Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 80 references

Confirmation of a ring structure in the disk around MP Mus (PDS 66) with ALMA Band 7 observations

T0 review · 2 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 New ALMA Band 7 continuum images confirm a ring at roughly 45-50 au around the nearby star MP Mus, a feature invisible in earlier Band 6 images.

desk verdict Useful new ALMA data on MP Mus, but the ring 'confirmation' needs a significance estimate before it can be believed as a detection. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17978 v1 pith:GNJLWARB submitted 2025-04-24 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

Aurora Aguayo , Claudio Caceres , Zhen Guo , Matthias R. Schreiber , Álvaro Ribas , Joel H. Kastner , Lucas A. Cieza , Sebastián Pérez
show 5 more authors
Héctor Cánovas Daniela Rojas Bozza D. Annie Dickson-Vandervelde William Grimble Alejandro Santamaría-Miranda
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EP
keywords protoplanetarydisksMPMusPDS66ALMABand7dustcontinuumringradialdriftmillimeterspectralindexpre-main-sequencestar
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 analyzes new ALMA Band 7 (0.89 mm) observations of the protoplanetary disk around MP Mus, one of the closest actively accreting solar-mass pre-main-sequence stars, at about 98 pc. The central claim is that the dust continuum contains a ring-like enhancement at roughly 45-50 au, visible in the image, in the deprojected azimuthally averaged radial profile, and in a visibility-based radial profile reconstruction, and that earlier Band 6 images missed it because their coarser beam smears it out. If correct, MP Mus becomes a nearby benchmark where millimeter emission and scattered light trace different radii, and where the compact dust disk and extended gas point to ongoing radial drift of large grains. The paper also maps the millimeter spectral index and derives dust masses, interpreting these as evidence about grain growth and disk evolution.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the combination of deprojected, azimuthally averaged radial brightness profiles of the self-calibrated Band 7 continuum, including an $r^2$-weighted version that emphasizes the outer bump, and a nonparametric radial profile reconstruction that fits the visibilities directly using a Gaussian process, assumes axisymmetry, and yields super-resolution 1D brightness profiles. A direct convolution of the 0.89 mm image to the 1.3 mm beam size is what demonstrates that the ring would not be resolved in Band 6. These tools presuppose a disk geometry -- an inclination of 32 degrees, a position angle of 10 degrees, and a phase center from a 2D Gaussian fit -- that matches previous measurements.

What would settle it

A clear test is to fit a smooth, axisymmetric, ring-free model directly to the Band 7 visibilities and inspect the residuals: a coherent 50 au ring that persists in the residual image would confirm the detection, while a bump that shifts or disappears when the inclination is changed by a few degrees or when the eastern and western halves of the disk are analyzed separately would indicate a projection artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using new ALMA Band 7 observations at 0.89 mm with roughly 5 au resolution, the paper's discovery is a confirmed ring in the dust continuum of MP Mus at about 45-50 au. The detection is supported by three independent routes: the Band 7 image itself, the deprojected radial brightness profile, and a nonparametric visibility-based reconstruction of the Band 7 visibilities; a convolution test shows that degrading the image to the Band 6 beam makes the ring disappear, explaining why earlier 1.3 mm data appeared smooth. The paper reports dust masses of $28.4\pm2.8$ Earth masses at 0.89 mm and $26.3\pm2.6$ Earth masses at 1.3 mm, an integrated spectral index $\alpha_{0.89-1.3}=2.2\pm0.3$, a radial spectral-index map rising from about 1.2 in the inner disk to 3-4 in the outer disk, and a CO gas disk extending to roughly 110-120 au against a continuum extent of about 60 au. On this basis the paper concludes that radial drift is the most likely explanation for the compact dust disk and the ring, while grain growth and dust evolution remain possible. It also states that the disk should not be classified as a transitional disk because it lacks a large inner cavity.

Load-bearing premise

The ring claim stands on the assumption that the disk is axisymmetric with the adopted inclination of 32 degrees and position angle of 10 degrees; if the disk is lopsided or the geometry is wrong, the apparent 50 au bump could be an artifact of projecting an asymmetric brightness distribution onto concentric rings.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The ring at 45-50 au is a real substructure in the millimeter dust of MP Mus, and its absence in Band 6 is a resolution effect rather than evidence against it.
  • Smooth-looking Band 6 images of other disks may hide faint rings that Band 7 or higher-frequency ALMA observations would reveal.
  • The contrast between a roughly 60 au continuum disk and a 110-120 au CO disk, together with the sharp outer edge, points to radial drift as an active process in this disk.
  • The radial rise of the spectral index from about 1.2 to 3-4 implies that the inner disk is optically thick and that grain properties change with radius, so a single integrated spectral-index value misses the disk's structure.
  • MP Mus should not be classified as a transitional disk, since there is no large inner cavity despite the ring and hints of clearing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not say this, but a physical 50 au millimeter ring sitting inside an 80-85 au scattered-light ring suggests two distinct dust populations: large grains concentrated at a pressure bump closer in, while small grains remain farther out where they are visible in scattered light.
  • If beam smearing hid this ring at 1.3 mm, a survey-style implication follows: re-observing apparently smooth disks at shorter wavelengths could reveal a population of low-contrast rings that current Band 6 samples miss.
  • A testable extension of the radial-drift interpretation would be to search for a local gas pressure bump associated with the 50 au ring, for example through kinematic signatures in CO line observations.
  • The very high outer spectral index of about 4 could also be produced by very small or porous grains in the outer disk, which deeper multi-wavelength continuum and polarization observations could discriminate.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents new ALMA Band 7 (0.89 mm) continuum and CO observations of the nearby pre-main-sequence star MP Mus and argues that these data confirm a ring-like substructure at roughly 45-50 au. The evidence cited is a visual feature in the Band 7 image, a small bump in the azimuthally averaged deprojected radial profile, and a Frank visibility-based reconstruction, together with a comparison to earlier Band 6 data. The paper also derives integrated dust masses of 28.4 +/- 2.8 M_Earth at 0.89 mm and 26.3 +/- 2.6 M_Earth at 1.3 mm, an integrated spectral index of 2.2 +/- 0.3, a radially increasing spectral index from about 1.2 in the inner disk to 3.0-4.0 at large radius, and a gas disk extent of about 120 au in CO versus about 60 au in millimeter continuum. From these results the authors argue that radial drift is likely active, while acknowledging that dust evolution and grain growth cannot be excluded.

Significance. If the 50 au ring is real, the paper would add MP Mus to the small set of very nearby, well-resolved protoplanetary disks with weak millimeter substructure, and it would strengthen the comparison with the previously known 80-85 au scattered-light ring and with the tentative Band 6 feature reported by Ribas et al. (2023). The spectral index map, the convolution test, and the CO-based gas radius measurement are useful observational products that would be of interest to the disk-evolution community. The manuscript also makes appropriate use of publicly available ALMA data and the Frank code, and it is careful to label the dust masses as upper limits. However, the headline claim of a confirmed ring currently rests on a low-contrast feature whose statistical significance is not quantified anywhere in the paper, so the central result is not yet supported at the level claimed.

major comments (2)
  1. [3.1.3, 3.1.2] The central claim that a ring structure is discovered and confirmed at ~50 au is not supported by any reported statistical significance. In Sect. 3.1.2 the feature is described as "what seems to be a little bump at ~50 au," while the 60 au feature is explicitly called a "very low S/N feature," yet no signal-to-noise ratio, sigma level, or confidence interval is given for the 50 au bump itself. Fig. 2 shows 1-sigma uncertainty bands and 5-sigma detection limits, but the contrast of the bump relative to a smooth baseline, accounting for the strong correlation between radial bins imposed by the synthesized beam, is never quantified. The Frank reconstruction in Sect. 3.1.3 is invoked as independent support, but no posterior credible interval for the 45-50 au region is reported. The paper should provide a quantitative detection significance: for example, a local SNR from the deprojected profile, a credible interval from the Frank posterior, or a visibility-domain model comparison between a smooth disk and a disk with a ring at 45-50 au. Without one of these, the title, abstract, and conclusions overstate what the data demonstrate.
  2. [3.1.3, 3.1.2] The reality of the purported ring depends on the assumed disk geometry and on azimuthal symmetry, but no sensitivity analysis is presented. The deprojection uses inclination 32 deg and position angle 10 deg obtained from a 2D Gaussian fit, and the Frank reconstruction explicitly assumes azimuthal symmetry. Because the bump is a low-contrast feature superposed on a steeply falling bright continuum, projection errors or a modest azimuthal asymmetry could produce or suppress a feature of this amplitude. The authors should test the robustness of the 45-50 au bump by varying the adopted inclination and position angle within their fitted uncertainties (and within the values reported by Ribas et al. 2023), and by inspecting azimuthal profiles or residual images for lopsidedness. Reporting such tests would substantially strengthen the ring detection claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the ring was discovered "by subtracting the continuum profile generated from Band 7 data," but the Methods and Results sections do not describe any explicit subtraction of a continuum profile; they describe azimuthally averaged radial profiles, a Frank reconstruction, and a convolution/residual comparison. This discrepancy should be resolved, either by describing the subtraction method or by rewording the abstract.
  2. [3.1.4] In Sect. 3.1.4 the sentence "large grains are much less decoupled from the gas" appears to be a typo; the intended meaning is presumably that large grains are more decoupled from the gas. Please correct this.
  3. [3.2.1] The quoted dust mass uncertainties (e.g., 28.4 +/- 2.8 M_Earth at 0.89 mm) propagate only the flux errors and do not include the substantial systematic uncertainties in the assumed dust temperature (T = 20 K) and opacity (kappa_nu ~ 3 cm^2/g). Since the masses are explicitly presented as upper limits this is not fatal, but the text should state that the uncertainties are statistical only, or should fold in a representative systematic range.
  4. [Table A.2 / Fig. 5] There are minor typographical issues: Table A.2 lists bandwidth units as "Mhz" instead of "MHz," and the caption of Fig. 5 contains "0..89 mm" instead of "0.89 mm."
  5. [3.1.1 / 5] The ring radius is quoted variously as ~45-50 au, ~50 au, and 45-50 au without an explicit uncertainty. A quantitative radius and uncertainty, derived consistently from the radial profile and Frank reconstruction, should be stated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the ~50 au ring detection rests on independent Band 7 imaging, radial profiles, and Frank visibility reconstruction, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—confirmation of a ring at ~45–50 au in the 0.89 mm dust continuum—is supported by three independent pieces of evidence: the Band 7 continuum image (Fig. 1, Sect. 3.1.1), the deprojected azimuthally averaged radial profile (Fig. 2, Sect. 3.1.2), and the Frank visibility-based reconstruction (Fig. 3, Sect. 3.1.3). The disk geometry (i = 32°, PA = 10°) is determined by a 2D Gaussian fit to the same continuum, but that fit constrains the overall disk orientation and centroid, not the radial intensity distribution; it does not by construction create a bump at 45–50 au. The Frank model assumes azimuthal symmetry and fits the visibilities nonparametrically, and its independent reconstruction also shows the bump, so the detection is not an artifact of the deprojection procedure. The comparison with Ribas et al. (2023) is corroborative rather than load-bearing: the new Band 7 data alone exhibit the feature, and the earlier paper is not used as the sole justification. The dust-mass and spectral-index estimates use standard assumptions (T = 20 K, adopted opacities) that are explicitly labeled as upper limits and are secondary to the ring claim; these assumptions do not enter the ring detection. The abstract phrase 'subtracting the continuum profile generated from Band 7 data' is not developed in the main text as a fitted-model subtraction, and no equation in the paper equates the ring to an input or fitted parameter. No circular step—definitional, fitted-input, self-citation, or ansatz-smuggling—could be identified with the required specific reduction. The lack of a quantified significance for the 50 au bump is a legitimate scientific limitation, but it is a statistical-evidence concern, not a circularity concern.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ring claim itself does not depend on fitted parameters. The free parameters listed (assumed dust temperature and opacity) affect only the secondary dust mass estimates. The key assumptions for the ring detection are the adopted disk geometry and axisymmetry in the profile extraction, plus the optically thin assumption for mass and spectral index interpretation.

free parameters (2)
  • Assumed dust temperature T = 20 K
    Adopted from the median disk temperature in Andrews & Williams (2005); dust mass scales with T in the Rayleigh-Jeans regime (Eq. 1). The uncertainty in T is not propagated into the quoted mass errors.
  • Assumed dust opacity kappa_nu = 3 cm^2/g at 0.89 and 1.3 mm
    Adopted from Ricci et al. (2012b) and Andrews et al. (2011); dust mass is inversely proportional to kappa_nu (Eq. 1). The uncertainty in kappa_nu is not propagated.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The disk is azimuthally symmetric for the deprojected radial profiles and Frank reconstruction.
    Used in Sect. 3.1.2 and 3.1.3; consistent with previous observations but not proven. A lopsided disk could create apparent bumps in the azimuthally averaged profile.
  • domain assumption The dust continuum emission is optically thin at radii relevant for the mass estimate.
    Sect. 3.2.1 states the emission is assumed optically thin on scales larger than 10 au; the paper labels the derived masses as upper limits.
  • domain assumption The deprojection geometry from a 2D Gaussian fit (i=32 degrees, PA=10 degrees) is correct.
    Sect. 3.1.2; errors on inclination and position angle are not reported. An incorrect geometry could create artificial features in the radial profiles.
  • standard math The spectral index alpha_mm is related to the opacity index beta_mm by alpha_mm = beta_mm + 2 in the optically thin Rayleigh-Jeans limit.
    Sect. 3.2.2 uses this standard relation to interpret the measured spectral index in terms of grain properties and optical depth.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Confirmation of a ring structure in the disk around MP Mus (PDS 66) with ALMA Band 7 observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GNJLWARB

@misc{pith2026250417978,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Confirmation of a ring structure in the disk around MP Mus (PDS 66) with ALMA Band 7 observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GNJLWARB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17978}
}
abstract

Young stellar objects (YSOs) are surrounded by protoplanetary disks, which are the birthplace of young planets. Ring and gap structures are observed among evolved protoplanetary disks, often interpreted as a consequence of planet formation. The pre-Main Sequence (pre-MS) star MP Mus hosts one of the few known examples of protoplanetary disks within ~100 pc. Previously, a disk ring structure, with a radius of 80-85 au, was detected in scattered light via near-infrared coronographic/polarimetric imaging. This ring structure may be indicative of the disk clearing process. Although such ring structures were not seen in the ALMA Band 6 images, some features were detected at $\sim$50 au. In this paper, we analyzed new ALMA Band 7 observations of MP Mus in order to investigate the details of its disk substructures. By subtracting the continuum profile generated from Band 7 data, we discovered a ring structure in the Band 7 dust continuum image at $\sim$50 au. We calculated the overall dust mass as $28.4\pm2.8 M_{\oplus}$ at 0.89 mm and $26.3\pm2.6 M_{\oplus}$ at 1.3 mm and the millimeter spectral index $\alpha_{0.89-1.3mm} \sim 2.2 \pm 0.3$ between 0.89 mm and 1.3 mm. Moreover, we display the spatial distribution of the spectral index ($\alpha_{mm}$), estimating values ranging from 1.3 at the inner disk to 4.0 at a large radius. Additionally, we observed an extended gas disk up to $\sim$120 au, in contrast with a compact continuum millimeter extent of $\sim$60 au. We conclude that there are strong indicators for an active radial drift process within the disk. However, we cannot discard the possibility of a dust evolution process and a grain growth process as responsible for the outer disk structures observed in the ALMA continuum imaging.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17978 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ALMA Band 7 continuum images of MP Mus at 0.89 mm using the selfcalibrated extended configuration with a robust value of r = -0.5. The synthesized beam size (white ellipse) is shown in the bottom left corner. Left: Linear scale; Right: Logarihtmic scale [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Continuum deprojected radial profiles of MP Mus using selfcal￾ibrated extended configurations for Band 6 (2017.1.01167.S) and Band 7, with robust values of 0.5 and -0.5. Their respective 1σ uncertainties are presented as shades around the solid lines. The faint dotted lines in the bottom part of the figure correspond to 5σ detection limits from the rms, calculated for each dataset and each radial bin. 3.1.4. Dust co… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Continuum radial profiles compared with 12CO radial profiles, with the same label definition as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: Spectral index maps of MP Mus between 0..89 mm and 1.3 mm, with different Briggs robust values: 0.5, 0.0, and -0.5. Bottom: Deprojected α0.89−1.3mm radial profiles. The horizontal dashed line represents the Rayleigh-Jeans limit (αmm = 2). data, observing a smooth …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Continuum images of MP Mus. The beam sizes are shown in the lower left corner of each image. Left: Band 6 continuum of MP Mus with r = -0.5 and a beam size of 0.11" × 0.09". Right: Band 7 continuum of MP Mus convolved with the beam of Band 6 and r = -0.5. The beam size…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Radial brightness profile of J and H Band from Sphere at scat￾tered light in comparison with the Band 6 continuum with a robust value of r = 0.5. The vertical dashed line corresponds to the coronograph limit. ter continuum could be in agreement with our observations at…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * 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.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    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 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    Andrews , S. M. 2020, , 58, 483

    2020

  4. [4]

    M., Huang , J., P \'e rez , L

    Andrews , S. M., Huang , J., P \'e rez , L. M., et al. 2018, The Messenger, 174, 19

    2018

  5. [5]

    Andrews , S. M. & Williams , J. P. 2005, , 631, 1134

    2005

  6. [6]

    Andrews , S. M. & Williams , J. P. 2007, , 671, 1800

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    M., Wilner , D

    Andrews , S. M., Wilner , D. J., Espaillat , C., et al. 2011, , 732, 42

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    P., Trapman , L., et al

    Ansdell , M., Williams , J. P., Trapman , L., et al. 2018, , 859, 21

    2018

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    2021, , 652, A101

    Asensio-Torres , R., Henning , T., Cantalloube , F., et al. 2021, , 652, A101

    2021

  2. [10]

    P., Garufi , A., et al

    Avenhaus , H., Quanz , S. P., Garufi , A., et al. 2018, , 863, 44

    2018

  3. [11]

    F., Murray , J

    Barri \`e re-Fouchet , L., Gonzalez , J. F., Murray , J. R., Humble , R. J., & Maddison , S. T. 2005, , 443, 185

    2005

  4. [12]

    2024, , 62, 157

    Birnstiel , T. 2024, , 62, 157

    2024

  5. [13]

    & Andrews , S

    Birnstiel , T. & Andrews , S. M. 2014, , 780, 153

    2014

  6. [14]

    M., Pinilla , P., & Kama , M

    Birnstiel , T., Andrews , S. M., Pinilla , P., & Kama , M. 2015, , 813, L14

    2015

  7. [15]

    P., Zhu , Z., et al

    Birnstiel , T., Dullemond , C. P., Zhu , Z., et al. 2018, , 869, L45

    2018

  8. [16]

    A., et al

    Bouwman , J., Henning , T., Hillenbrand , L. A., et al. 2008, , 683, 479

    2008

  9. [17]

    M., Wolf , S., Schreyer , K., Launhardt , R., & Henning , T

    Carpenter , J. M., Wolf , S., Schreyer , K., Launhardt , R., & Henning , T. 2005, , 129, 1049

    2005

  10. [18]

    J., et al

    Carrasco-Gonz \'a lez , C., Henning , T., Chandler , C. J., et al. 2016, , 821, L16

    2016

  11. [19]

    Cieza , L. A. 2016, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 314, Young Stars & Planets Near the Sun, ed. J. H. Kastner , B. Stelzer , & S. A. Metchev , 128--134

    2016

  12. [20]

    A., Swift , J

    Cieza , L. A., Swift , J. J., Mathews , G. S., & Williams , J. P. 2008, , 686, L115

    2008

  13. [21]

    R., Meyer , M

    Cortes , S. R., Meyer , M. R., Carpenter , J. M., et al. 2009, , 697, 1305

    2009

  14. [22]

    A., Gonzalez Ruilova , C

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

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    A., Wilson , E

    Dickson-Vandervelde , D. A., Wilson , E. C., & Kastner , J. H. 2021, , 161, 87

    2021

  16. [24]

    Draine , B. T. 2006, , 636, 1114

    2006

  17. [25]

    Facchini , S., Birnstiel , T., Bruderer , S., & van Dishoeck , E. F. 2017, , 605, A16

    2017

  18. [26]

    F., Manara , C

    Facchini , S., van Dishoeck , E. F., Manara , C. F., et al. 2019, , 626, L2

    2019

  19. [27]

    P., Dzyurkevich , N., et al

    Flock , M., Ruge , J. P., Dzyurkevich , N., et al. 2015, , 574, A68

    2015

  20. [28]

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

    2023

  21. [29]

    2018, , 620, A94

    Garufi , A., Benisty , M., Pinilla , P., et al. 2018, , 620, A94

    2018

  22. [30]

    Gregorio-Hetem , J., Lepine , J. R. D., Quast , G. R., Torres , C. A. O., & de La Reza , R. 1992, , 103, 549

    1992

  23. [31]

    J., Nelson , R

    Gressel , O., Turner , N. J., Nelson , R. P., & McNally , C. P. 2015, , 801, 84

    2015

  24. [32]

    2024, , 970, 137

    Grimble , W., Kastner , J., Pinte , C., et al. 2024, , 970, 137

    2024

  25. [33]

    2011, , 529, A105

    Guilloteau , S., Dutrey , A., Pi \'e tu , V., & Boehler , Y. 2011, , 529, A105

    2011

  26. [34]

    Hildebrand , R. H. 1983, , 24, 267

    1983

  27. [35]

    2019, , 885, 36

    Hu , X., Zhu , Z., Okuzumi , S., et al. 2019, , 885, 36

    2019

  28. [36]

    M., Dullemond , C

    Huang , J., Andrews , S. M., Dullemond , C. P., et al. 2018, , 869, L42

    2018

  29. [37]

    2013, , 767, 112

    Ingleby , L., Calvet , N., Herczeg , G., et al. 2013, , 767, 112

    2013

  30. [38]

    A., Tazzari , M., Rosotti , G

    Jennings , J., Booth , R. A., Tazzari , M., Rosotti , G. P., & Clarke , C. J. 2020, , 495, 3209

    2020

  31. [39]

    H., Hily-Blant , P., Sacco , G

    Kastner , J. H., Hily-Blant , P., Sacco , G. G., Forveille , T., & Zuckerman , B. 2010, , 723, L248

    2010

  32. [40]

    Kastner , J. H. & Principe , D. A. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed. C. Bambi & A. Sangangelo , 49

    2022

  33. [41]

    2024, , 692, A45

    Kuwahara , A., Lambrechts , M., Kurokawa , H., Okuzumi , S., & Tanigawa , T. 2024, , 692, A45

    2024

  34. [42]

    J., et al

    Long , F., Pinilla , P., Herczeg , G. J., et al. 2018, , 869, 17

    2018

  35. [43]

    E., Meyer , M

    Mamajek , E. E., Meyer , M. R., & Liebert , J. 2002, , 124, 1670

    2002

  36. [44]

    P., Waters , B., Schiebel , D., Young , W., & Golap , K

    McMullin , J. P., Waters , B., Schiebel , D., Young , W., & 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. [45]

    J., Lawson , W

    Murphy , S. J., Lawson , W. A., & Bessell , M. S. 2013, , 435, 1325

    2013

  38. [46]

    & Testi , L

    Natta , A. & Testi , L. 2004, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 323, Star Formation in the Interstellar Medium: In Honor of David Hollenbach, ed. D. Johnstone , F. C. Adams , D. N. C. Lin , D. A. Neufeeld , & E. C. Ostriker , 279

    2004

  39. [47]

    I., Guzm \'a n , V

    \"O berg , K. I., Guzm \'a n , V. V., Walsh , C., et al. 2021, , 257, 1

    2021

  40. [48]

    I., Qi , C., Fogel , J

    \"O berg , K. I., Qi , C., Fogel , J. K. J., et al. 2011, , 734, 98

    2011

  41. [49]

    2016, , 821, 82

    Okuzumi , S., Momose , M., Sirono , S.-i., Kobayashi , H., & Tanaka , H. 2016, , 821, 82

    2016

  42. [50]

    & Tazaki , R

    Okuzumi , S. & Tazaki , R. 2019, , 878, 132

    2019

  43. [51]

    M., Chandler , C

    P \'e rez , L. M., Chandler , C. J., Isella , A., et al. 2015, , 813, 41

    2015

  44. [52]

    2014, , 564, A51

    Pinilla , P., Benisty , M., Birnstiel , T., et al. 2014, , 564, A51

    2014

  45. [53]

    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

  46. [54]

    C., Mac \' as , E., et al

    Ribas , \'A ., Espaillat , C. C., Mac \' as , E., et al. 2017, , 849, 63

    2017

  47. [55]

    2023, , 673, A77

    Ribas , \'A ., Mac \' as , E., Weber , P., et al. 2023, , 673, A77

    2023

  48. [56]

    2012 a , , 761, L20

    Ricci , L., Testi , L., Natta , A., Scholz , A., & de Gregorio-Monsalvo , I. 2012 a , , 761, L20

    2012

  49. [57]

    2012 b , , 540, A6

    Ricci , L., Trotta , F., Testi , L., et al. 2012 b , , 540, A6

    2012

  50. [58]

    P., Flock , M., Wolf , S., et al

    Ruge , J. P., Flock , M., Wolf , S., et al. 2016, , 590, A17

    2016

  51. [59]

    Sch \"u tz , O., Meeus , G., & Sterzik , M. F. 2005, , 431, 165

    2005

  52. [60]

    M., Schmiedeke , A., Pineda , J

    Segura-Cox , D. M., Schmiedeke , A., Pineda , J. E., et al. 2020, , 586, 228

    2020

  53. [61]

    J., et al

    Shi , Y., Long , F., Herczeg , G. J., et al. 2024, , 966, 59

    2024

  54. [62]

    2017, , 850, 115

    Sierra , A., Lizano , S., & Barge , P. 2017, , 850, 115

    2017

  55. [63]

    2019, , 876, 7

    Sierra , A., Lizano , S., Mac \' as , E., et al. 2019, , 876, 7

    2019

  56. [64]

    2017, , 844, 158

    Simon , M., Guilloteau , S., Di Folco , E., et al. 2017, , 844, 158

    2017

  57. [65]

    Takahashi , S. Z. & Inutsuka , S.-i. 2014, , 794, 55

    2014

  58. [66]

    2021, , 506, 5117

    Tazzari , M., Testi , L., Natta , A., et al. 2021, , 506, 5117

    2021

  59. [67]

    2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed

    Testi , L., Birnstiel , T., Ricci , L., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther , R. S. Klessen , C. P. Dullemond , & T. Henning , 339--361

    2014

  60. [68]

    Torres , C. A. O., Quast , G. R., Melo , C. H. F., & Sterzik , M. F. 2008, in Handbook of Star Forming Regions, Volume II, ed. B. Reipurth , Vol. 5, 757

    2008

  61. [69]

    R., van Dishoeck , E

    Trapman , L., Facchini , S., Hogerheijde , M. R., van Dishoeck , E. F., & Bruderer , S. 2019, , 629, A79

    2019

  62. [70]

    2016, , 832, 178

    van der Marel , N., Cazzoletti , P., Pinilla , P., & Garufi , A. 2016, , 832, 178

    2016

  63. [71]

    H., Dickson-Vandervelde , D

    Varga , A., Kastner , J. H., Dickson-Vandervelde , D. A., & Binks , A. 2024, , 168, 251

    2024

  64. [72]

    Villenave , M., Benisty , M., Dent , W. R. F., et al. 2019, , 624, A7

    2019

  65. [73]

    Ward , W. R. & Hahn , J. M. 2000, in Protostars and Planets IV, ed. V. Mannings , A. P. Boss , & S. S. Russell , 1135

    2000

  66. [74]

    Weidenschilling , S. J. 1977, , 180, 57

    1977

  67. [75]

    2010, , 517, A88

    Weise , P., Launhardt , R., Setiawan , J., & Henning , T. 2010, , 517, A88

    2010

  68. [76]

    Williams , J. P. & Cieza , L. A. 2011, , 49, 67

    2011

  69. [77]

    G., Perrin , M., Millar-Blanchaer , M

    Wolff , S. G., Perrin , M., Millar-Blanchaer , M. A., et al. 2016, , 818, L15

    2016

  70. [78]

    2015, in IAU General Assembly, Vol

    Zhang , K., Blake , G., & Bergin , E. 2015, in IAU General Assembly, Vol. 29, 2256118

    2015

  71. [79]

    M., Rafikov , R

    Zhu , Z., Stone , J. M., Rafikov , R. R., & Bai , X.-n. 2014, , 785, 122

    2014

  72. [80]

    2020, , 633, A119

    Zurlo , A., Cugno , G., Montesinos , M., et al. 2020, , 633, A119

    2020

Pith tools

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