Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 41 references

exoALMA VII: Benchmarking Hydrodynamics and Radiative Transfer Codes

T0 review · 3 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 Forward modeling of planet-driven disk kinematics is robust to the choice of code, a benchmark of five hydrodynamics and two radiative transfer codes shows.

desk verdict A genuinely useful benchmark that does what it claims for the tested configuration, but the abstract's 'any combination' conclusion outruns the single-model evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18643 v2 pith:AA6KIXEV submitted 2025-04-25 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM

Jaehan Bae , Mario Flock , Andres Izquierdo , Kazuhiro Kanagawa , Tomohiro Ono , Christophe Pinte , Daniel J. Price , Giovanni P. Rosotti
show 20 more authors
Gaylor Wafflard-Fernandez Geoffroy Lesur Frederic Masset Sean M. Andrews Marcelo Barrasa-Alfaro Myriam Benisty Gianni Cataldi Nicolas Cuello Pietro Curone Ian Czekala Iain Hammond Jane Huang Giuseppe Lodato Cristiano Longarini Jochen Stadler Richard Teague David Wilner Andrew Winter Lisa Wolfer Tomohiro C. Yoshida
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IM
keywords protoplanetarydisksplanet-diskinteractionshydrodynamicalsimulationsradiativetransferkinematicperturbationsvelocitykinksforwardmodeling12COchannelmaps
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 tries to establish that the forward modeling pipeline used to interpret planet-driven kinematic perturbations in protoplanetary disks is reliable regardless of which community code is used. It benchmarks four grid-based hydrodynamics codes and one smoothed particle hydrodynamics code, two radiative transfer codes, and nine code combinations, then retrieves the embedded planet's location from synthetic 12CO cubes. The result is that retrieved radial and azimuthal planet positions agree with the true location within a few percent scatter, peak residual velocities vary by less than 20 percent, and brightness temperatures differ by at most about 1.5 K. If the conclusion holds, researchers can trust planet-location results obtained with any of these code combinations, which matters because exoplanet detections in disks increasingly rely on such kinematic signatures.

What carries the argument

The central object is the planet-driven spiral perturbation in gas density and velocity, which produces a localized velocity kink in 12CO channel maps. The benchmark chain consists of hydrodynamics codes that evolve the disk, radiative transfer codes that convert the density and velocity fields into temperatures and synthetic line cubes, and DISCMINER's folded velocity residual maps, which locate the peak residual velocity associated with the kink. The argument works because the strength of the kink is set by the spiral-arm velocity perturbations, which agree across all five hydrodynamics codes, rather than by the depth of the planet-opened gap, which does not.

What would settle it

Run the same five hydrodynamics and two radiative transfer codes for a substantially different regime, such as a 10 Earth-mass planet or a disk with vertical temperature stratification and finite cooling; if retrieved planet positions scatter by more than a beam or brightness temperatures differ by more than the 1.5 K noise level across code combinations, the claim that any tested combination can be used reliably would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that any combination of the tested hydrodynamics and radiative transfer codes can be used reliably to model and interpret planet-driven kinematic perturbations in protoplanetary disks. Across the nine hydrodynamics-plus-radiative-transfer combinations, the disk temperature agrees to within about 3 percent or better between mcfost and RADMC-3D models everywhere in the domain, and synthetic 12CO channel maps show brightness temperature differences within 1.5 K, which is around the typical noise level of exoALMA-quality molecular line images. DISCMINER retrieves the planet's radial location at 105 to 116 au for a true value of 100 au and azimuthal location within about 4 degrees of the true value of -45 degrees, with peak residual velocities between 0.054 and 0.088 km/s. The only notable disagreement is that the Phantom simulation opens a much shallower gap than the grid-based codes, but this does not affect the kinematic retrieval, because the spiral-arm density and velocity perturbations that produce the velocity kinks remain consistent.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on a single benchmark model being representative: one Jupiter-mass planet on a fixed circular orbit at 100 au in an isothermal disk with no magnetic fields, no cooling, and no migration, a limitation the paper itself acknowledges.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Planet location retrieval from kinematic signatures in exoALMA-quality data can proceed with any tested code combination, without needing to re-calibrate the result to a particular hydrodynamics or radiative transfer code.
  • Brightness temperature differences between code combinations stay below the typical 1.5 K noise, so synthetic cubes from different codes would be observationally indistinguishable at current sensitivity.
  • The shallow gap produced by the SPH code does not translate into a biased planet location, so kinematic planet-finding appears decoupled from gap-depth uncertainties.
  • Simulations and radiative transfer calculations from different groups can be combined and compared directly in future forward modeling surveys.
  • The known radial bias toward larger radii in DISCMINER retrieval persists across all code combinations, indicating it is a property of the retrieval method rather than of any particular code.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The benchmark covers only one model—a Jupiter-mass planet at 100 au in an isothermal disk with no magnetic fields, cooling, or migration—so the blanket conclusion that any combination works is an extrapolation until other regimes are tested.
  • If lower-mass planets or vertically stratified, cooling, or magnetized disks produce larger code-to-code differences, the kinematic retrieval may still be robust, but the exact scatter should be re-measured rather than assumed.
  • The Phantom simulation's shallow gap, caused partly by mass loss through the inner boundary, suggests that gap-based planet mass estimates from SPH runs could be biased even though kinematic location retrieval is not.
  • Comparing the retrieved peak location with both spiral arms, rather than the global peak that favors the outer arm, might reduce the systematic radial offset and is a testable extension of the DISCMINER workflow.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper benchmarks five hydrodynamics codes (FARGO3D, Idefix, Athena++, PLUTO, and Phantom) and two radiative transfer codes (mcfost and RADMC-3D) on a single planet-disk interaction model: a Jupiter-mass planet at 100 au, isothermal equation of state, kinematic viscosity nu=1e-5, no migration, and no magnetic fields. The authors generate synthetic 12CO J=3-2 cubes from nine code combinations, retrieve the planet's radial and azimuthal location with DISCMINER, and compare the results. They report strong consistency: disk temperatures agree within about 3% between mcfost and RADMC-3D, brightness temperatures along the iso-velocity contour agree within ±1.5 K, retrieved planet locations show only a few percent scatter around the true location, and peak residual velocities vary by roughly 20% among models. They conclude that any combination of the tested hydrodynamics and radiative transfer codes can be used to reliably model and interpret planet-driven kinematic perturbations, while also noting in Section 5 that only a single base hydrodynamics model was considered.

Significance. The benchmark is valuable to the protoplanetary disk community because it is the first systematic, controlled comparison of the specific codes used for forward modeling of planet-driven kinematic structures in exoALMA-era observations. The study is carefully set up: code versions are pinned, the initial conditions are fully specified, and the planet is injected with known mass and orbital parameters, so the retrieval comparison has a well-defined ground truth. The quantitative agreement among grid-based codes and between mcfost and RADMC-3D is a useful reference result, and the paper is commendably explicit about the Phantom mass loss and shallow gap. If the conclusions are appropriately qualified to the tested configuration, this will be a useful citable benchmark for the community. The main weakness is not in the measurements themselves but in the breadth of the summary claim, which goes beyond what a single benchmark model and nine of ten possible code combinations can establish.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3] The abstract and Section 5 state that 'any combination of the tested hydrodynamics and radiative transfer codes' can be used reliably, but the Phantom + RADMC-3D combination was not tested; Section 3 explicitly lists it as excluded because no RADMC-3D module reads Phantom outputs. Since both Phantom and RADMC-3D are among the 'tested' codes, the blanket statement is not literally supported by the nine tested combinations. Please rephrase to 'the nine combinations tested here' or provide a justification for why the missing combination cannot affect the conclusion.
  2. [Section 5 and Figure 5] The universal conclusion overreaches the evidence from a single base model. The Phantom simulation shows only about 10% surface density suppression in the gap versus about 70% in the grid-based codes, and the azimuthal velocity perturbation across the gap is about 1% versus about 6% (Figure 5). The DISCMINER retrieval exercises the spiral-arm velocity kinks, which are consistent, but it does not test the gap-induced azimuthal velocity perturbation as an observable. The paper's own final paragraph acknowledges this limitation. The abstract and summary should therefore be narrowed, for example to 'any of the tested code combinations can be used to model and interpret planet-driven spiral kinematic perturbations in this configuration,' and should state explicitly that consistency for gap-depth-based diagnostics is not established by this benchmark.
  3. [Section 4 and Abstract] The statement that peak residual velocities vary by 'about 20%' appears inconsistent with the reported minimum, maximum, and mean values (0.054 km/s, 0.088 km/s, and 0.074 km/s). The minimum is about 27% below the mean, and the full range is about 46% of the mean. Please report a standard scatter metric (standard deviation or max absolute deviation from the mean) and adjust the abstract and Section 4 wording accordingly, or explain what '20%' refers to.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2.1] There is a typo in 'hydrodynmics codes'; it should read 'hydrodynamics codes.'
  2. [Throughout] The notation for carbon monoxide should be consistent: use $^{12}$CO with a superscript in all instances rather than the plain text '12CO'.
  3. [Section 3.1] In the sentence about the stellar photon count, '10 9 photons' is missing a superscript; it should read $10^9$ photons.
  4. [Section 4] The radial retrieval is reported as systematically biased to a mean of 109 au versus the true 100 au. This is within one beam, but since the bias appears in all models, a brief discussion of its origin beyond the cited prior work would strengthen the paper.
  5. [Figure 7] The caption refers to a 'yellow dashed square' marking the velocity kink, but in the figure as rendered the square may be difficult to locate; please ensure the marker is clearly visible in the published version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the benchmark compares independent code outputs against a fixed ground-truth planet location, with no fitted parameter relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison is a ground-truth benchmark: a planet of known mass and position is embedded in each hydrodynamics code, the resulting disk states are post-processed by two radiative transfer codes, and DISCMINER retrieves the planet location from synthetic 12CO cubes. The true planet location (100 au, -45 deg) is an input to the simulations, not a parameter fitted to the retrieval; the retrieved locations are then compared with that input as a test of code consistency. No equation in the paper defines the predicted quantity in terms of the measured quantity, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The temperature comparisons, brightness-temperature differences, and retrieval scatters are all independent outputs of the pipeline. The self-referential element is that several authors are developers of the codes being benchmarked, including DISCMINER, but this does not create circularity because the codes are not tuned or calibrated against the benchmark's target outputs; the retrieval is an independent analysis tool run on synthetic data. The paper's own admission that only a single base hydrodynamics model was considered is a generalization or robustness limitation, not a circularity, and does not affect the internal validity of the benchmark. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its stated comparisons.

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

The central claim is a benchmark result, not a derivation, so the ledger captures the hand-chosen model setup parameters and the domain assumptions that define the test problem. No new physical entities are introduced. The most consequential assumptions are the isothermal EOS and the representativeness of the single benchmark model, both explicitly acknowledged in the paper.

free parameters (9)
  • Disk aspect ratio H/R at planet radius = 0.1 at R_p=1
    Sets the temperature normalization T_p; typical for protoplanetary disks and close to exoALMA-inferred values (Section 2.1.2).
  • Temperature power-law index q = -0.5
    Sets the radial temperature profile; a standard choice for irradiated disks (Eq. 1).
  • Surface density power-law index p = -2.25
    Chosen so the surface density falls as R^-1; a common disk model (Section 2.1.2).
  • Kinematic viscosity nu = 1e-5
    Sets disk accretion and gap depth; equivalent to alpha ~ 1e-3 at R_p, typical for weakly viscous disks (Section 2.1.2).
  • Planet mass M_p = 1e-3 M* (about one Jupiter mass)
    The benchmark planet; chosen as the lower mass limit expected to be detected in exoALMA-quality data (Section 2.1.3).
  • Planet potential smoothing length epsilon = 3*Delta_r ~ 0.024
    Softening length for the planet potential relative to grid cell size; affects torque and gap depth (Eq. 4).
  • CO freeze-out temperature = 20 K
    Sets where CO becomes gas-phase in radiative transfer, affecting line emission brightness (Section 3.1).
  • Dust-to-gas mass ratio = 0.01
    Sets dust opacity and temperature calculations; standard ISM ratio (Section 3.1).
  • Stellar temperature and radius = 4000 K, 2 R_sun
    Sets irradiation and temperature structure in radiative transfer (Section 3.1).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Isothermal equation of state and vertically isothermal disk
    Adopted in Section 2.1.2; the code-comparison results are derived under this assumption, and the authors justify via Pinte et al. 2019 that velocity perturbations differ only mildly from non-isothermal runs.
  • domain assumption Planet is fixed on a circular orbit with no accretion or migration
    Section 2.1.3 and 2.2; removes effects of migration and feedback from the comparison, focusing purely on the code-to-code agreement.
  • standard math Initial conditions satisfy vertical and radial force balance
    Eqs. 2 and 3; the standard disk equilibrium used to initialize all codes consistently.
  • domain assumption Damping zones and boundary conditions adequately mimic an infinite disk
    Section 2.1.4; the Phantom simulation instead uses open boundaries, causing mass loss and a shallow gap; the conclusion that this does not affect retrieval relies on the assumption that velocity kinks are insensitive to gap depth.
  • domain assumption Radiative transfer operates in LTE with thermal broadening only and CO abundance 1e-4 above 20 K
    Section 3.1; these choices set the line emission and brightness temperatures, and are standard but simplified prescriptions.
  • domain assumption The single benchmark model is representative of exoALMA disks
    The final section states 'we only considered a single base hydrodynamics model'; the broad conclusion that any code combination works relies on this representativeness.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of exoALMA VII: Benchmarking Hydrodynamics and Radiative Transfer Codes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AA6KIXEV

@misc{pith2026250418643,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: exoALMA VII: Benchmarking Hydrodynamics and Radiative Transfer Codes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AA6KIXEV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18643}
}
abstract

Forward modeling is often used to interpret substructures observed in protoplanetary disks. To ensure the robustness and consistency of the current forward modeling approach from the community, we conducted a systematic comparison of various hydrodynamics and radiative transfer codes. Using four grid-based hydrodynamics codes (FARGO3D, Idefix, Athena++, PLUTO) and a smoothed particle hydrodynamics code (Phantom), we simulated a protoplanetary disk with an embedded giant planet. We then used two radiative transfer codes (mcfost, RADMC-3D) to calculate disk temperatures and create synthetic 12CO cubes. Finally, we retrieved the location of the planet from the synthetic cubes using DISCMINER. We found strong consistency between the hydrodynamics codes, particularly in the density and velocity perturbations associated with planet-driven spirals. We also found a good agreement between the two radiative transfer codes: the disk temperature in mcfost and RADMC-3D models agrees within $\lesssim 3~\%$ everywhere in the domain. In synthetic $^{12}$CO channel maps, this results in brightness temperature differences within $\pm1.5$ K in all our models. This good agreement ensures consistent retrieval of planet's radial/azimuthal location with only a few % of scatter, with velocity perturbations varying $\lesssim 20~\%$ among the models. Notably, while the planet-opened gap is shallower in the Phantom simulation, we found that this does not impact the planet location retrieval. In summary, our results demonstrate that any combination of the tested hydrodynamics and radiative transfer codes can be used to reliably model and interpret planet-driven kinematic perturbations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18643 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Perturbed density (normalized by the initial density), δρ/ρinit at (top panels) Z/R = 0.3 (3 scale heights above the midplane at R = 1), (middle panels) Z/R = 0.1 (1 scale height above the midplane at R = 1), and (bottom panels) midplane. From left to right, results with FARGO3D, Idefix, Athena++, PLUTO, and Phantom. At high altitudes, Phantom results appear noisy because of the small number of SPH particles in the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Radial profiles of the (left) surface density Σ and (right) azimuthal velocity at the midplane vϕ, normalized by the initial azimuthal velocity vϕ,init. While we present the azimuthal velocity at the midplane only, we confirm that the velocity at other heights show sim…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Azimuthally averaged temperature profiles in a r−θ plane from various combinations of hydrodynamic and radiative transfer codes (shown in the upper left corner of each panel). The black contours show where T = 20 K. The white area in the upper left and lower left corne…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: 12CO channel maps at vlos = 1.1 km s−1 , using various combinations of hydrodynamic and radiative transfer codes (code names shown in the upper left corner of each panel). The planet, embedded and thus invisible in the channel maps, is located 45 degrees west of south.…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (Left panel) Folded velocity residual maps (see Izquierdo et al. 2023, 2025) computed for the 12CO synthetic cube created with FARGO3D and mcfost, as an example. Green circle and cross indicate the location of peak and clustered residuals, whereas the black circle show…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The (top) radial and (middle) azimuthal location of the planet inferred by DISCMINER (global peak in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Azimuthal distribution of the density at (top panels) R = 1.3 and (bottom panels) R = 0.7. From left to right, each panel shows the density at the midplane, at Z/R = 0.1, and Z/R = 0.3, respectively. The scatter seen in the Phantom simulation is due to the finite numb…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

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

  2. [2]

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

    Bae, J., Isella, A., Zhu, Z., 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, 423, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2210.13314 16 Bae et al

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.13314 2023

  3. [3]

    P., & Hartmann, L

    Bae, J., Nelson, R. P., & Hartmann, L. 2016, ApJ, 833, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/126

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/126 2016

  4. [4]

    2021, ApJ, 912, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe45e

    Bae, J., Teague, R., & Zhu, Z. 2021, ApJ, 912, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe45e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe45e 2021

  5. [5]

    2018, ApJ, 859, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf8c

    Bae, J., & Zhu, Z. 2018, ApJ, 859, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf8c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabf8c 2018

  6. [6]

    2019, ApJL, 884, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab46b0

    Bae, J., Zhu, Z., Baruteau, C., et al. 2019, ApJL, 884, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab46b0

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab46b0 2019

  7. [7]

    R., Bonnell, I

    Bate, M. R., Bonnell, I. A., & Price, N. M. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 362, doi: 10.1093/mnras/277.2.362 Ben´ ıtez-Llambay, P., & Masset, F. S. 2016, ApJS, 223, 11, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/223/1/11

    doi:10.1093/mnras/277.2.362 1995

  8. [8]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad83d0

    Chen, K., & Dong, R. 2024, ApJ, 976, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad83d0

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad83d0 2024

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    I., & Goldreich, P

    Chiang, E. I., & Goldreich, P. 1997, ApJ, 490, 368, doi: 10.1086/304869

    1997 doi

  2. [11]

    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

  3. [12]

    F., et al

    Galloway-Sprietsma, M., Bae, J., Izquierdo, A. F., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.19902. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.19902

    2025 arXiv

  4. [13]

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

    Izquierdo, A. F., Testi, L., Facchini, S., Rosotti, G. P., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2021, A&A, 650, A179, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140779

    2021 doi

  5. [14]

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

    Izquierdo, A. F., Testi, L., Facchini, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245425

    2023 doi

  6. [15]

    F., Stadler, J., Galloway-Sprietsma, M., et al

    Izquierdo, A. F., Stadler, J., Galloway-Sprietsma, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.19986. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.19986

    2025 arXiv

  7. [16]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 994, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv025

    Takeuchi, T. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 994, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv025

    2015 doi

  8. [17]

    Lesur, G. R. J., Baghdadi, S., Wafflard-Fernandez, G., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346005

    2023 doi

  9. [18]

    Lin, D. N. C., & Papaloizou, J. C. B. 1993, in Protostars and Planets III, ed. E. H. Levy & J. I. Lunine, 749

    1993

  10. [19]

    Lodato, G., & Price, D. J. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 1212, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16526.x

    2010

  11. [20]

    Lyra, W., Richert, A. J. W., Boley, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/102

    2016 doi

  12. [21]

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

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

    2000 doi

  13. [22]

    2007, ApJS, 170, 228, doi: 10.1086/513316

    Mignone, A., Bodo, G., Massaglia, S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 170, 228, doi: 10.1086/513316

    2007 doi

  14. [23]

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

    Kataoka, A. 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, 501, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09818

    2023 doi arXiv

  15. [24]

    D., & Klahr, H

    Muley, D., Melon Fuksman, J. D., & Klahr, H. 2024, A&A, 687, A213, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449739

    2024 doi

  16. [25]

    I., & Lubow, S

    Ogilvie, G. I., & Lubow, S. H. 2002, MNRAS, 330, 950, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05148.x

    2002

  17. [26]

    2006, A&A, 459, 797, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053275

    Pinte, C., M´ enard, F., Duchˆ ene, G., & Bastien, P. 2006, A&A, 459, 797, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053275

    2006 doi

  18. [27]

    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, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09528

    2023 doi arXiv

  19. [28]

    2009, A&A, 498, 967, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811555

    Pinte, C., et al. 2009, A&A, 498, 967, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811555

    2009 doi

  20. [29]

    J., M´ enard, F., et al

    Pinte, C., Price, D. J., M´ enard, F., et al. 2018, ApJL, 860, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac6dc

    2018 doi

  21. [30]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 1109, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0852-6

    Pinte, C., van der Plas, G., M´ enard, F., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 1109, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0852-6

    2019 doi

  22. [31]

    2022, MCFOST: Radiative transfer code, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2207.023

    Pinte, C., M´ enard, F., Duchˆ ene, G., et al. 2022, MCFOST: Radiative transfer code, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2207.023

    2022

  23. [32]

    D., Huang, J., et al

    Pinte, C., Ilee, J. D., Huang, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.18717. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.18717

    2025 arXiv

  24. [33]

    J., Wurster, J., Tricco, T

    Price, D. J., Wurster, J., Tricco, T. S., et al. 2018, PASA, 35, e031, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2018.25

    2018 doi

  25. [34]

    Rafikov, R. R. 2002, ApJ, 572, 566, doi: 10.1086/340228

    2002 doi

  26. [35]

    2015, ApJ, 804, 95, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/95

    Turner, N. 2015, ApJ, 804, 95, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/95

    2015 doi

  27. [36]

    P., Longarini, C., Paneque-Carre˜ no, T., et al

    Rosotti, G. P., Longarini, C., Paneque-Carre˜ no, T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.20012. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.20012

    2025 arXiv

  28. [37]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

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

    1973

  29. [38]

    M., Tomida, K., White, C

    Stone, J. M., Tomida, K., White, C. J., & Felker, K. G. 2020, ApJS, 249, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929b

    2020 doi

  30. [39]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.18688

    Teague, R., Benisty, M., Facchini, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.18688. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.18688

    2025 arXiv

  31. [40]

    C., & Draine, B

    Weingartner, J. C., & Draine, B. T. 2001, ApJ, 548, 296, doi: 10.1086/318651

    2001 doi

  32. [41]

    2019, ApJ, 884, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3fab

    Yun, H.-G., Kim, W.-T., Bae, J., & Han, C. 2019, ApJ, 884, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3fab

    2019 doi

  33. [42]

    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

Pith tools

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