Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

exoALMA IV: Substructures, Asymmetries, and the Faint Outer Disk in Continuum Emission

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 The lopsidedness of a planet-forming disk's millimeter dust tracks how fast the disk is feeding its star, linking outer substructures to inner disk activity.

desk verdict Useful survey with new metrics, but the NAI correlations and the size–taper relation are less clean than the abstract implies. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18725 v1 pith:7WIJ6PYD submitted 2025-04-25 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM

Pietro Curone , Stefano Facchini , Sean M. Andrews , Leonardo Testi , Myriam Benisty , Ian Czekala , Jane Huang , John D. Ilee
show 31 more authors
Andrea Isella Giuseppe Lodato Ryan A. Loomis Jochen Stadler Andrew J. Winter Jaehan Bae Marcelo Barraza-Alfaro Gianni Cataldi Nicolás Cuello Daniele Fasano Mario Flock Misato Fukagawa Maria Galloway-Sprietsma Himanshi Garg Cassandra Hall Andrés F. Izquierdo Kazuhiro Kanagawa Geoffroy Lesur Cristiano Longarini Francois Menard Ryuta Orihara Christophe Pinte Daniel J. Price Giovanni Rosotti Richard Teague Gaylor Wafflard-Fernandez David J. Wilner Lisa Wölfer Hsi-Wei Yen Tomohiro C. Yoshida Brianna Zawadzki
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IM PACS 95.85.Bh
keywords ProtoplanetarydisksDustcontinuumemissionPlanetformationRadiointerferometryNonaxisymmetryindexDisksubstructuresOutertaperexoALMA
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper uses the deep 0.9 mm (331.6 GHz) continuum images that the exoALMA Large Program recorded for 15 protoplanetary disks and asks what the shape of the dust emission says about how those disks are evolving. The authors subtract from each disk the best axisymmetric model built with visibility-space fitting and condense all of the leftover, nonaxisymmetric light into a single number, the nonaxisymmetry index (NAI). They find that disks with a higher NAI accrete onto their central stars more vigorously and shine with more near-infrared excess from hot inner dust, with Kendall's $\tau = 0.45$ ($p = 0.02$) for the mass accretion rate and $\tau = 0.48$ ($p = 0.01$) for NIR excess, and that almost all of the most asymmetric disks contain inner cavities. The same data reach the faint outermost disk, where an exponential taper $I(R) = I_0 \exp(-R/\lambda_{\rm out})$ shows that larger disks fall off gradually while compact disks end sharply. If these correlations are real, a single deep continuum observation of a disk could serve as a window into its inner accretion state and its size evolution history.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on two newly defined scalars. The nonaxisymmetry index (NAI) is computed from CLEAN images of the data, of the axisymmetric frank model, and of their difference: $\mathrm{NAI} = \sum_{i,j} |I_{{\rm res},i,j}| / \sum_{i,j} |I_{{\rm mod},i,j}|$ over pixels where the data exceed $5\sigma$. It collapses spirals, crescents, shadows, warps, and off-center inner disks into one number, which is what makes the correlation search against accretion rate and NIR excess possible. The outer taper scale length $\lambda_{\rm out}$ comes from an exponential fit $I(R) = I_0 \exp(-R/\lambda_{\rm out})$ applied between $R_{90}$ and the radius where emission drops to $5\sigma$, with a resolution check $\sigma_{\rm fit}/\sigma_{\rm beam} > 2$ guarding the steepest slopes. Both scalars rest on the same two-step visibility pipeline: galario supplies the global inclination, position angle, and center through parametric MCMC fitting, and frank supplies the superresolution axisymmetric radial brightness profile whose residuals define the NAI.

What would settle it

Recompute the NAI with spatially varying geometry, for instance giving AA Tau, DM Tau, J1615, and V4046 Sgr an inner component with its own center, inclination, and position angle before subtracting the model. If the $\tau \approx 0.45$ correlation with accretion rate drops to insignificance once those degrees of freedom are fitted, the asymmetry signal is substantially geometric rather than physical. A complementary check is to run the identical pipeline on a sample not selected for brightness and extent; a vanishing correlation would implicate the sample selection.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that outer dust morphology and inner disk activity are connected, established through two correlations among the 15 exoALMA disks. After deriving each disk's geometry with the parametric visibility code galario and reconstructing the axisymmetric brightness profile with the nonparametric code frank, the authors image the residual visibilities and define the NAI as the sum of absolute residual intensities divided by the sum of absolute model intensities, restricted to pixels where the observed image exceeds $5\sigma$. The NAI is positively correlated with the stellar-mass-normalized accretion rate $\dot{M}/M_*^{1.8}$ (Kendall $\tau = 0.45$, $p = 0.02$) and with the NIR excess ($\tau = 0.48$, $p = 0.01$); the six most asymmetric disks all have NAI above 0.1, and five of them host inner cavities. The paper interprets this as evidence that a massive inner perturber could simultaneously carve the cavity, stir spirals and crescents in the outer dust, and drive accretion onto the star, while noting that the sample of bright, extended disks is biased and the trends need confirmation on a more representative population. On the outer-edge side, fitting $I(R) = I_0 \exp(-R/\lambda_{\rm out})$ to the azimuthally averaged emission beyond the 90%-flux radius shows that $\lambda_{\rm out}$ grows with the 90%-flux radius in both dust and gas: bigger disks taper gently, smaller ones truncate steeply, a relation not yet addressed by theoretical models of disk sizes.

Load-bearing premise

Everything downstream assumes that one global inclination, position angle, and center, fitted from the brightest outer emission, deprojects the whole disk correctly; for warped or offset inner regions the geometric mismatch is absorbed into the residuals and inflates the NAI.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A deep continuum image becomes a proxy for inner disk state: once the NAI is calibrated, disks with strong asymmetry can be flagged as actively accreting without measuring accretion tracers directly.
  • The cavity-asymmetry-accretion cluster points to a specific physical picture, a massive inner companion carving the cavity and driving both outer asymmetries and accretion, that future hydrodynamical simulations can test.
  • The $\lambda_{\rm out}$-$R_{90}$ relation offers a new observable for disk evolution models: radial drift, photoevaporation, late infall, and flyby truncation all predict different outer-edge shapes that can now be compared with a measured scale length.
  • At exoALMA sensitivity, nonaxisymmetry may be the rule rather than the exception: 14 of 15 disks show residual structure above $5\sigma$, with only PDS 66 appearing smooth.
  • Kinematic planet candidates identified in the gas sit at or beyond the dust edge in several sources, so outer gaps and truncations aligned with those kinks are consistent with planets shaping the outer disk.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The NAI may partly measure geometric complexity rather than physical asymmetry, because a single global geometry is assumed for every disk; re-fitting warped or offset inner disks before computing residuals would separate the two and test whether the NAI-accretion link is carried by warps and misalignments.
  • Recomputing the NAI and $\lambda_{\rm out}$ on a sample not preselected for brightness and extent would show whether the correlations survive beyond the bright, substructure-rich sources targeted by exoALMA.
  • The V4046 Sgr profile, which resists a single exponential slope, warns that one scale length may conceal multiple physical components in the outer disk; decomposing such profiles could reveal separate infall and truncation signatures.
  • If high NAI flags active accretion, surveys that cannot measure accretion lines, such as embedded or edge-on disks, could use continuum asymmetry as a rough accretion diagnostic.
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. The paper presents the continuum component of the exoALMA Large Program for 15 protoplanetary disks, using a two-step visibility-space pipeline: galario fits for global geometry (inclination, position angle, and center offsets) and frank nonparametric fits for the azimuthally averaged radial intensity profile. From the frank residuals the authors define a NonAxisymmetry Index (NAI, Eq. 6) and report positive rank correlations between NAI and stellar-mass-normalized accretion rate (Kendall tau 0.45, p=0.02) and between NAI and NIR excess (tau 0.48, p=0.01). The paper also fits an exponential taper to the outer continuum emission beyond R90 (Eq. 7), reporting that larger dust and gas disks show shallower outer tapers. In addition, the paper catalogs rings, gaps, cavities, shadows, offsets, and candidate external substructures for each source, and compares continuum features with planet-kink locations from gas kinematics.

Significance. If the two central empirical claims hold, the paper provides a valuable link between outer-disk continuum morphology and inner-disk accretion state, and a new observational metric for outer-disk size evolution. The strengths of the paper are its carefully described visibility-space methodology, the public release of the analysis pipeline and value-added data products, the honest acknowledgment of the biased sample selection, and the detailed source-by-source comparison with previous work. The new morphological catalog for the homogeneous exoALMA sample is itself a useful contribution. However, the NAI currently has no uncertainty estimate and no demonstrated separation between physical nonaxisymmetry and single-geometry model mismatch, and the R90-lambda_out relation has a partly structural origin; these issues affect the two headline correlations and therefore require substantial revision rather than minor polishing.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (6)] The NAI is computed from residuals produced by subtracting a single frank model that assumes one global inclination, position angle, and center, with geometry determined by galario from the flux-dominant outer disk (Sec. 3.1). The source-by-source discussion in Sec. 5.1 identifies exactly the systems where this assumption fails: warped or misaligned inner disks (AA Tau, HD 143006), inner-disk offsets (DM Tau, J1615, V4046 Sgr), and an eccentric inner cavity (MWC 758). These geometric mismatches appear in the residual images and are summed into Eq. (6) with SNR>=5, so the NAI partly measures how poorly a single-geometry axisymmetric model represents real geometric complexity rather than only physical nonaxisymmetric emission. The paper provides no uncertainty on the NAI and no injection-recovery test that quantifies this geometric-mismatch contribution. I request an explicit test: inject synthetic disks with known warps, offsets, and eccentric cavities into the pipeline and report how much the NAI changes, or alternatively recompute the NAI after masking the inner disk or after locally refitting the geometry, and provide bootstrap uncertainties. Without this, the Sec. 5.2 correlations may be inflated by the very sources whose inner-disk geometry is most complex.
  2. [Sec. 5.2, Fig. 5 and Table D.1] The reported correlation statistics rest on only 15 targets from a sample selected for bright, extended gas emission, and the manuscript does not state how the four upper limits on NIR excess (DM Tau, J1615, J1852, V4046 Sgr in Table D.1) are incorporated into the Kendall tau calculation. In addition, the accretion rates are heterogeneous literature values with a common 0.35 dex uncertainty, and the NAI itself has no propagated uncertainty, so the quoted p-values (0.02 and 0.01) treat the most uncertain variable as exact. Because the six most asymmetric disks dominate the correlation and also include most of the geometrically complex inner disks flagged in the previous comment, the statistical significance is likely overstated. I ask the authors to state the censoring method for upper limits, to show the correlations after removing each of the high-NAI sources one at a time, and to provide a sensitivity analysis that varies the SNR threshold in Eq. (6). The qualitative claim may survive these tests, but the current significance statement is not supported.
  3. [Sec. 5.4, Fig. 8 and Table 4] The reported trend that larger disks have shallower outer tapers is partly structural: lambda_out in Eq. (7) is fitted to the same azimuthally averaged CLEAN profile from which R90 is defined, and for a purely exponential outer falloff the radius enclosing a fixed fraction of the flux scales linearly with the taper length. The correlation in Fig. 8 therefore does not establish an independent physical relation between disk size and taper steepness. Moreover, three of the smallest disks (HD 143006, MWC 758, PDS 66) have sigma_fit/sigma_beam < 2 in Table 4, meaning their outer falloff is not resolved, and these same sources anchor the compact, steep-taper end of the trend. I recommend presenting R90/lambda_out as a normalized, scale-free metric, or fitting the outer falloff in a way that does not use R90 as the inner boundary, and repeating the trend with the unresolved sources removed or downweighted. The current presentation overstates the strength of the size-taper relation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4.2] The choice of SNR>=5 in Eq. (6) is a free parameter, and Table A.1 lists NAI values without any uncertainty; at minimum a bootstrap over the frank geometry sampling described in Sec. 3.2 should be used to attach error bars to the NAI.
  2. [Sec. 5.2] The text notes that the most asymmetric sources also tend to have higher stellar masses (Fig. E.2); since the accretion rate is normalized by Mstar^1.8, a residual stellar-mass dependence could contribute to the left panel of Fig. 5 and should be discussed more explicitly.
  3. [Sec. 5.4] The exponential fit in Eq. (7) is stated to partially fail for V4046 Sgr, yet this source is still included in Fig. 8; either exclude it from the trend or add a caveat in the text and figure.
  4. [Sec. 5.1, CQ Tau paragraph] There is a typo, 'a a massive planet', and the phrase 'a a' should be corrected.
  5. [General] The paper would benefit from a short summary table that lists, for each source, the NAI, lambda_out, R90, sigma_fit/sigma_beam, and whether the inner disk is reported as warped or offset; this would make the dependence of the headline correlations on these classifications immediately transparent.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Correlations are empirical; only a modest shared-data coupling in the lambda_out vs R90 dust relation, no reduction by construction.

  1. other [Section 5.4, Eq. (7), Fig. 8, Table 4]
    "To quantitatively characterize this continuum's outer regions, considering only the azimuthally averaged CLEAN profile, we focus on the radius range beyond R90 and out to where the intensity is above 5 times the rms noise. ... we fitted these regions with an exponential function: I(R) = I0 exp(-R/lambda_out)."

    R90,dust in Table 2 is measured from the frank intensity profile of the same 0.9 mm continuum emission, while lambda_out is fitted to the azimuthally averaged CLEAN profile of that same continuum emission beyond R90. The plotted trend 'larger disks ... have a shallower slope' is therefore partly a self-correlation of one radial brightness profile: for an idealized single exponential profile the enclosed-flux radius R90 is a fixed multiple of lambda_out, so the dust-only R90-lambda_out correlation contains a built-in covariance.

full rationale

The central claims are empirical correlations: NAI versus mass accretion rate and NIR excess, and outer taper scale lambda_out versus disk size. NAI is defined in Eq. (6) as a normalized sum of absolute frank residuals, and the accretion rates and NIR excesses are taken from independent literature (Table D.1), so the NAI correlations are not fitted inputs renamed as predictions. The NAI does have a known validity caveat: the galario-derived single geometry primarily reflects the flux-dominant outer disk, so warped or offset inner disks (AA Tau, DM Tau, J1615, V4046 Sgr, HD 143006) inject geometric mismatch into the residuals and inflate the NAI; the paper itself acknowledges this in Section 4.2. That is a measurement-confound concern, not circularity, because the NAI is not defined in terms of accretion or NIR properties. The only genuine structural coupling is in Section 5.4: lambda_out is fitted to the same azimuthally averaged continuum profile from which R90,dust is measured, giving a partially built-in size-taper covariance for the dust-only relation. This is mitigated by the independent R90,gas correlation from 12CO data, so the finding is not forced solely by the continuum construction. The paper is otherwise self-contained: it uses independently published codes (galario, frank, GoFish), and self-citations to companion exoALMA papers are descriptive rather than load-bearing. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to forbid alternatives. Overall score 2: minor caveats and a modest shared-data coupling, with no derivation equivalent to its inputs by construction.

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

The analysis rests on standard radio-interferometry assumptions plus domain assumptions about disk geometry, optical depth, distances, and sample representativeness. The main free parameters are analysis thresholds and hyperparameters; none are fitted to the paper's headline correlations, but they shape the metrics that enter those correlations.

free parameters (6)
  • NAI SNR threshold = 5
    Eq. 6 sums residual pixels only where the CLEAN data SNR is at least 5; changing this threshold changes NAI and the correlations in Sec 5.2.
  • gap depth acceptance threshold = 0.97
    Sec 4.1 accepts a gap-ring pair only if ID/IB is at most 0.97; this choice affects which substructures enter the catalog.
  • frank hyperparameters alpha, wsmooth, Rmax, N, p0 = 1.3, 0.01, 1.5 Rout, 400, 1e-35
    Set in Sec 3.2 to suppress artifacts; authors state minimal impact on fits, but they shape the radial profile used to define rings, gaps, R90, and the outer falloff.
  • outer taper fit range = R90 to radius where intensity drops below 5 times rms
    Defined in Sec 5.4; the fitted lambda_out depends on this radial window, and R90 is derived from the same frank profile.
  • accretion rate stellar-mass normalization exponent = 1.8
    Assumed in Sec 5.2 based on Manara et al. 2023; authors test 1.6, 2.0, and no normalization, with minimal differences.
  • bootstrapping scatter for geometry = 1 deg in i/PA, one-third beam in offsets
    Sec 3.2; chosen because galario MCMC uncertainties are underestimated; affects frank profile uncertainties and R68/R90/R95 uncertainties.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Dust continuum emission at 0.9 mm traces optically thin dust, Eq. 1 (Hildebrand 1983), with T=20 K and opacity 3.5 cm2/g at 870 um.
    Used for dust masses in Sec 2 and Fig E.2; authors note masses are underestimated if emission is optically thick.
  • domain assumption The disk can be described by a single flat, geometrically thin, axisymmetric brightness distribution deprojected with one inclination, PA, and center.
    Assumed by frank in Sec 3.2; for warped or offset inner disks this mismodeling is absorbed into nonaxisymmetric residuals and inflates NAI.
  • domain assumption Visibility deprojection in frank scales total flux as if emission is optically thick and geometrically flat.
    Stated in Sec 3.2; affects reconstructed intensity profile and therefore R90 and outer falloff.
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 distances are accurate for converting angular to physical scales.
    Used in Tables 1 and 2; authors note high RUWE for AA Tau and CQ Tau, so those distances should be interpreted with caution.
  • domain assumption The exoALMA sample is representative enough for the reported correlations.
    Sample is intentionally biased toward bright, extended disks (Sec 2); authors acknowledge this in Sec 5.2 and Sec 6.
  • standard math Standard statistical background: MCMC convergence, Kendall's tau, and Gaussian error propagation.
    Used throughout without proof.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of exoALMA IV: Substructures, Asymmetries, and the Faint Outer Disk in Continuum Emission." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7WIJ6PYD

@misc{pith2026250418725,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: exoALMA IV: Substructures, Asymmetries, and the Faint Outer Disk in Continuum Emission},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7WIJ6PYD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18725}
}
read the original abstract

The exoALMA Large Program targeted a sample of 15 disks to study gas dynamics within these systems, and these observations simultaneously produced continuum data at 0.9 mm (331.6 GHz) with exceptional surface brightness sensitivity at high angular resolution. To provide a robust characterization of the observed substructures, we performed a visibility space analysis of the continuum emission from the exoALMA data, characterizing axisymmetric substructures and nonaxisymmetric residuals obtained by subtracting an axisymmetric model from the observed data. We defined a nonaxisymmetry index and found that the most asymmetric disks predominantly show an inner cavity and consistently present higher values of mass accretion rate and near-infrared excess. This suggests a connection between outer disk dust substructures and inner disk properties. The depth of the data allowed us to describe the azimuthally averaged continuum emission in the outer disk, revealing that larger disks (both in dust and gas) in our sample tend to be gradually tapered compared to the sharper outer edge of more compact sources. Additionally, the data quality revealed peculiar features in various sources, such as shadows, inner disk offsets, tentative external substructures, and a possible dust cavity wall.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18725 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Gallery of fiducial continuum images at 0.9 mm (331.6 GHz) of the exoALMA sample, obtained with the CLEAN algorithm and robust of -0.5. The source order is alphabetical. All images are shown on the same angular scales. The FWHM of the synthesized beams and the 20 au scale bars are indicated in the lower left and right corners of each plot, respectively. The color scale ranges from null to peak intensity for each dis… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Gallery of radial intensity profiles on a log-linear scale of the deprojected and azimuthally averaged CLEAN data (black solid line) and the frank model (red solid line). Sources are arranged alphabetically. The gray shading represents CLEAN data uncertainty, calculated as the 1σ scatter per radial bin, divided by the square root of the number of beams in the associated annulus. The red shading indicates the 1σ unce… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of data, frank model, CLEAN-imaged frank model, residuals, and polar plots for each disk (here showing AA Tau and CQ Tau and continued in Appendix A). (Top to bottom, left to right) First panel: fiducial continuum image of the observed data obtained with robust -0.5, with the synthesized beam’s FWHM shown as an ellipse in the lower left corner. The asinh function was applied to the color scale to visually… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Gallery of residuals plots generated subtracting the frank model (sampled at the same uv-points of the observations) from the data and then imaged with CLEAN and robust -0.5. The source order is from the least to the most nonaxisymmetric, according to the NAI presented…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mass accretion rate and NIR excess as function of the NAI (higher values indicating more asymmetric disks). Left plot: log-log plot of the mass accretion rate, normalized for the correlation with the stellar mass assuming M˙ ∝ M1.8 ⋆ , (Manara et al. 2023), as a functi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison between the continuum emission and the 12CO velocity kinks identified by Pinte et al. (2025). The left panels show the continuum emission from the fiducial CLEAN data images, and the middle panels display the frank residuals. Dashed-dotted ellipses represent…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Gallery showing the fits of the continuum extended emission with an exponential function in a log-lin scale. The intensity radial profiles are from the azimuthally averaged CLEAN images with robust -0.5. The blue vertical dashed-dotted line indicates R90, while the pur…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: From left to right: radius enclosing 90% of the continuum emission (R90 dust), radius enclosing 90% of the 12CO emission (R90 12CO, Galloway-Sprietsma et al. 2025), and their ratio (Rgas/Rdust) as a function of the parameter λout from the exponential model of the conti…

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. Geometry of dust rings in protoplanetary disks: the case of LkCa 15

    astro-ph.EP 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The 69 au dust ring in LkCa 15 is broad and thick at 0.88 mm and progressively narrower and thinner at 1.34 and 3.08 mm, implying a massive population of small grains alongside a more concentrated large-grain population.

  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

110 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    GALARIO: a GPU accelerated library for analysing radio interferometer observations

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    2024, , 685, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348407

    Adscheid , S., Magnelli , B., Liu , D., et al. 2024, , 685, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348407

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348407 2024

  5. [5]

    L., P \'e rez , L

    ALMA Partnership , Brogan , C. L., P \'e rez , L. M., et al. 2015, , 808, L3, 10.1088/2041-8205/808/1/L3

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/808/1/l3 2015

  6. [6]

    2020, , 492, 3306, 10.1093/mnras/stz3633

    Aly , H., & Lodato , G. 2020, , 492, 3306, 10.1093/mnras/stz3633

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3633 2020

  7. [7]

    Andrews , S. M. 2020, , 58, 483, 10.1146/annurev-astro-031220-010302

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

  8. [8]

    M., Wilner , D

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

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

Show all 110 references
  1. [9]

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

    Andrews , S. M., Huang , J., P \'e rez , L. M., et al. 2018, , 869, L41, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf741

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Elder , W., Zhang , S., et al

    Andrews , S. M., Elder , W., Zhang , S., et al. 2021, , 916, 51, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac00b9

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    P., van der Marel , N., et al

    Ansdell , M., Williams , J. P., van der Marel , N., et al. 2016, , 828, 46, 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/46

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    A., Laibe , G., Price , D

    Ayliffe , B. A., Laibe , G., Price , D. J., & Bate , M. R. 2012, , 423, 1450, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20967.x

    2012

  5. [13]

    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, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 423

    2023

  6. [14]

    2018, , 864, L26, 10.3847/2041-8213/aadd51

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

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    D., et al

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

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    Beckwith , S. V. W., Sargent , A. I., Chini , R. S., & Guesten , R. 1990, , 99, 924, 10.1086/115385

    1990 doi

  9. [17]

    2015, , 578, L6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526011

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

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    2018, , 619, A171, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833913

    Benisty , M., Juh \'a sz , A., Facchini , S., et al. 2018, , 619, A171, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833913

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

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

    Benisty , M., Dominik , C., Follette , K., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 605, 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09991

    2023 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    2018, , 853, 162, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa19c

    Boehler , Y., Ricci , L., Weaver , E., et al. 2018, , 853, 162, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa19c

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    E., Bouy , H., & Barrado , D

    Bouvier , J., Grankin , K., Ellerbroek , L. E., Bouy , H., & Barrado , D. 2013, , 557, A77, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321389

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    J., Pinte , C., et al

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

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    S., Perez , L

    Carvalho , A. S., Perez , L. M., Sierra , A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.12819, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.12819

    2024 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    2022, , 134, 114501, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    CASA Team , Bean , B., Bhatnagar , S., et al. 2022, , 134, 114501, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    M., Perez , S., et al

    Casassus , S., van der Plas , G. M., Perez , S., et al. 2013, , 493, 191, 10.1038/nature11769

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    2021, , 507, 3789, 10.1093/mnras/stab2359

    Casassus , S., Christiaens , V., C \'a rcamo , M., et al. 2021, , 507, 3789, 10.1093/mnras/stab2359

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    F., Pinilla , P., et al

    Cazzoletti , P., van Dishoeck , E. F., Pinilla , P., et al. 2018, , 619, A161, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834006

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    Cuello , N., M \'e nard , F., & Price , D. J. 2023, European Physical Journal Plus, 138, 11, 10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-03602-w

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    A., Gensior , J., Bureau , M., et al

    Davis , T. A., Gensior , J., Bureau , M., et al. 2022, , 512, 1522, 10.1093/mnras/stac600

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    2024, , 688, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450328

    Delussu , L., Birnstiel , T., Miotello , A., et al. 2024, , 688, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450328

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    2015, , 453, L73, 10.1093/mnrasl/slv105

    Dipierro , G., Price , D., Laibe , G., et al. 2015, , 453, L73, 10.1093/mnrasl/slv105

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    F., Gregory , S

    Donati , J. F., Gregory , S. G., Montmerle , T., et al. 2011, , 417, 1747, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19366.x

    2011

  25. [33]

    2011, , 141, 46, 10.1088/0004-6256/141/2/46

    Donehew , B., & Brittain , S. 2011, , 141, 46, 10.1088/0004-6256/141/2/46

    2011 doi

  26. [34]

    2018, , 860, 124, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac6cb

    Dong , R., Liu , S.-y., Eisner , J., et al. 2018, , 860, 124, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac6cb

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

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

    Dra \.z kowska , J., Bitsch , B., Lambrechts , M., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 717, 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09759

    2023 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    2020, , 639, A121, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038027

    Facchini , S., Benisty , M., Bae , J., et al. 2020, , 639, A121, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038027

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    R., Oudmaijer , R

    Fairlamb , J. R., Oudmaijer , R. D., Mendigut \' a , I., Ilee , J. D., & van den Ancker , M. E. 2015, , 453, 976, 10.1093/mnras/stv1576

    2015 doi

  30. [38]

    2018, , 610, A24, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731978

    Fedele , D., Tazzari , M., Booth , R., et al. 2018, , 610, A24, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731978

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306, 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  32. [40]

    2020, , 892, 111, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b63

    Francis , L., & van der Marel , N. 2020, , 892, 111, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b63

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    Francis , L., Marel , N. v. d., Johnstone , D., et al. 2022, , 164, 105, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac7ffb

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023, , 674, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    Galloway-Sprietsma , M., Bae , J., & Izquierdo , A. F. 2025, , TBD

    2025

  36. [44]

    H., Isella , A., Li , H., & Li , S

    Gardner , C. H., Isella , A., Li , H., & Li , S. 2025, , TBD

    2025

  37. [45]

    2018, , 620, A94, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833872

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

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    J., et al

    Hammond , I., Christiaens , V., Price , D. J., et al. 2022, , 515, 6109, 10.1093/mnras/stac2119

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    2021, , 911, 5, 10.3847/1538-4357/abe59f

    Hashimoto , J., Muto , T., Dong , R., et al. 2021, , 911, 5, 10.3847/1538-4357/abe59f

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    H., Allard , F., & Baron , E

    Hauschildt , P. H., Allard , F., & Baron , E. 1999, , 512, 377, 10.1086/306745

    1999 doi

  41. [49]

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

    1983

  42. [50]

    M., Dullemond , C

    Huang , J., Andrews , S. M., Dullemond , C. P., et al. 2018, , 869, L42, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf740

    2018 doi

  43. [51]

    2020, , 891, 48, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab711e

    ---. 2020, , 891, 48, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab711e

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    D., Walsh , C., Jennings , J., et al

    Ilee , J. D., Walsh , C., Jennings , J., et al. 2022, , 515, L23, 10.1093/mnrasl/slac048

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    2013, , 767, 112, 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/112

    Ingleby , L., Calvet , N., Herczeg , G., et al. 2013, , 767, 112, 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/112

    2013 doi

  46. [54]

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

    Izquierdo , A. F., Stadler , J., Bae , J., et al. 2025, , TBD

    2025

  47. [55]

    A., Tazzari , M., Clarke , C

    Jennings , J., Booth , R. A., Tazzari , M., Clarke , C. J., & Rosotti , G. P. 2022, , 509, 2780, 10.1093/mnras/stab3185

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    A., Tazzari , M., Rosotti , G

    Jennings , J., Booth , R. A., Tazzari , M., Rosotti , G. P., & Clarke , C. J. 2020, , 495, 3209, 10.1093/mnras/staa1365

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    T., P \'e rez , L

    Kurtovic , N. T., P \'e rez , L. M., Benisty , M., et al. 2018, , 869, L44, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf746

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    A., Chandler , C

    Lacy , M., Baum , S. A., Chandler , C. J., et al. 2020, , 132, 035001, 10.1088/1538-3873/ab63eb

    2020 doi

  51. [59]

    J., Loomis , R

    Law , C. J., Loomis , R. A., Teague , R., et al. 2021, , 257, 3, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1434

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

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

    Lesur , G., Flock , M., Ercolano , B., 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 , 465, 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09821

    2023 doi arXiv

  53. [61]

    2019, , 486, 453, 10.1093/mnras/stz913

    Lodato , G., Dipierro , G., Ragusa , E., et al. 2019, , 486, 453, 10.1093/mnras/stz913

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    J., et al

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

    2018 doi

  55. [63]

    M., Zhang , S., et al

    Long , F., Andrews , S. M., Zhang , S., et al. 2022, , 937, L1, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8b10

    2022 doi

  56. [64]

    P., & Andrews , S

    Longarini , C., Lodato , G., Rosotti , G. P., & Andrews , S. 2025, , TBD

    2025

  57. [65]

    2021, , 503, 4930, 10.1093/mnras/stab843

    Longarini , C., Lodato , G., Toci , C., & Aly , H. 2021, , 503, 4930, 10.1093/mnras/stab843

    2021 doi

  58. [66]

    2025, , TBD

    Loomis , R., Facchini , S., Benisty , M., & Curone , P. 2025, , TBD

    2025

  59. [67]

    A., \"O berg , K

    Loomis , R. A., \"O berg , K. I., Andrews , S. M., & MacGregor , M. A. 2017, , 840, 23, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c63

    2017 doi

  60. [68]

    F., Ansdell , M., Rosotti , G

    Manara , C. F., Ansdell , M., Rosotti , G. P., 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 , 539, 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09930

    2023 doi arXiv

  61. [69]

    F., Testi , L., Natta , A., et al

    Manara , C. F., Testi , L., Natta , A., et al. 2014, , 568, A18, 10.1051/0004-6361/201323318

    2014 doi

  62. [70]

    2022, , 510, 1248, 10.1093/mnras/stab3440

    Martinez-Brunner , R., Casassus , S., P \'e rez , S., et al. 2022, , 510, 1248, 10.1093/mnras/stab3440

    2022 doi

  63. [71]

    2018, , 868, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/aae88b

    Mayama , S., Akiyama , E., Pani \'c , O., et al. 2018, , 868, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/aae88b

    2018 doi

  64. [72]

    2023, , 75, 424, 10.1093/pasj/psad009

    Orihara , R., Momose , M., Muto , T., et al. 2023, , 75, 424, 10.1093/pasj/psad009

    2023 doi

  65. [73]

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

    Pascucci , I., Cabrit , S., Edwards , S., 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 , 567, 10.48550/arXiv.2203.10068

    2023 doi arXiv

  66. [74]

    M., Isella , A., Carpenter , J

    P \'e rez , L. M., Isella , A., Carpenter , J. M., & Chandler , C. J. 2014, , 783, L13, 10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/L13

    2014 doi

  67. [75]

    M., Carpenter , J

    P \'e rez , L. M., Carpenter , J. M., Andrews , S. M., et al. 2016, Science, 353, 1519, 10.1126/science.aaf8296

    2016 doi

  68. [76]

    M., Benisty , M., Andrews , S

    P \'e rez , L. M., Benisty , M., Andrews , S. M., et al. 2018, , 869, L50, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf745

    2018 doi

  69. [77]

    2019, , 158, 15, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab1f88

    P \'e rez , S., Casassus , S., Baruteau , C., et al. 2019, , 158, 15, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab1f88

    2019 doi

  70. [78]

    D., & Huang , J

    Pinte , C., Ilee , J. D., & Huang , J. 2025, , TBD

    2025

  71. [79]

    J., M \'e nard , F., et al

    Pinte , C., Price , D. J., M \'e nard , F., et al. 2020, , 890, L9, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab6dda

    2020 doi

  72. [80]

    R., Torres , C

    Quast , G. R., Torres , C. A. O., de La Reza , R., da Silva , L., & Mayor , M. 2000, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 200, IAU Symposium, ed. B. Reipurth & H. Zinnecker , 28

    2000

  73. [81]

    2024, , 689, A65, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449698

    Rampinelli , L., Facchini , S., Leemker , M., et al. 2024, , 689, A65, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449698

    2024 doi

  74. [82]

    J., & Zagaria , F

    Ribas , \'A ., Clarke , C. J., & Zagaria , F. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.14626. 2406.14626

    2024 arXiv

  75. [83]

    2023, , 673, A77, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245637

    Ribas , \'A ., Mac \' as , E., Weber , P., et al. 2023, , 673, A77, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245637

    2023 doi

  76. [84]

    2015, , 801, 31, 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/31

    Rigliaco , E., Pascucci , I., Duchene , G., et al. 2015, , 801, 31, 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/31

    2015 doi

  77. [85]

    A., Andrews , S

    Rosenfeld , K. A., Andrews , S. M., Wilner , D. J., & Stempels , H. C. 2012, , 759, 119, 10.1088/0004-637X/759/2/119

    2012 doi

  78. [86]

    P., Tazzari , M., Booth , R

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

    2019 doi

  79. [87]

    A., Meijerhof , J

    Rota , A. A., Meijerhof , J. D., van der Marel , N., et al. 2024, , 684, A134, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348387

    2024 doi

  80. [88]

    Ruzza , A., Lodato , G., & Rosotti , G. P. 2024, , 685, A65, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348421

    2024 doi

  81. [89]

    M., et al

    Sierra , A., Pinilla , P., P \'e rez , L. M., et al. 2025, , 538, 2358, 10.1093/mnras/staf393

    2025 doi

  82. [90]

    M., Sotomayor , B., et al

    Sierra , A., P \'e rez , L. M., Sotomayor , B., et al. 2024, , 974, 306, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7460

    2024 doi

  83. [91]

    L., Day , A

    Sitko , M. L., Day , A. N., Kimes , R. L., et al. 2012, , 745, 29, 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/29

    2012 doi

  84. [92]

    A., & Dong , R

    Speedie , J., Booth , R. A., & Dong , R. 2022, , 930, 40, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5cc0

    2022 doi

  85. [93]

    2024, , 633, 58, 10.1038/s41586-024-07877-0

    Speedie , J., Dong , R., Hall , C., et al. 2024, , 633, 58, 10.1038/s41586-024-07877-0

    2024 doi

  86. [94]

    Stadler , J., Benisty , M., & Winter , A. J. 2025, , TBD

    2025

  87. [95]

    2023, , 670, L1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245381

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

    2023 doi

  88. [96]

    A., Rosotti , G

    Sturm , J. A., Rosotti , G. P., & Dominik , C. 2020, , 643, A92, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038919

    2020 doi

  89. [97]

    2018, , 476, 4527, 10.1093/mnras/sty409

    Tazzari , M., Beaujean , F., & Testi , L. 2018, , 476, 4527, 10.1093/mnras/sty409

    2018 doi

  90. [98]

    2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1632, 10.21105/joss.01632

    Teague, R. 2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1632, 10.21105/joss.01632

    2019 doi

  91. [99]

    2025, , TBD

    Teague , R., Benisty , M., Facchini , S., Fukagawa , M., & Pinte , C. 2025, , TBD

    2025

  92. [100]

    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, 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch015

    2014 doi

  93. [101]

    G., Miotello , A., Facchini , S., et al

    Ubeira Gabellini , M. G., Miotello , A., Facchini , S., et al. 2019, , 486, 4638, 10.1093/mnras/stz1138

    2019 doi

  94. [102]

    F., Bruderer , S., P \'e rez , L., & Isella , A

    van der Marel , N., van Dishoeck , E. F., Bruderer , S., P \'e rez , L., & Isella , A. 2015, , 579, A106, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525658

    2015 doi

  95. [103]

    F., Bruderer , S., et al

    van der Marel , N., van Dishoeck , E. F., Bruderer , S., et al. 2013, Science, 340, 1199, 10.1126/science.1236770

    2013 doi

  96. [104]

    2017, , 607, A55, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731392

    van der Plas , G., M \'e nard , F., Canovas , H., et al. 2017, , 607, A55, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731392

    2017 doi

  97. [105]

    Villenave , M., Benisty , M., Dent , W. R. F., et al. 2019, , 624, A7, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834800

    2019 doi

  98. [106]

    2022, , 510, 1612, 10.1093/mnras/stab3438

    Weber , P., Casassus , S., & P \'e rez , S. 2022, , 510, 1612, 10.1093/mnras/stab3438

    2022 doi

  99. [107]

    2000, , 143, 9, 10.1051/aas:2000332

    Wenger , M., Ochsenbein , F., Egret , D., et al. 2000, , 143, 9, 10.1051/aas:2000332

    2000 doi

  100. [108]

    2025, , TBD

    Wölfer , L., Barraza-Alfaro , M., Teague , R., & Curone , P. 2025, , TBD

    2025

  101. [109]

    T., Curone , P., & Stadler , J

    Yoshida , C. T., Curone , P., & Stadler , J. 2025, , TBD

    2025

  102. [110]

    P., & Andrews , S

    Zormpas , A., Birnstiel , T., Rosotti , G. P., & Andrews , S. M. 2022, , 661, A66, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142046

    2022 doi

Pith tools

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