate.
  • The four-gap embedded disk ISO-Oph 54 and similar young systems imply planet formation can be extremely efficient at large radii in massive disks.
  • Stage III—the wide gap with a bright dust edge—should be the shortest phase, while Stage II with narrow gaps should be the longest, matching the relative numbers of disks classified into each stage.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to use the sequence as a rough clock: if gap width and ring brightness correlate with independent stellar ages, then classifying thousands of disks by morphology would map when giant planets form, and a Stage V single-ring disk younger than about 0.1 Myr would break the ordering.
  • The Mars-mass model's prediction of a shallow break in the surface density suggests that subtle inflection points in young embedded disks may be the earliest detectable sign of a growing planet; this could be checked by looking for such breaks in very young Class I sources.
  • The same mechanism should produce wavelength-dependent morphology: because large grains are trapped at the gap edge, images at longer wavelengths, which trace larger grains, should show a sharper or more offset ring than short-wavelength images, and ALMA multiband observations could test this.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper combines the 1D disk/planet evolution code PlanetaLP with RADMC-3D to produce synthetic ALMA 1.3 mm images of a massive fiducial disk (based on Elias 2-24) with a 1 M_Jup planet at 57 au. The authors report that the model reproduces, as snapshots at 0.05, 0.1, 0.4, and 1 Myr, the four post-Stage-I morphologies of the sequence proposed by Cieza et al. (2021): a narrow gap (ISO-Oph 17), a wide gap with dust accumulation at the edge (Elias 2-24), a brighter inner rim with depleted inner disk (DoAr 44), and a single narrow ring (RXJ1633.9-2442), with a Mars-mass-planet model used for Stage I (WLY 2-63). Parameter variations in planet mass, viscosity, disk mass, and dust-to-gas ratio are explored. The paper concludes that giant planets can form at tens of au within <1 Myr and that the sequence strongly supports the planetary origin of most disk substructures.

Significance. If the central claim held, this work would provide a demographic tool for inferring planets from disk morphology alone and would sharpen the known tension between core-accretion timescales and the appearance of substructures in young disks. The paper has genuine strengths: it couples dust growth and radial transport to radiative transfer, produces synthetic images with matched uv coverage and noise, and is candid about several limitations. However, the evidence for the specific evolutionary sequence is currently qualitative and partly circular: the sequence itself was proposed by the same team using the same disks, and the model's formation timescale is injected rather than computed. The significance is therefore conditional on either a substantial reframing of the conclusions or additional modeling of the planet formation phase.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; §3.1; §4.3; §5] The abstract and Section 5 conclude that Jupiter-mass planets can form at many tens of au from the star within <1 Myr, but the model's clock is set by injecting a fully grown 1 M_Jup planet at t=0 and by imposing the gas gap analytically via Eq. (A5). The Stage II and Stage III epochs (0.05 Myr and 0.1 Myr) are therefore response times of the dust to a prescribed perturbation, not planet formation times; the paper itself concedes in §4.3 that 'this very short timescale is most likely an artifact of injecting a fully grown giant planet.' In addition, §4.2 gives stellar ages of 1-2 Myr for ISO-Oph 17 and Elias 2-24 while Figure 4 assigns them to 0.05 and 0.1 Myr after injection, so the epoch assignments do not form a self-consistent age sequence without additional assumptions about when the planet formed. I request that the <1 Myr formation claim be removed from the abstract and conclusions, or tested with a model that includes core growth and envelope accretion (capabilities that §4.3 notes PlanetaLP has), and that the model times be presented explicitly as post-formation intervals.
  2. [§2.1; §4.1; Fig. 4] The claim that the models 'reproduce' the observed morphologies is not supported by any quantitative comparison. The matches in Figure 4 are by eye; no radial profiles, residuals, or goodness-of-fit statistics are shown, even though both model and observed images are available. The snapshot times in Figure 4 are selected to correspond to each stage, and the fiducial disk is initialized to match Elias 2-24, including a dust-to-gas ratio of 0.02 chosen in §2.1 to match its 1.3 mm flux. The statement in §4.1 that 'no fine-tuning of the model has been performed' is therefore difficult to sustain. Given the degeneracies acknowledged in §3.2.1 (e.g., planet mass versus viscosity), a qualitative five-image match does not by itself validate the sequence; adding profile-based metrics and a systematic exploration over the represented parameter set would make the claim testable.
  3. [§4.4; Fig. 5] The demographic inference that Stage II is the longest and Stage III is the shortest is not independent evidence for the model. The snapshot ages in Figure 4 were chosen to place each stage in the desired sequence, and the sample in Figure 5 is the same flux-limited set used to define the C21 sequence; counting objects in those bins therefore largely re-imports the assumed mapping between morphology and stage. A concrete, falsifiable test would be to simulate an ensemble of disks drawn from a distribution of initial conditions and compute the predicted stage fractions and structural parameters for comparison with the ODISEA/DSHARP sample. This is not provided, so the demographic discussion in §4.4 should be relabeled as illustrative rather than supportive, or the ensemble calculation should be supplied.
  4. [Appendix A.1.1; §2.2] Because Eq. (A5) is applied at every timestep to the unperturbed gas profile, the gas gap and pressure bump are prescribed rather than evolved under the planet's torque. The model therefore demonstrates dust accumulation and filtration in a fixed gap shape; it does not test whether a planet of a given mass actually opens a gap of the assumed depth and width in this disk. This is a further reason the central statement in Section 5 that the results 'strongly support the planetary origin of substructures' should be softened: the simulation tests the dust response to a pressure bump, while the gap-opening part is assumed. A check of Eq. (A5) against a hydrodynamical run, or a self-consistent treatment of the gas response to the planet, would substantially strengthen the claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A.2] The word 'independenyly' should be corrected to 'independently'.
  2. [Eqs. (1) and (A2)] The symbol gamma is used for the surface density exponent in Eq. (1) and for the adiabatic index in Eq. (A2); please adopt distinct notation to avoid confusion.
  3. [§2.1; Fig. 1 caption] The text of §2.1 refers to a 'Mars-mass planet,' while the Figure 1 caption says 'Mars-size planet'; the wording should be made consistent.
  4. [Acknowledgments] The sentence thanking 'the anonymous referee' appears to be a leftover from a previous review process and should be removed or rewritten for the submitted version.
  5. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption says the sizes, inclinations, and position angles of the model images were adjusted to match the real ALMA images; because this adjustment is part of the comparison, it should be described explicitly in the main text so that the reader can assess what aspects of the match are free parameters.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The fiducial disk is calibrated to the Stage III object (Elias 2-24), so the Stage III 'reproduction' is a consistency check, and the <1 Myr formation-time conclusion presupposes the fully grown planet rather than testing its formation.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sections 2.1 and 3.1; Figure 1]
    "our fiducial disk is based on Elias 2-24, a system that is at the middle of the sequence proposed by C21 (corresponding to Stage III...). The Σ0g value was adjusted to reach the initial disk mass of 0.1 M⊙ estimated by Cieza et al. (2017). Following Zhang et al. (2018)... we place a 1 MJup mass planet at 57 au... We adopt this initial dust-to-gas mass ratio that is a factor of 2 higher than the standard 0.01 value because this allows us to match the integrated flux of Elias 2-24 at 1.3 mm (∼0.3 Jy)."

    The model's key inputs—disk size and mass, planet mass and orbit, and dust-to-gas ratio—are all adopted from Elias 2-24, which is the paper's Stage III example. The later claim that the 0.1 Myr model 'matches the main characteristics of Elias 2-24' is therefore a consistency check on the chosen initial conditions, not an independent prediction of Stage III. The remaining stages are less affected because they were not used to set the fiducial parameters.

  2. self definitional [Sections 3.1, 4.3, and 5]
    "we do not model the growth of the planet core and the accretion of the envelope, we simply inject the fully grown giant planet in our fiducial disk and let the system evolve... This very short timescale is most likely an artifact of injecting a fully grown giant planet... if the proposed sequence is correct, it would mean that Jupiter-mass planets can form at many tens of au from a star within ≲ 1 Myr."

    The model clock starts at t=0 with a fully grown 1 M_Jup planet already present; core growth and envelope accretion are never evolved. Thus the model contains no information about how long planet formation takes. The Section 5 conclusion that Jupiter-mass planets can form within ≲1 Myr restates the initial condition (planet already formed at t=0) rather than deriving a formation timescale. The 0.05–1 Myr epoch labels are times since injection, not formation ages.

full rationale

The central morphological evolution is not purely circular: dust growth, radial drift, pressure-bump trapping, and radiative transfer are modeled with external physical prescriptions (Duffell 2020; Birnstiel et al. 2012; radmc-3D), and Stages II, IV, and V emerge from the evolution rather than being directly fit to those disks. However, two load-bearing steps reduce to inputs. First, the fiducial disk is explicitly calibrated to Elias 2-24—the Stage III example—so matching Elias 2-24 is a consistency check, not an independent validation of that stage. Second, the paper injects a fully grown giant planet at t=0 and then interprets the post-injection evolution as evidence that Jupiter-mass planets can form at tens of au within ≲1 Myr; this ignores the paper's own admission that the fast Stage II timescale is 'most likely an artifact of injecting a fully grown giant planet.' The five-stage sequence is a plausible proof of concept, and the paper is transparent about its limitations, but the Stage III match and the formation-timescale conclusion each carry a self-referential component that prevents a higher-confidence non-circular verdict.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies primarily on standard disk-evolution and dust-growth models from the literature, plus a small number of hand-set parameters that anchor the fiducial disk to Elias 2-24. No new physical entities are introduced. The most consequential ad hoc choices are the injected fully grown planet, the dust-to-gas ratio tuned to the Elias 2-24 flux, and the snapshot times used to represent the five stages.

free parameters (9)
  • Planet mass M_p = 1 M_Jup fiducial; 0.3 to 5 M_Jup explored
    Chosen to reproduce Elias 2-24 based on Zhang et al. 2018; determines gap depth and width.
  • Planet orbital radius r_p = 57 au
    Adopted from Zhang et al. 2018 for the Elias 2-24 gap; controls where substructures form.
  • Initial disk mass M_disk = 0.1 M_sun
    Chosen from Cieza et al. 2017 estimate for Elias 2-24; sets total dust content and brightness.
  • Alpha viscosity = 1e-3 fiducial; 1e-4 to 5e-3 explored
    Chosen as a standard turbulent viscosity; higher values erase the gap.
  • Dust-to-gas ratio = 0.02 fiducial; 0.005 to 0.05 explored
    Explicitly set to match Elias 2-24 integrated 1.3 mm flux, as stated in Section 2.1.
  • Characteristic radius R_c = 120 au
    From Cieza et al. 2017 radiative transfer model of Elias 2-24; sets disk size.
  • Surface density exponent gamma = 0.8
    From Cieza et al. 2017; sets the initial density profile.
  • Stage snapshot times = 0.05, 0.1, 0.4, and 1 Myr for Stages II-V; 0.1 Myr for Stage I
    Selected to best match each observed morphology in Figure 4; a post hoc mapping.
  • Mars-mass planet for Stage I = 0.0003 M_Jup at 57 au
    Introduced to represent an embedded disk with no detectable gap.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Planet-disk gap profile follows the Duffell 2020 prescription (Eqs. A5-A10)
    The 1D gas surface density is assumed to fully capture the planet's effect on the dust; this is an analytic reduction, not a 3D hydrodynamic solution. Invoked in Section A.1.1.
  • domain assumption Dust growth, fragmentation, and radial drift follow Birnstiel et al. 2012 prescriptions
    Maximum grain sizes and drift are set by the analytic limits in Eqs. A11-A15; these are standard but not exact models of coagulation.
  • ad hoc to paper The disk is 1D and axisymmetric with no planet migration, no additional planets, and no photoevaporation
    The fiducial setup contains a single, immobile planet; the authors acknowledge in Section 4.1 that extra planets and photoevaporation are needed to explain some sources.
  • domain assumption C21's five-stage classification and the assignment of actual Ophiuchus disks to stages is correct
    The match in Figure 4 uses the same sample and stages proposed in the team's prior paper; this assumption is not independently tested here.
  • domain assumption A passive-disk midplane temperature profile (Ida et al. 2016) governs the local sound speed and scale height
    Used in Eq. A2 and the disk structure; ignores accretion heating and radial temperature variation.
  • domain assumption Radiative transfer in RADMC-3D with 99% astrosilicate and 1% graphite opacities faithfully converts surface densities into ALMA images
    Standard tool, but opacity composition and resampling to nine size bins are modeling choices not validated against observations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Ophiuchus DIsk Survey Employing ALMA (ODISEA): A Unified Evolutionary Sequence of Planet-Driven Substructures Explaining the Diversity of Disk Morphologies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CLLNFXCM

@misc{pith2026250414318,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Ophiuchus DIsk Survey Employing ALMA (ODISEA): A Unified Evolutionary Sequence of Planet-Driven Substructures Explaining the Diversity of Disk Morphologies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CLLNFXCM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14318}
}
abstract

Understanding the origin of substructures in protoplanetary disks and their connection to planet formation is currently one of the main challenges in astrophysics. While some disks appear smooth, most exhibit diverse substructures such as gaps, rings, or inner cavities, with varying brightness and depth. As part of the Ophiuchus Disk Survey Employing ALMA (ODISEA), we previously proposed an evolutionary sequence to unify this diversity, driven by the formation of giant planets through core accretion and subsequent planet-disk interactions. By combining the disk evolution and planet formation code PLANETALP with the radiative transfer code RADMC-3D, we have now reproduced the key aspects of the proposed evolutionary sequence. Starting with a smooth disk (like e.g., WLY 2-63), we modeled the evolution of a fiducial disk with a 1 Jupiter-mass planet at 57 au. Within a few hundreds of orbits, a narrow gap forms, resembling ISO-Oph 17. By $\sim$0.1 Myr, the gap widens, and dust accumulates at the cavity edge, producing a structure similar to Elias 2-24. At $\sim$0.4 Myr, the disk evolves further into a morphology akin to DoAr 44, characterized by a smaller inner disk and a brighter inner rim. By $\sim$1 Myr, the system transitions to a single narrow ring, resembling RXJ1633.9-2442. This line of work strongly supports the planetary origin of substructures and enables the possibility of identifying a population of planets that is currently beyond the reach of more direct detection techniques.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.14318 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top panels: models with 1 MJup planet. The left panel shows the surface density profiles of our fiducial model. The dashed green line corresponds to the initial gas surface density, while the solid lines indicate the evolution of the dust surface density in steps of 25000 years after a 1 MJup planet has been injected at 57 au. The right panel shows the maximum grain size as a function of radius of the fiducial model… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. From the top to bottom, variation of Mp, α, dust-to-gas mass ratio, and Mdisk/Mstar, compared with fiducial model (blue mark). of the inner rim, and the dimming of the inner disk in Stage IV, and the formation of a single narrow ring at Stage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The temporal evolution for fiducial model with the 1 MJup planet, from 20 kyrs to 2.5 Myrs. The top five panels show steps of 20 kyrs, the middle panels correspond to steps of 100 kyrs, and the lower panels illustrate steps of 500 kyrs. Each panel corresponds to the synthetic image at 1.3 mm of the PlanetaLP model, produced via radiative transfer and ray-tracing with RADMC-3D. V. The fact that a simple model can rep… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The top panels show simulated images of our models. The first panel corresponds to the model with the Mars-mass planet at 0.1 Myr. The rest of the panels correspond to 0.05, 0.1, 0.4, and 1 Myr after the 1 MJup planet has been injected. The sizes, inclinations, and pos…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The top panels show our models, the same as in Fig.4, illustrating each on of the five stages. The rest of the panels contain the 15 brightest disks in Ophiuchus studied by C21 in the Stage (column) in which they have been classified. The figure illustrates the key cha…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    Andrews, S. M. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 483, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-031220-010302

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-031220-010302 2020

  2. [3]

    M., Wilner, D

    Andrews, S. M., Wilner, D. J., Zhu, Z., et al. 2016, ApJL, 820, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/820/2/L40

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/820/2/l40 2016

  3. [4]

    M., Huang, J., P´ erez, L

    Andrews, S. M., Huang, J., P´ erez, L. M., et al. 2018, ApJL, 869, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf741

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf741 2018

  4. [5]

    Arce-Tord, C., Casassus, S., Dent, W. R. F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 2077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2885

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2885 2023

  5. [6]

    2018, ApJL, 864, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aadd51

    Bae, J., Pinilla, P., & Birnstiel, T. 2018, ApJL, 864, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aadd51

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aadd51 2018

  6. [7]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 304, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz802 Ben´ ıtez-Llambay, P., & Masset, F

    Baruteau, C., Barraza, M., P´ erez, S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 304, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz802 Ben´ ıtez-Llambay, P., & Masset, F. S. 2016, ApJS, 223, 11, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/223/1/11

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz802 2019

  7. [8]

    2012, A&A, 539, A148, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118136

    Birnstiel, T., Klahr, H., & Ercolano, B. 2012, A&A, 539, A148, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118136

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118136 2012

  8. [9]

    W., & Dullemond, C

    Birnstiel, T., Ormel, C. W., & Dullemond, C. P. 2011, A&A, 525, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015228 17

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015228 2011

Show all 73 references
  1. [10]

    Boss, A. P. 1997, Science, 276, 1836, doi: 10.1126/science.276.5320.1836

    1997

  2. [11]

    Bouvier, J., Alecian, E., Alencar, S. H. P., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038892

    2020 doi

  3. [12]

    P., Johansen, A., et al

    Brauer, F., Dullemond, C. P., Johansen, A., et al. 2007, A&A, 469, 1169, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066865 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    2007 doi

  4. [13]

    A., Mathews, G

    Cieza, L. A., Mathews, G. S., Williams, J. P., et al. 2012, ApJ, 752, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/75

    2012 doi

  5. [14]

    A., Casassus, S., P´ erez, S., et al

    Cieza, L. A., Casassus, S., P´ erez, S., et al. 2017, ApJL, 851, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9b7b

    2017 doi

  6. [15]

    A., Ru´ ız-Rodr´ ıguez, D., Hales, A., et al

    Cieza, L. A., Ru´ ız-Rodr´ ıguez, D., Hales, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 698, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2653

    2019 doi

  7. [16]

    A., Gonz´ alez-Ruilova, C., Hales, A

    Cieza, L. A., Gonz´ alez-Ruilova, C., Hales, A. S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 2934, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3787

    2021 doi

  8. [17]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 504, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2938

    Cuello, N., Louvet, F., Mentiplay, D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 504, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2938

    2020 doi

  9. [18]

    A., Gonzalez Ruilova, C

    Dasgupta, A., Cieza, L. A., Gonzalez Ruilova, C. I., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.15789, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.15789

    2025 doi arXiv

  10. [19]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 1919, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1584

    Dipierro, G., Lodato, G., Testi, L., & de Gregorio Monsalvo, I. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 1919, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1584

    2014 doi

  11. [20]

    2021, OpTool: Command-line driven tool for creating complex dust opacities, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2104.010 Dra˙ zkowska, J., Alibert, Y., & Moore, B

    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 Dra˙ zkowska, J., Alibert, Y., & Moore, B. 2016, A&A, 594, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628983

    2021 doi

  12. [21]

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

    Drazkowska, J., Bitsch, B., Lambrechts, M., 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, 717, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09759

    2023 doi arXiv

  13. [22]

    Duffell, P. C. 2020, ApJ, 889, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5b0f

    2020 doi

  14. [23]

    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

    2012

  15. [24]

    P., & Penzlin, A

    Dullemond, C. P., & Penzlin, A. B. T. 2018, A&A, 609, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731878

    2018 doi

  16. [25]

    L., & Luhman, K

    Esplin, T. L., & Luhman, K. L. 2020, AJ, 159, 282, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab8dbd

    2020 doi

  17. [26]

    J., Dunham, M

    Evans, II, N. J., Dunham, M. M., Jørgensen, J. K., et al. 2009, ApJS, 181, 321, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/181/2/321

    2009 doi

  18. [27]

    P., Dzyurkevich, N., et al

    Flock, M., Ruge, J. P., Dzyurkevich, N., et al. 2015, A&A, 574, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424693 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2015 doi

  19. [28]

    W., Kraus, A

    Gaidos, E., Mann, A. W., Kraus, A. L., & Ireland, M. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 2877, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw097

    2016 doi

  20. [29]

    V., & Zhang, K

    Garrido-Deutelmoser, J., Petrovich, C., Charalambous, C., Guzm´ an, V. V., & Zhang, K. 2023, ApJL, 945, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acbea8

    2023 doi

  21. [30]

    Gillon, M., Triaud, A. H. M. J., Demory, B.-O., et al. 2017, Nature, 542, 456, doi: 10.1038/nature21360

    2017 doi

  22. [31]

    M., Brunini, A., & Benvenuto, O

    Guilera, O. M., Brunini, A., & Benvenuto, O. G. 2010, A&A, 521, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014365

    2010 doi

  23. [32]

    M., Cuello, N., Montesinos, M., et al

    Guilera, O. M., Cuello, N., Montesinos, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 5690, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1158

    2019 doi

  24. [33]

    M., Miller Bertolami, M

    Guilera, O. M., Miller Bertolami, M. M., Masset, F., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 3638, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2371

    2021 doi

  25. [34]

    M., Miller Bertolami, M

    Guilera, O. M., Miller Bertolami, M. M., & Ronco, M. P. 2017, MNRAS, 471, L16, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx095

    2017 doi

  26. [35]

    M., S´ andor, Z., Ronco, M

    Guilera, O. M., S´ andor, Z., Ronco, M. P., Venturini, J., & Miller Bertolami, M. M. 2020, A&A, 642, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038458

    2020 doi

  27. [36]

    2015, ApJ, 798, 34, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/34

    Gundlach, B., & Blum, J. 2015, ApJ, 798, 34, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/34

    2015 doi

  28. [37]

    Y., Bohn, A

    Haffert, S. Y., Bohn, A. J., de Boer, J., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 749, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0780-5

    2019 doi

  29. [38]

    2016, A&A, 591, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628099

    Ida, S., Guillot, T., & Morbidelli, A. 2016, A&A, 591, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628099

    2016 doi

  30. [39]

    2018, A&A, 617, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832957

    Keppler, M., Benisty, M., M¨ uller, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832957

    2018 doi

  31. [40]

    J., et al

    Long, F., Pinilla, P., Herczeg, G. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae8e1

    2018 doi

  32. [41]

    2015, ApJ, 813, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/76

    Marino, S., Casassus, S., Perez, S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/76

    2015 doi

  33. [42]

    2008, Science, 322, 1348, doi: 10.1126/science.1166585

    Marois, C., Macintosh, B., Barman, T., et al. 2008, Science, 322, 1348, doi: 10.1126/science.1166585

    2008 doi

  34. [43]

    M., Macintosh, B., & Barman, T

    Marois, C., Zuckerman, B., Konopacky, Q. M., Macintosh, B., & Barman, T. 2010, Nature, 468, 1080, doi: 10.1038/nature09684

    2010 doi

  35. [44]

    2000, A&AS, 141, 165, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000116

    Masset, F. 2000, A&AS, 141, 165, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000116

    2000 doi

  36. [45]

    2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Golap, K. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw, F. Hill, & D. J. Bell, 127

    2007

  37. [46]

    J., & Pinte, C

    Mentiplay, D., Price, D. J., & Pinte, C. 2019, MNRAS, 484, L130, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly209

    2019 doi

  38. [47]

    Clarke, C. J. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3678, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2847

    2019 doi

  39. [48]

    2020, A&A, 638, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037983

    Morbidelli, A. 2020, A&A, 638, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037983

    2020 doi

  40. [49]

    2015, Icarus, 258, 418, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2015.06.003 18

    Morbidelli, A., Lambrechts, M., Jacobson, S., & Bitsch, B. 2015, Icarus, 258, 418, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2015.06.003 18

    2015 doi

  41. [50]

    2023, ApJ, 954, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace9b9 P´ erez, L

    Ohashi, S., Momose, M., Kataoka, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace9b9 P´ erez, L. M., Carpenter, J. M., Andrews, S. M., et al. 2016, Science, 353, 1519, doi: 10.1126/science.aaf8296 P´ erez, S., Casassus, S., Baruteau, C., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 15, doi...

    2023 doi

  42. [51]

    2012, A&A, 545, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219315

    Pinilla, P., Benisty, M., & Birnstiel, T. 2012, A&A, 545, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219315

    2012 doi

  43. [52]

    T., & Stammler, S

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

    2021 doi

  44. [53]

    B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al

    Pollack, J. B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al. 1996, Icarus, 124, 62, doi: 10.1006/icar.1996.0190

    1996

  45. [54]

    Pringle, J. E. 1981, ARA&A, 19, 137, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.19.090181.001033

    1981

  46. [55]

    Rice, W. K. M., Lodato, G., Pringle, J. E., Armitage, P. J., & Bonnell, I. A. 2006, MNRAS, 372, L9, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00215.x

    2006

  47. [56]

    P., Guilera, O

    Ronco, M. P., Guilera, O. M., & de El´ ıa, G. C. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 2753, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1746

    2017 doi

  48. [57]

    P., Schreiber, M

    Ronco, M. P., Schreiber, M. R., Villaver, E., Guilera, O. M., & Miller Bertolami, M. M. 2024, A&A, 682, A155, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347762

    2024 doi

  49. [58]

    P., Tazzari, M., Booth, R

    Rosotti, G. P., Tazzari, M., Booth, R. A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 4829, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1190

    2019 doi

  50. [59]

    M., Schmiedeke, A., Pineda, J

    Segura-Cox, D. M., Schmiedeke, A., Pineda, J. E., et al. 2020, Nature, 586, 228, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2779-6

    2020 doi

  51. [60]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337

    1973

  52. [61]

    E., & Naylor, T

    Mamajek, E. E., & Naylor, T. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 219–241, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816531240-ch010

    2014 doi

  53. [62]

    Z., & Inutsuka, S.-i

    Takahashi, S. Z., & Inutsuka, S.-i. 2014, ApJ, 794, 55, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/55 van der Marel, N., van Dishoeck, E. F., Bruderer, S., et al. 2013, Science, 340, 1199, doi: 10.1126/science.1236770

    2014 doi

  54. [63]

    M., Ronco, M

    Venturini, J., Guilera, O. M., Ronco, M. P., & Mordasini, C. 2020, A&A, 644, A174, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039140

    2020 doi

  55. [64]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 1612, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3438

    Weber, P., Casassus, S., & P´ erez, S. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 1612, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3438

    2022 doi

  56. [65]

    2019, ApJ, 884, 178, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab412f

    Weber, P., P´ erez, S., Ben´ ıtez-Llambay, P., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 178, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab412f

    2019 doi

  57. [66]

    P., Cieza, L., Hales, A., et al

    Williams, J. P., Cieza, L., Hales, A., et al. 2019, ApJL, 875, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1338

    2019 doi

  58. [67]

    P., & Cieza, L

    Williams, J. P., & Cieza, L. A. 2011, ARA&A, 49, 67, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102548

    2011 doi

  59. [68]

    2024, ApJ, 965, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad323b

    Wu, Y., Liu, S.-F., Jiang, H., & Nayakshin, S. 2024, ApJ, 965, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad323b

    2024 doi

  60. [69]

    Youdin, A. N. 2011, ApJ, 731, 99, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/2/99

    2011 doi

  61. [70]

    N., & Lithwick, Y

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

    2007 doi

  62. [71]

    A., & Bergin, E

    Zhang, K., Blake, G. A., & Bergin, E. A. 2015, ApJL, 806, L7, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/806/1/L7

    2015 doi

  63. [72]

    2018, ApJL, 869, L47, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf744

    Zhang, S., Zhu, Z., Huang, J., et al. 2018, ApJL, 869, L47, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf744

    2018 doi

  64. [73]

    2012, ApJ, 755, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/6

    Hartmann, L. 2012, ApJ, 755, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/6

    2012 doi

  65. [74]

    A., P´ erez, S., et al

    Zurlo, A., Cieza, L. A., P´ erez, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 5089, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1886

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.