Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

exoALMA. X. channel maps reveal complex $^{12}$CO abundance distributions and a variety of kinematic structures with evidence for embedded planets

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 Six of 15 planet-forming disks show gas kinks consistent with embedded giant planets, and seven show only partial CO freeze-out.

desk verdict A solid survey-level census of kinematic deviations in 15 disks with carefully hedged planet candidates; the CO midplane detection is the sturdiest new result. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18717 v1 pith:5GSO74CJ submitted 2025-04-25 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Christophe Pinte , John D. Ilee , Jane Huang , Myriam Benisty , Stefano Facchini , Misato Fukagawa , Richard Teague , Jaehan Bae
show 29 more authors
Marcelo Barraza-Alfaro Gianni Cataldi Nicolas Cuello Pietro Curone Ian Czekala Daniele Fasano Mario Flock Maria Galloway-Sprietsma Himanshi Garg Cassandra Hall Iain Hammond Andres F. Izquierdo Geoffroy Lesur Giuseppe Lodato Cristiano Longarini Ryan A. Loomis Frederic Masset Francois Menard Ryuta Orihara Daniel J. Price Giovanni Rosotti Jochen Stadler Hsi-Wei Yen Gaylor Wafflard-Fernandez David J. Wilner Andrew J. Winter Lisa Wolfer Tomohiro C. Yoshida Brianna Zawadzki
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords protoplanetarydisksplanet-diskinteractionCOfreeze-outvelocitykinkschannelmapsdiskkinematicswide-orbitplanetssubmillimeterastronomy
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 analyzes velocity-channel maps of $^{12}$CO $J=3-2$ emission from 15 planet-forming disks and finds that 13 depart from pure Keplerian rotation, with kinks, arcs, and filaments. In six disks — AA Tau, SY Cha, J1842, J1615, LkCa 15, and HD 143006 — the localized velocity kinks match the predicted wakes of single planets of 1 to 5 Jupiter masses on orbits of 80 to 310 au. In seven disks viewed near 45 degrees, the vertical CO snowline is always detected and the midplane CO is only partially frozen out, depleted by about $10^{-3}$ to $10^{-2}$ relative to the warm molecular layer, with desorption in the outer regions. The paper argues that wide-orbit giant planets may be common in large disks and that CO chemistry in disk midplanes is more complex than full freeze-out.

What carries the argument

The workhorse is the velocity channel map: a single-velocity image of the line emission, with isovelocity curves showing where the projected Keplerian velocity equals that channel. A 'velocity kink' is a localized distortion of an isovelocity curve, and the paper uses the result that each time a planet's wake crosses an isovelocity curve it creates a kink, so multiple kinks across channels do not rule out a single planet. To turn kinks into planet properties, the paper runs gas-only smoothed-particle hydrodynamics simulations post-processed with 3D radiative transfer to produce synthetic channel maps for planets of 1, 2, 5, and 10 $M_\mathrm{Jup}$, comparing shapes and amplitudes by eye. For the chemistry, a CO abundance prescription with freeze-out below 20 K, photodissociation, and photodesorption is used to model the midplane depletion and outer-disk desorption.

What would settle it

A high-contrast image at the deprojected kink locations in AA Tau, SY Cha, J1842, J1615, LkCa 15, or HD 143006 that shows no companion, combined with a non-planet hydrodynamic simulation that reproduces the same kinks, would falsify the planet interpretation; a resolved line-ratio measurement of midplane CO in one of the seven disks implying depletion below $10^{-3}$ of the warm-layer value would falsify the partial freeze-out claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that individual channel maps of $^{12}$CO $J=3-2$ in the 15-disk sample reveal a rich zoo of kinematic deviations from Keplerian rotation, and that in six of those disks the deviations take the form of velocity kinks consistent with the wakes of embedded planets. Comparing the data to gas-only hydrodynamical plus radiative-transfer models with a single planet, the paper infers planet masses of about 1 to 5 $M_\mathrm{Jup}$ at orbital radii of 80 to 310 au. A separate but equally central discovery is that in every disk where the upper and lower emission surfaces can be separated (seven disks), there is non-zero emission between the surfaces, implying the vertical CO snowline is present but freeze-out is partial: the midplane $^{12}$CO abundance is only $10^{-3}$ to $10^{-2}$ of the warm-layer value, and CO desorbs in the outer disk. Both results are presented as preliminary, with the planet masses limited by the simplicity of the model grid.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on assuming each velocity kink is the wake of a single embedded planet rather than another disk motion (instability, thermal wave, or companion), and that the planet masses come out right from a simplified gas-only, vertically isothermal, single-planet model with a fixed viscosity and a chosen CO abundance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the six planet candidates are real, wide-orbit giant planets (1–5 $M_\mathrm{Jup}$ at 80–310 au) are present in 6 of 15 large, bright disks, suggesting such planets are not rare when the disk is big enough.
  • The candidate planets sit just outside the dust continuum emission, which would mean they are truncating the dusty disk at large radii.
  • Partial midplane freeze-out ($10^{-3}$–$10^{-2}$ depletion) and outer-disk desorption must be built into disk chemical models, and CO-based gas mass estimates that assume full freeze-out may need revision.
  • The background of other kinematic deviations sets the current detection floor at about 1 $M_\mathrm{Jup}$, so lower-mass planets could be hidden in the noise.
  • Additional physics (vertical temperature gradients, multiple planets, or disk instabilities) is likely needed to explain all observed deviations, especially the filamentary structures.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If midplane CO is only partially depleted in a wide range of disks, then CO snowline positions derived from emission gaps may overestimate the true freeze-out radius; mapping midplane emission at higher resolution could test this.
  • The prevalence of wide-orbit planet candidates in this sample could connect to direct-imaging surveys: many of these planets would be directly imageable with next-generation instruments if they are real companions.
  • Comparing these channel maps with non-planet simulations (e.g., vertical shear instability or buoyancy spirals) at the same resolution would separate planet wakes from other velocity perturbations; the paper's public data products make such a comparison possible.
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. This paper analyzes 12CO J=3-2 channel maps of the 15 exoALMA protoplanetary disks. The authors report kinematic deviations from Keplerian rotation in 13 of 15 disks, classifying them as large-scale arcs, localized velocity kinks, and filamentary structures. For six disks (AA Tau, SY Cha, J1842, J1615, LkCa 15, HD 143006) they interpret the kinks as planet wakes, and for five of them they run phantom/mcfost single-planet simulations, concluding that planet masses of 1-5 MJup at orbital radii of 80-310 au best match the observations. In the seven disks with favorable inclination for separating the upper and lower emitting surfaces, they consistently detect midplane CO emission and infer a partial freeze-out depletion factor of roughly 10^-3 to 10^-2 relative to the warm molecular layer, together with CO desorption in the outer regions. The paper explicitly acknowledges that the morphological classification is subjective and that the modeling is a restricted, preliminary exploration.

Significance. The observational catalog of kinematic substructures and the systematic detection of midplane CO emission are valuable contributions, and the paper strengthens them with concrete cross-checks: reimaging without continuum subtraction, regularized maximum likelihood imaging, and consistency checks against dynamite and discminer surface parameters. The public release of synthetic models and data products through the cited Dataverse is a further strength that supports reproducibility. The wake-location overlay in Figure 5 provides a falsifiable prediction that can be tested with deeper or higher-resolution data. If the planetary interpretation is confirmed by a dedicated test against non-planet mechanisms, the inferred population of 1-5 MJup planets at large orbital radii would be an important result for planet formation. As it stands, the robust claims are the qualitative detections of kinematic deviations and midplane CO; the quantitative mass and depletion values are model-dependent and require stronger support.

major comments (4)
  1. [4.2, Fig. 7] The planet mass estimates are based on a by-eye comparison to a grid of 1, 2, 5, and 10 MJup at fixed disk parameters, with no quantitative goodness-of-fit metric or uncertainty budget. The abstract and conclusions present 'masses between 1 and 5 MJup' as a result, but this range is not demonstrably constrained: the paper does not explore variations in disk scale height, viscosity, CO abundance, or planet accretion radius. Either a quantitative fitting procedure over a denser grid should be added, or the mass range should be explicitly described as illustrative rather than as an estimate.
  2. [4.1, 5, Fig. 3] The attribution of the velocity kinks to embedded planets is not tested against the main non-planet alternatives. All new hydrodynamic runs adopt a locally isothermal equation of state and contain exactly one planet, while the observed filamentary structures in SY Cha, J1615, LkCa 15, J1852, DM Tau, and HD 34282 are said to resemble VSI/MRI predictions, as the authors themselves note. A no-planet, vertically stratified or MHD simulation should be compared to the same channel maps to show that instabilities such as VSI cannot produce the observed kink morphology; without such a control, the planetary interpretation is one viable hypothesis rather than a demonstrated detection. I would caution against phrasing the issue as 'vertical isothermality removes VSI', since locally isothermal baroclinic disks can in fact host VSI; the real gap is the absence of a no-planet comparison run.
  3. [3.2, 4.2, Fig. 8] The depletion factor of 10^-3 to 10^-2 is derived from only two disks (LkCa 15 and J1615) and from a single hydrodynamic realization, with no exploration of correlations with disk density, thermal structure, or UV radiation, yet the abstract applies this range to all seven disks where midplane CO is detected. The qualitative conclusion that CO is not fully frozen out in the midplane is well supported, but the quantitative depletion range should either be restricted to the two modeled sources or be supported by similar fits to the other five disks.
  4. [Table 2, 4.1] Several quoted quantities are fitted parameters rather than independent measurements: the planet orbital radii are set by the visually identified kink locations, the disk masses are tuned to reproduce the separation between emitting layers, and the CO depletion factor is adjusted to match the observed brightness. This fitting procedure is appropriate for testing a hypothesis, but the paper should consistently label the resulting masses, radii, and abundances as model-inferred values, not as free derivations from the data, to avoid giving the impression of independent predictions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption lists the synthetic model grid as '1, 2, 3 and 5 M Jup', while the text in §4.1 states masses of 1, 2, 5, or 10 MJup; please reconcile this inconsistency.
  2. [3.1] The word 'corrresponds' should be corrected to 'corresponds'.
  3. [Fig. 5 caption] The abbreviation 'SPHERE DPI' is not expanded at first use; please define 'DPI' (dual-polarization imaging) in the caption or in the text.
  4. [Table 1 and text] Velocity units appear inconsistently as 'km/s', 'm/s', and 'm s^-1' across Table 1 and the text; please adopt one consistent notation, preferably 'm s^-1' for channel offsets and 'km s^-1' for systemic velocities.
  5. [3.2] The sentence noting that 'the majority of disks exhibiting evidence of desorption also show potential signs of planets' and calling this 'likely a coincidence' would benefit from either a brief statistical argument or removal, as presented it is an unsupported aside.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the kinematic detections and model comparisons are self-contained, and fitted parameters are transparently labeled as estimates rather than predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical content is an observational detection: velocity kinks and midplane 12CO emission are identified directly in channel maps, with robustness checks that include no-continuum-subtraction imaging and regularized maximum likelihood imaging. The planet interpretation is a forward-model consistency test: a planet is placed at the observed kink position, the mass is stepped over a discrete grid, and synthetic cubes are compared with the data. The paper explicitly states that the goal is to test 'whether a single planet can reasonably explain the observed channel maps,' and the mass constraints are called 'preliminary' and the freeze-out range 'only indicative.' These are model fits, not predictions produced by construction. The orbital radii are taken from the deprojected kink locations, so reporting them as 'suggested' by the simulations is loose wording, but the radii are not derived from the simulations themselves and the paper does not claim they are independently predicted. Self-citations appear (dynamite, the CO abundance prescription, the phantom/mcfost benchmark, and the Bollati et al. kink-crossing result), but none is load-bearing in a circular way: they are methodological tools or external theoretical results whose assumptions do not include the target detections, and they are not invoked as uniqueness theorems. The lack of a no-planet, VSI-capable comparison is a genuine model-selection limitation, not a circular step; the paper itself flags vertical isothermality and instabilities as limitations. Under the standard that circularity requires a specific reduction of a claimed derivation to its inputs, no such reduction is present here.

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

The central claims rest on standard planet wake theory, simplified disk models, and a chemical prescription taken from the literature; no entirely new physical entities are introduced. The main 'free' content is the planet masses and radii and the CO depletion factor, all chosen to match the observed maps.

free parameters (4)
  • Planet masses (AA Tau, J1615, J1842, LkCa 15, SY Cha) = 2, 2, 1, 5, 5 Jupiter masses
    Selected by visual comparison of synthetic channel maps to data for a coarse grid of 1, 2, 5, 10 Jupiter masses (Table 2, Fig. 7); no formal fit or uncertainty.
  • Planet orbital radii = 80, 310, 105, 240, 140 au
    Pinned to the projected location of each detected kink (Table 2); the radii are required inputs for the models, so the inferred radii inherit the kink-localization uncertainty.
  • CO freeze-out depletion factor = 10^-3 to 10^-2
    The abundance below 20 K was varied by hand and a range was chosen when synthetic maps matched data better than full or no freeze-out (Section 4.2, Fig. 8); called 'indicative' by the authors.
  • Model disk masses = 5e-3 to 1e-2 solar masses
    Rescaled in mcfost to match the observed separation between CO emitting layers (Section 4.1, Table 2); effectively fitted to a data-derived quantity.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Velocity kinks trace planet wakes crossing isovelocity curves (Rafikov 2002; Bollati et al. 2021).
    The identification of the kinks with embedded planets rests on this wake theory; alternative processes (VSI, MRI, thermal waves, companions) are listed as possible sources in Section 5.
  • domain assumption A single embedded planet in a vertically isothermal, gas-only, non-self-gravitating SPH disk captures the observed kinks.
    Models are deliberately simplified (Section 4.1); the authors note this limits constrained masses, and other physical processes could change the interpretation.
  • domain assumption The CO abundance prescription of Pinte et al. (2018a) (freeze-out, photodissociation, photodesorption) applies, with warm-layer abundance 1e-4 relative to H.
    Used in the radiative transfer postprocessing (Section 4.1); not independently derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption CO J=3-2 emission is thermalized (LTE) with Tgas = Tdust and no turbulent broadening.
    Assumed in mcfost (Section 4.1); turbulence or non-LTE would change line shapes and brightness.
  • domain assumption Disk geometries and stellar masses from dynamite (Keplerian fits) are correct.
    Used to deproject kinks and set up models (Sections 2 and 4.1); errors here propagate into planet radii.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of exoALMA. X. channel maps reveal complex $^{12}$CO abundance distributions and a variety of kinematic structures with evidence for embedded planets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5GSO74CJ

@misc{pith2026250418717,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: exoALMA. X. channel maps reveal complex $^12$CO abundance distributions and a variety of kinematic structures with evidence for embedded planets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5GSO74CJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18717}
}
abstract

We analyze the $^{12}$CO $J=3-2$ data cubes of the disks in the exoALMA program. 13/15 disks reveal a variety of kinematic substructures in individual channels: large-scale arcs or spiral arms, localized velocity kinks, and/or multiple faints arcs that appear like filamentary structures on the disk surface. We find kinematic signatures that are consistent with planet wakes in six disks: AA Tau, SY Cha, J1842, J1615, LkCa 15 and HD 143006. Comparison with hydrodynamical and radiative transfer simulations suggests planets with orbital radii between 80 and 310\,au and masses between 1 and 5 M$_\mathrm{Jup}$. Additional kinematic substructures limit our ability to place tight constraints on the planet masses. When the inclination is favorable to separate the upper and lower surfaces (near 45$^\mathrm{o}$, i.e. in 7/15 disks), we always detect the vertical CO snowline and find that the $^{12}$CO freeze-out is partial in the disk midplane, with a depletion factor of $\approx 10^{-3}$ - $10^{-2}$ compared to the warm molecular layer. In these same seven disks, we also systematically detect evidence of CO desorption in the outer regions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18717 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sources displaying large-scale non-Keplerian arcs. For each object, we show the channel at systemic velocity (central column), as well as channels at two velocity offsets on the blue side of the line (first two columns) and the opposite channels on the red side of the line (last two columns). Solid lines indicate the expected location of the isovelocity curves at Keplerian velocities ±100 m s. White arrows indicate … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sources with velocity kinks consistent with embedded planets (white circles). White arrows indicate additional deviations from Keplerian rotation. Beams and scales as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sources showing a filamentary pattern between the emission surfaces (indicated by white arrows). Note that such patterns are also visible in SY Cha, J1615 and LkCa 15, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sources with smooth, Keplerian-looking, velocity structure, or with signal-to-noise too low to extract reliable structures at the considered scales. Beams and scales as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 12CO J = 3 − 2 observations from the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA), continuum emission, and near-infrared scattered light images for the five newly detected planet candidates. The first row shows the 12CO J = 3 − 2 channels with the identified vel…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evidence for complex CO abundance distribution. The white arrows in the first and last columns show regions where the upper and lower surfaces merge, indicating desorption. In the central two columns, the orange arrows show that the emission between the upper and lower…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of 12CO J=3–2 ALMA observations (top row) with synthetic channel maps from our 3D hydrodynamics calculations with embedded planets of 1, 2, 3 and 5 MJup (from top to bottom). The channel width is 0.1km s−1 . Synthetic maps were convolved to a Gaussian beam t…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of 12CO observations of LkCa 15 and J1615 (left column) with synthetic channel maps with various freeze-out depletion, from full freeze-out (i.e., CO abundance is 0 where the temperature is below 10 K) to no freeze-out (i.e., CO abundance is the same as in t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. exoALMA VII: Benchmarking Hydrodynamics and Radiative Transfer Codes

    astro-ph.EP 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Five hydrodynamics codes and two radiative transfer codes produce consistent planet-driven kinematic signatures in synthetic observations, allowing reliable planet location retrieval.

  2. Extending dynamical mass measurements: probing GI as a possible origin of mm-dust spirals

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Dynamical rotation-curve fits give M_disk ≈ 0.30 M_sun for HD 97048 and ≈ 0.21 M_sun for WaOph 6, and indicate disks with mm-dust spirals have systematically lower Toomre Q.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2012, Phil

    Allard, F., Homeier, D., & Freytag, B. 2012, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A, 370, 2765, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2011.0269

    arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    P., Garufi, A., et al

    Avenhaus, H., Quanz, S. P., Garufi, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab846

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab846 2018

  3. [3]

    2025, ApJL, exoALMA

    Bae, J., Flock, M., & Izquierdo, A. 2025, ApJL, exoALMA

    work page 2025

  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]

    D., et al

    Ballabio, G., Nealon, R., Alexander, R. D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 888, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab922

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab922 2021

  6. [6]

    2025, ApJL, exoALMA

    Barraza-Alfaro, M. 2025, ApJL, exoALMA

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    2015, A&A, 578, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526011

    Benisty, M., Juhasz, A., Boccaletti, A., et al. 2015, A&A, 578, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526011

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526011 2015

  8. [8]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa696c

    Boehler, Y., et al. 2017, ApJ, 840, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa696c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa696c 2017

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    J., & Pinte, C

    Bollati, F., Lodato, G., Price, D. J., & Pinte, C. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 5444, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1145

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    F., Doty, S

    Bruderer, S., van Dishoeck, E. F., Doty, S. D., & Herczeg, G. J. 2012, A&A, 541, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118218

    2012 doi

  3. [11]

    Byrne, P. B. 1986, Irish Astronomical Journal, 17, 294

    1986

  4. [12]

    J., Pinte, C., et al

    Calcino, J., Price, D. J., Pinte, C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 5763, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1798

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    2022, ApJL, 929, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac64a7

    Calcino, J., et al. 2022, ApJL, 929, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac64a7

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    J., Price, D

    Calcino, J., Norfolk, B. J., Price, D. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 2904, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2233 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    2019, ApJL, 883, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4425

    Casassus, S., & P´ erez, S. 2019, ApJL, 883, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4425

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    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. [17]

    M., & Testi, L

    Curone, P., Facchini, S., Andrews, S. M., & Testi, L. 2025, ApJL, exoALMA D’Alessio, P., Cant´ o, J., Hartmann, L., Calvet, N., &

    2025

  10. [18]

    1999, ApJ, 511, 896, doi: 10.1086/306704 de Boer, J., Salter, G., Benisty, M., et al

    Lizano, S. 1999, ApJ, 511, 896, doi: 10.1086/306704 de Boer, J., Salter, G., Benisty, M., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629267 de Gregorio-Monsalvo, I., M´ enard, F., Dent, W., et al. 2013, A&A, 557, A133

    1999 doi

  11. [19]

    P., Isella, A., Andrews, S

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

    2020

  12. [20]

    M., Simon, J

    Flaherty, K., Hughes, A. M., Simon, J. B., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8cc5

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    2025, ApJL, exoALMA

    Galloway-Sprietsma, M., Bae, J., & Izquierdo, A. 2025, ApJL, exoALMA

    2025

  14. [22]

    2025, ApJL, exoALMA

    Gardner, C., Isella, A., Hui, L., & Shengtai, L. 2025, ApJL, exoALMA

    2025

  15. [23]

    2021, MNRAS, 504, 782, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab800

    Garg, H., Pinte, C., Christiaens, V., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 782, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab800

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    2024, A&A, 685, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244005

    Ginski, C., Garufi, A., Benisty, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244005

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    2020, ApJ, 904, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abac17

    Hall, C., Dong, R., Teague, R., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abac17

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    J., et al

    Hammond, I., Christiaens, V., Price, D. J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 6109, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2119 exoALMA channel maps 15

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    2025, ApJL, exoALMA

    Hardiman, C., Price, D., & Pinte, C. 2025, ApJL, exoALMA

    2025

  20. [28]

    Izquierdo, A. F. 2025, ApJL, exoALMA

    2025

  21. [29]

    F., Stadler, J., Bae, J., et al

    Izquierdo, A. F., Stadler, J., Bae, J., et al. 2025, ApJL, exoALMA

    2025

  22. [30]

    J., Teague, R., Loomis, R

    Law, C. J., Teague, R., Loomis, R. A., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1439

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    J., Crystian, S., Teague, R., et al

    Law, C. J., Crystian, S., Teague, R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 932, 114

    2022

  24. [32]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 4481, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3223

    Lodato, G., Rampinelli, L., Viscardi, E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 4481, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3223

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    2025, ApJL, exoALMA

    Longarini, C., Lodato, G., Rosotti, G., & Andrews, S. 2025, ApJL, exoALMA

    2025

  26. [34]

    2021, ApJL, 920, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2df6

    Longarini, C., Lodato, G., Toci, C., et al. 2021, ApJL, 920, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2df6

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    2025, ApJL, exoALMA

    Loomis, R., & exoALMA. 2025, ApJL, exoALMA

    2025

  28. [36]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 1248, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3440

    Martinez-Brunner, R., Casassus, S., P´ erez, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 1248, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3440

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    A., Hashimoto, J., et al

    Muto, T., Grady, C. A., Hashimoto, J., et al. 2012, ApJL, 748, L22, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/748/2/L22

    2012 doi

  30. [38]

    J., Pinte, C., Calcino, J., et al

    Norfolk, B. J., Pinte, C., Calcino, J., et al. 2022, ApJL, 936, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac85ed ¨Oberg, K. I., Facchini, S., & Anderson, D. E. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 287 Paneque-Carre˜ no, T., Miotello, A., van Dishoeck, E. F., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/2...

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    2025, exoALMA X

    Pinte, C. 2025, exoALMA X. Data Products, V1, Harvard Dataverse, doi: 10.7910/DVN/H5QUQT

    2025 doi

  32. [40]

    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

  33. [41]

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

    Pinte, C., Teague, R., Flaherty, K., et al. 2023a, 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

    doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    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

  35. [43]

    J., M´ enard, F., et al

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

    doi

  36. [44]

    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

  37. [45]

    J., M´ enard, F., et al

    Pinte, C., Price, D. J., M´ enard, F., et al. 2020, ApJL, 890, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab6dda

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    J., et al

    Pinte, C., Hammond, I., Price, D. J., et al. 2023b, MNRAS, 526, L41, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad010

    doi

  39. [47]

    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

  40. [48]

    Qi, C., & Wilner, D. J. 2024, ApJ, 977, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8d55

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    Rafikov, R. R. 2002, ApJ, 569, 997, doi: 10.1086/339399

    2002 doi

  42. [50]

    2024, A&A, 686, A264, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449583

    Ragusa, E., Lynch, E., Laibe, G., Longarini, C., & Ceppi, S. 2024, A&A, 686, A264, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449583

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    2018, A&A, 611, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732016

    Reggiani, M., Christiaens, V., Absil, O., et al. 2018, A&A, 611, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732016

    2018 doi

  44. [52]

    B., Benisty, M., Ginski, C., et al

    Ren, B. B., Benisty, M., Ginski, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 680, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347353

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    A., Andrews, S

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

    2013

  46. [54]

    2020, ApJL, 904, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abc704

    Pinte, C. 2020, ApJL, 904, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abc704

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    2000, A&A, 358, 593, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0003477

    Siess, L., Dufour, E., & Forestini, M. 2000, A&A, 358, 593, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0003477

    2000 doi arXiv

  48. [56]

    Stadler, J., Benisty, M., & Winter, A. J. 2025, ApJL, exoALMA

    2025

  49. [57]

    2023, A&A, 670, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245381

    Stadler, J., Benisty, M., Izquierdo, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245381

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    C., & Gahm, G

    Stempels, H. C., & Gahm, G. F. 2004, A&A, 421, 1159, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034502

    2004 doi

  51. [59]

    2021, ApJS, 257, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1438

    Teague, R., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1438

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    J., Price, D

    Verrios, H. J., Price, D. J., Pinte, C., Hilder, T., & Calcino, J. 2022, ApJL, 934, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7f44

    2022 doi

  53. [61]

    C., & Draine, B

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

    2001 doi

  54. [62]

    Woitke, P., Kamp, I., & Thi, W. F. 2009, A&A, 501, 383, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911821

    2009 doi

  55. [63]

    Yoshida, C. T. 2025, ApJL, exoALMA

    2025

  56. [64]

    2025, ApJL, exoALMA 16 Pinte et al

    Zawadzki, B., & Czekala, I. 2025, ApJL, exoALMA 16 Pinte et al. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper makes use of the following ALMA data: ADS/JAO.ALMA#2021.1.01123.L. ALMA is a partnership of ESO (representing its member states), NSF (USA) and NINS (Japan), together with NRC (Canada), ...

    2025

  57. [65]

    101002188)

    DF, JS have received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (PROTOPLANETS, grant agreement No. 101002188). Computations by JS have been performed on the ‘Mesocentre SIGAMM’ machine, hosted by O...

    2020

Pith tools

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