Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

exoALMA II: Data Calibration and Imaging Pipeline

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 exoALMA calibration and imaging pipeline produces data clean enough to reveal faint deviations from Keplerian rotation that may mark embedded planets in protoplanetary disks.

desk verdict A careful, openly documented calibration/imaging pipeline for a major ALMA program; the core claim about kinematic fidelity rests on companion-paper tests not reported here, but the work is real and worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19870 v1 pith:LGHYIC72 submitted 2025-04-28 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM

Ryan A. Loomis , Stefano Facchini , Myriam Benisty , Pietro Curone , John D. Ilee , Gianni Cataldi , Hsi-Wei Yen , Richard Teague
show 25 more authors
Christophe Pinte Jane Huang Himanshi Garg Ryuta Orihara Ian Czekala Brianna Zawadzki Sean M. Andrews David J. Wilner Jaehan Bae Marcelo Barraza-Alfaro Daniele Fasano Mario Flock Misato Fukagawa Maria Galloway-Sprietsma Andres F. Izquierdo Kazuhiro Kanagawa Geoffroy Lesur Cristiano Longarini Francois Menard Daniel J. Price Giovanni Rosotti Jochen Stadler Gaylor Wafflard-Fernandez Lisa Wolfer Tomohiro C. Yoshida
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IM
keywords protoplanetarydisksALMAinterferometryself-calibrationvisibility-planealignmentnon-KepleriankinematicsmolecularlineimagingCLEANmaskingembeddedplanets
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 argues that the calibration and imaging procedures built for the exoALMA Large Program deliver interferometric data of sufficient fidelity to search for faint, localized departures from Keplerian rotation in 15 protoplanetary disks. The authors combine ALMA 12-meter and Atacama Compact Array observations, correct phase decoherence with iterative self-calibration, align separate observing blocks in the visibility plane, and image with masks that do not assume Keplerian motion. If the procedures work as claimed, then any non-Keplerian kinks seen in the released channel maps are real features of the disks rather than artifacts of data reduction. The paper also documents the order-of-operations choices and quality checks that make this claim testable.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the ordered calibration pipeline itself, centered on self-calibration using the target as its own model. Phase-only self-calibration on individual execution blocks corrects decorrelation; a uv-plane alignment routine shifts datasets by minimizing the weighted difference of gridded visibilities where uv coverage overlaps; flux alignment then rescales blocks that differ by more than four percent; and group-level phase then amplitude-and-phase self-calibration progressively concatenates ACA, short-baseline, and long-baseline data. On the imaging side, the key device is the iterative masking CLEAN procedure in which the CLEAN model is convolved with a wide Gaussian and thresholded to build a mask from the channel's own morphology, avoiding any Keplerian assumption that would hide the very signal being searched for. The 6-sigma threshold used to build models for phase self-calibration and the 1-sigma threshold for amplitude self-calibration determine how much real source structure is allowed into the gain solutions.

What would settle it

Take a disk observed by the program, inject a synthetic non-Keplerian perturbation of known amplitude and location into the calibrated visibilities, run the full pipeline end to end, and compare the recovered perturbation to the input; if self-calibration or CLEAN masking removes or shifts the feature, the claim that the data are artifact-free at the target sensitivity fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the exoALMA self-calibration and imaging pipeline, described step by step here, yields measurement sets and image cubes in which faint deviations from Keplerian motion in protoplanetary disks can be confidently assessed as real. The pipeline first phase-self-calibrates each execution block separately, aligns blocks to a common phase center by minimizing weighted differences of gridded visibilities over overlapping uv cells, rescales fluxes when offsets exceed four percent, and then iteratively self-calibrates combined ACA, short-baseline, and long-baseline data before a final amplitude-and-phase round. Line images are CLEANed with masks derived from each channel's own emission morphology rather than from an assumed Keplerian model, so real non-Keplerian features are not masked out. The authors state that the resulting datasets are of sufficiently high quality to search for faint deviations from Keplerian rotation, with a companion non-CLEAN imaging study checking that the features are not artifacts of the deconvolution method.

Load-bearing premise

The gain solutions are computed from a model built by deconvolving the target's own emission, and the argument only works if that model contains none of the faint non-Keplerian motions being searched for; otherwise self-calibration would absorb the real signal into the antenna gains.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Released measurement sets and image cubes can be used to search for embedded planets and other non-Keplerian dynamical features without redoing the calibration.
  • Kinematic deviations reported in companion analyses of these data can be treated as real; the pipeline's imaging choices also flag where caution is needed, such as low-SNR CS emission.
  • The order-of-operations findings provide a template for future ALMA large programs combining ACA, short, and long baselines at Band 7.
  • The public release of calibration scripts and quality-assurance figures allows other teams to reproduce or modify every step of the reduction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural stress test not run in this paper would inject a synthetic non-Keplerian kink into the visibilities of a cleanly Keplerian disk and check that the pipeline recovers it without distortion; that would directly test whether self-calibration absorbs real signal.
  • The separation of spatial alignment from flux scaling, motivated by phase decoherence, suggests that future surveys should diagnose decorrelation before deciding the order of alignment and self-calibration steps.
  • Because the fiducial imaging was optimized for kinematic analysis, other science goals such as accurate total flux measurements of point sources in extended emission will need different weighting or post-processing; the released measurement sets permit that.
  • The caution about non-Gaussian PSFs and the epsilon metric recorded in image headers gives later users a quantitative handle on where flux measurements are unreliable.
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 presents the calibration and imaging pipeline developed for the exoALMA Large Program, which observed 15 protoplanetary disks in Band 7 with ALMA in three molecular lines (12CO, 13CO, CS). The pipeline includes pseudo-continuum construction, per-execution phase self-calibration, uv-plane spatial alignment of execution blocks, flux rescaling, group-level phase and amplitude self-calibration, production of fiducial measurement sets, and continuum and line imaging using Briggs weighting and an iterative CLEAN masking procedure. The manuscript reports quantitative improvements in signal-to-noise ratio, corrections of phase decoherence, and alignment demonstrations, and it releases the calibrated measurement sets, images, and scripts. The central claim is that the resulting data are of sufficiently high quality to search for faint deviations from Keplerian rotation in protoplanetary disks.

Significance. If the claim holds, the released exoALMA measurement sets and image cubes become a community resource for kinematic planet searches and disk dynamics studies. The paper makes several concrete methodological contributions: an uv-plane alignment method for disks without central peaks (Section 3.3), a decoherence-correction workflow with visible improvement in amplitude-versus-baseline and waterfall diagnostics (Figures 6-8), and a non-Keplerian masking strategy for imaging (Section 4.4). Strengths include the public release of scripts and data products, machine-checkable provenance via HISTORY and exoALMA header keywords, and quantitative SNR improvements (e.g., >300% in Section 3.5.2). The main weakness is that the central fidelity claim is deferred to validation that is described but not reported in this manuscript.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.4 and Section 5] The central claim that the data are 'of sufficiently high quality to look for faint deviations from Keplerian rotation' is not supported within this manuscript by quantitative validation. The iterative masking procedure (shallow CLEAN to 7×RMSinit, mask formed by convolving the shallow model with a 0.5-0.7 arcsec Gaussian, then deep CLEAN inside the mask to 3×RMSfin) can create spurious channel-to-channel structure if noise or sidelobe peaks inside the mask exceed the cleaning threshold, and it can leave real faint emission outside the mask in the residual image. The paper mentions 'empirical end-to-end testing' (Section 4.1) and defers to Zawadzki & Czekala (2025), but that reference is listed as 'TBD' and no false-positive rates, recovery fractions, or null-injection statistics are reported here. A null-injection or recovery test on representative channels should be reported in this paper, or the summary claim should be tempered to what the presented tests actually establish.
  2. [Table 2] The continuum images show several cases where the achieved RMS is substantially above the theoretical RMS: DM Tau (17.1 to 26.6 uJy/beam), RXJ1615.3-3255 (11.7 to 19.1 uJy/beam), RXJ1604.3-2130 (16.1 to 23.0 uJy/beam), and V4046 Sgr (14.8 to 19.7 uJy/beam). Since these continuum images are used for alignment and self-calibration and are themselves science products, the excess noise and its likely origin (residual decoherence, weighting choices, or calibration errors) should be discussed. Without an explanation, the reader cannot assess whether the excess propagates to the line cubes or affects the reliability of kinematic measurements made from those images.
  3. [Section 3.5.3] The amplitude and phase self-calibration at the group level uses a CLEAN model of the target itself, cleaned down to 1 sigma for the amplitude step. Because this model is derived from the same source whose structure the exoALMA program aims to measure, real continuum asymmetries or point-source features could in principle be absorbed into the gain solutions and then applied to all spectral windows, including the line data. The paper does not directly test whether the amplitude self-calibration removes real source structure. A concrete test would be to compare line cubes and continuum images made with and without the amplitude self-calibration step, or with bright continuum features masked from the model, and to report the differences in image morphology and flux.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1] There is a typo in 'an number of different image conditioning or post-processing methods' that should read 'a number of different image conditioning or post-processing methods'.
  2. [Section 3.2] The phrase 'reduced by a cosifactor' should read 'reduced by a cos i factor' for clarity.
  3. [References] Several companion papers are cited with 'ApJL, TBD' (Pinte 2025; Izquierdo et al. 2025; Zawadzki & Czekala 2025; Teague et al. 2025). Since the central claim of this paper leans on Zawadzki & Czekala (2025), the reference should be complete or the validation should be included here before acceptance.
  4. [Section 4.4] The definition of the 'exoALMA' header keyword is clear, but it would help to state explicitly that the recorded quantities include the mask smoothing kernel FWHM and the cleaning thresholds, since these are the parameters most relevant to reproducing the images.
  5. [Section 3.4] The 4% flux-offset threshold is motivated only as 'empirically found not to affect the resulting image'; a brief statement of what test was performed to determine this threshold would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the exoALMA calibration and imaging pipeline does not fit a parameter and then rename it as a prediction; its self-calibration is applied to pseudo-continuum with line channels excluded, and the deferred RML cross-check is an independent reconstruction path rather than a circular self-citation.

full rationale

This paper is a data-processing methods paper rather than a derivation of a physical result from fitted parameters, so the usual circularity patterns (predictions forced by fits) do not apply. The central claim in Section 5 ('Our procedures ... have provided datasets that are of sufficiently high quality to look for faint deviations from Keplerian rotation') is a data-quality conclusion supported by the described pipeline choices. The self-calibration in Sections 3.2-3.5 uses the target itself as a gain model, but it is explicitly performed on pseudo-continuum measurement sets with the line channels flagged (Section 3.1), and the resulting gain solutions are applied to the line data afterward (Section 3.6). Non-Keplerian line kinematics are therefore not in the gain-solution model, so the line cubes are not forced to reproduce the model by construction. The line-imaging mask in Section 4.4 is deliberately morphology-based rather than Keplerian, which may carry an imaging-bias risk but does not constitute a circular derivation: the mask is not equivalent to the targeted non-Keplerian deviations, and the paper does not fit any parameter to a subset of the kinematic data and then 'predict' that same quantity. The external validation by Zawadzki & Czekala (2025) is cited as an independent RML-based check of feature recovery; although it is a companion paper with overlapping authors and its results are not reproduced in this manuscript (a real omitted-support caveat), RML imaging is an independent reconstruction algorithm applied to the same calibrated visibilities and does not take the CLEAN-derived feature list as an input. The omission of the companion's quantitative results weakens the support for the strongest claim but is not an instance of a derivation reducing to its own inputs. No self-definitional equation, fitted prediction, imported uniqueness theorem, or renamed known result was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on procedural choices rather than a fitted physical constant. The parameters listed are the hand-chosen thresholds and intervals that control the calibration output. The axioms are standard interferometric and astronomical assumptions; the most consequential is the fidelity of the CLEAN model used for self-calibration.

free parameters (5)
  • Briggs robust parameter = -0.5 (fiducial), -2 to +2 tested
    Chosen as compromise between resolution and sensitivity for continuum (Section 4.3); a procedural choice, not fitted to a physical constant.
  • Flux rescale threshold = 4%
    Execution blocks with flux offsets above 4% are rescaled; offsets below this threshold are ignored as empirically not affecting images (Section 3.4).
  • CLEAN thresholds = 6 sigma for phase-round models, 1 sigma for amplitude-round models, final products at 6/5/4/3 times RMSfin
    Manual choices to limit spurious CLEAN model insertion (Sections 3.2, 3.5, and 4.4).
  • Gain solution intervals = EB-long, 360s, 120s, 60s, 30s, 18s depending on round
    Progressive shrinking intervals; chosen via 'stopped once SNR and noise structure started degrading' (Section 3.5.2), a subjective heuristic.
  • Mask smoothing kernel FWHM = 0.5 to 0.7 arcsec
    Used to create CLEAN masks from the shallow CLEAN model; chosen to capture extended faint emission (Section 4.4).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption ALMA pipeline-calibrated visibilities have an absolute flux scale accurate to within about 4% in Band 7.
    Invoked in Sections 2.2 and 3.4 to decide which EBs need flux rescaling; if the assumed uncertainty were larger, the 4% threshold would misattribute flux errors.
  • domain assumption CLEAN deconvolution with the chosen masks recovers the true sky brightness distribution at the scales of interest.
    Used throughout Sections 3 and 4 to build self-calibration models and final images; the sanity check with RML is deferred to Zawadzki and Czekala (2025).
  • domain assumption Source inclination and position angle from the literature are accurate enough for deprojected visibility amplitude comparisons.
    Used in Sections 3.3 and 3.4 to diagnose phase decoherence and flux offsets; wrong geometry would bias the amplitude-ratio diagnostics.
  • standard math The gridded visibility minimization for alignment has a unique global minimum over the searched phase shifts.
    Assumed in Section 3.3; the paper notes phase-only cost functions had poor convergence, so the full gridded residual cost was retained.
  • domain assumption A single global phase shift per execution block is sufficient to align it to the reference frame.
    Alignment procedure in Section 3.3 fits one positional shift per EB; intra-EB astrometric or pointing drifts are not modeled.
  • domain assumption Phase decoherence is antenna-based and can be corrected by redundant baseline self-calibration.
    Core premise of Section 3; if decoherence were not antenna-based, self-calibration could absorb source structure into gain terms.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of exoALMA II: Data Calibration and Imaging Pipeline." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LGHYIC72

@misc{pith2026250419870,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: exoALMA II: Data Calibration and Imaging Pipeline},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LGHYIC72}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19870}
}
abstract

The exoALMA Large Program was designed to search for subtle kinematic deviations from Keplerian motion, indicative of embedded planets, in high angular and spectral resolution Band 7 observations of $^{12}$CO, $^{13}$CO and CS emission from protoplanetary disks. This paper summarizes the calibration and imaging pipelines used by the exoALMA collaboration. With sources ranging in diameter from 2.4" to 13.8" when probed by $^{12}$CO, multiple antennae configurations were required to maximally recover all spatial information (including the ACA for 7 sources). Combining these datasets warranted particular care in their alignment during calibration and prior to imaging, so as not to introduce spurious features that might resemble the kinematic deviations being investigated. Phase decoherence was found in several datasets, which was corrected by an iterative self-calibration procedure, and we explored the effects of the order of operations of spatial alignment, flux scaling, and self-calibration. A number of different imaging sets were produced for the continuum and line emission, employing an iterative masking procedure that minimizes bias due to non-Keplerian motions in the disk.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19870 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. uv-coverage of the LkCa 15 dataset. The visibilities in the plot are binned in 30 s intervals. Three LB EBs were executed back-to-back, yielding optimal hour angle spanning and uv-coverage for such a low elevation source. Note that the final combined uv-coverage results in a PSF that is non-Gaussian (see e.g., Czekala et al. 2021), discussed further in 4.1. performing the calibration and imaging described here can b… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visibility amplitude (left) and visibility amplitude ratio relative to LB1 (right) as a function of deprojected baselines for PDS 66 after self-calibration of individual EBs, alignment and flux rescaling but before group self-calibration, demonstrating misalignment between the EBs due to decorrelation from remaining phase errors. If decoherence is now fixed, run 2nd iteration Concat (ACA+)SB EBs (ACA)SB phase selfca… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. exoALMA calibration workflow. Individual MOUS datasets are color coded (ACA, LB, SB), and referred to with no spacing (e.g. (ACA)SBLB) when concatenated. 3.1. Preparing the data for self-calibration We first double-checked the quality of the pipeline calibrated data by producing time-averaged amplitude versus channel plots, and time-averaged and channel￾averaged amplitude versus baseline plots, for each indi￾vidual … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic of the spatial alignment workflow of the exoALMA collaboration. The top histograms represent the distribution in uv baseline distances for each of the three configurations considered with the longest baselines to the left. The order of operations starts in th…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example of the exoALMA spatial alignment procedure on J1604 between LB1 and LB2 (the reference EB). The panels show the dust continuum images before any selfcal or alignment (a and b), after the individual-EB selfcal (c and d), and after the alignment (e and f, with e …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example of improvement of phase coherence. Visibility amplitude ratio as a function of deprojected baselines for PDS 66 between LB EB0 and LB EB1 (reference) at different rounds of SB+LB self-calibration after flux rescaling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Improvement of waterfalls in PDS 66 after flux rescaling (correlation XX, uv-range: 125-150 m) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Example of flux offset even after phase self-calibration. Visibility amplitude ratio as a function of deprojected baseline for PDS 66 at the last round of SB+LB phase selfcal of iteration 1 (left, without applying flux rescaling) and iteration 2 (right, after applying …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Demonstration of the improvements on the imaging quality of the continuum emission of LkCa 15 after the application of self-calibration on, 1) just the ACA data, 2) ACA+SB data, and 3) ACA+SB+LB data. suggested (Jorsater & van Moorsel 1995; Czekala et al. 2021) and deb…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Representative exoALMA imaging workflow shown for a single channel of the 12CO 3–2 cube for MWC 758. mation of the RMS, particularly at higher robust val￾ues. We then evaluated the RMS in a circular annulus between 3′′ and 4′′. A second tclean iteration was run with a…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  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]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    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...

    2021

  4. [4]

    B., Vlahakis , C., et al

    ALMA Partnership , Fomalont , E. B., Vlahakis , C., et al. 2015, , 808, L1, 10.1088/2041-8205/808/1/L1

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/808/1/l1 2015

  5. [5]

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

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

  6. [6]

    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

  7. [7]

    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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf741 2018

  8. [8]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    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, 10.48550/arXiv.2210.13314

    2023 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    2021, , 653, A113, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140535

    Barraza-Alfaro , M., Flock , M., Marino , S., & P \'e rez , S. 2021, , 653, A113, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140535

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    2021, , 916, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f83

    Benisty , M., Bae , J., Facchini , S., et al. 2021, , 916, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f83

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    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

  7. [15]

    2021, ALMA Cycle 8 2021 Proposer’s Guide, ALMA Doc

    Braatz , J. 2021, ALMA Cycle 8 2021 Proposer’s Guide, ALMA Doc. 8.2 v1.0

    2021

  8. [16]

    L., Hunter , T

    Brogan , C. L., Hunter , T. R., & Fomalont , E. B. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1805.05266, 10.48550/arXiv.1805.05266

    2018 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    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

  10. [18]

    2022, , 513, 5790, 10.1093/mnras/stac1285

    Casassus , S., & C \'a rcamo , M. 2022, , 513, 5790, 10.1093/mnras/stac1285

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    2023, ALMA Cycle 10 Technical Handbook, 10.5281/zenodo.7822943

    Cortes, P., Vlahakis, C., Hales, A., et al. 2023, ALMA Cycle 10 Technical Handbook, 10.5281/zenodo.7822943

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    M., & Testi , L

    Curone , P., Facchini , S., Andrews , S. M., & Testi , L. 2025, , TBD

    2025

  13. [21]

    A., Teague , R., et al

    Czekala , I., Loomis , R. A., Teague , R., et al. 2021, , 257, 2, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1430

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    J., Bae , J., et al

    Disk Dynamics Collaboration , Armitage , P. J., Bae , J., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2009.04345, 10.48550/arXiv.2009.04345

    2020 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    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

  16. [24]

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

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

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1864, 10.21105/joss.01864

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Farr , W., Sinha , M., et al. 2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1864, 10.21105/joss.01864

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    R., & Harsono , D

    Francis , L., Johnstone , D., Herczeg , G., Hunter , T. R., & Harsono , D. 2020, , 160, 270, 10.3847/1538-3881/abbe1a

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    2020, , 904, 148, 10.3847/1538-4357/abac17

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

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  22. [30]

    R., Petry , D., Barkats , D., Corder , S., & Indebetouw , R

    Hunter , T. R., Petry , D., Barkats , D., Corder , S., & Indebetouw , R. 2023 a , analysisUtils , 2.6, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.7502160

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    R., Indebetouw , R., Brogan , C

    Hunter , T. R., Indebetouw , R., Brogan , C. L., et al. 2023 b , , 135, 074501, 10.1088/1538-3873/ace216

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

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

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

    2025

  25. [33]

    Jorsater , S., & van Moorsel , G. A. 1995, , 110, 2037, 10.1086/117668

    1995 doi

  26. [34]

    A., Tsutsumi , T., Brogan , C

    Kepley , A. A., Tsutsumi , T., Brogan , C. L., et al. 2020, , 132, 024505, 10.1088/1538-3873/ab5e14

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, ed

    Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., P \'e rez, F., et al. 2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, ed. F. Loizides & B. Scmidt (IOS Press), 87--90. https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/403913/

    2016

  28. [36]

    2015, in Proceedings of the 2015 2nd International Workshop on High-Performance and Parallel Programming (HP2P 2015) (New York, NY, USA: ACM), 10.1145/2832953.2832955

    Lam, S., Pitrou, A., & Seibert, S. 2015, in Proceedings of the 2015 2nd International Workshop on High-Performance and Parallel Programming (HP2P 2015) (New York, NY, USA: ACM), 10.1145/2832953.2832955

    2015

  29. [37]

    K., Schinnerer , E., Hughes , A., et al

    Leroy , A. K., Schinnerer , E., Hughes , A., et al. 2021 a , , 257, 43, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac17f3

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    K., Hughes , A., Liu , D., et al

    Leroy , A. K., Hughes , A., Liu , D., et al. 2021 b , , 255, 19, 10.3847/1538-4365/abec80

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    A., \"O berg , K

    Loomis , R. A., \"O berg , K. I., Andrews , S. M., et al. 2018, , 155, 182, 10.3847/1538-3881/aab604

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    I., Facchini , S., & Anderson , D

    \"O berg , K. I., Facchini , S., & Anderson , D. E. 2023, , 61, 287, 10.1146/annurev-astro-022823-040820

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    I., Guzm \'a n , V

    \"O berg , K. I., Guzm \'a n , V. V., Walsh , C., et al. 2021, , 257, 1, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1432

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    2025, , TBD

    Pinte , C. 2025, , TBD

    2025

  35. [43]

    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, 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09528

    2023 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

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

    Pinte , C., Price , D. J., M \'e nard , F., et al. 2018, , 860, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/aac6dc

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    Richards , A. M. S., Moravec , E., Etoka , S., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2207.05591, 10.48550/arXiv.2207.05591

    2022 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    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

  39. [47]

    2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1220, 10.21105/joss.01220

    Teague, R. 2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1220, 10.21105/joss.01220

    2019 doi

  40. [48]

    A., Birnstiel , T., & Foreman-Mackey , D

    Teague , R., Bae , J., Bergin , E. A., Birnstiel , T., & Foreman-Mackey , D. 2018, , 860, L12, 10.3847/2041-8213/aac6d7

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    2025, , TBD

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

    2025

  42. [50]

    E., et al

    Virtanen , P., Gommers , R., Oliphant , T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  43. [51]

    Yoshida , C. T. 2025, , TBD

    2025

  44. [52]

    2025, , TBD

    Zawadzki , B., & Czekala , I. 2025, , TBD

    2025

Pith tools

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