Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 93 references

The ALMA Survey of Gas Evolution of PROtoplanetary Disks (AGE-PRO): VI. Comparison of Dust Evolution Models to AGE-PRO Observations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Comparing a large grid of dust evolution models to ALMA's AGE-PRO observations, this paper finds that most disks older than about 1–2 million years require dust-trapping pressure bumps to reproduce their millimeter fluxes, sizes, and…

desk verdict Useful AGE-PRO model comparison with an honest gas-mass mismatch, but the dust-trap conclusion is not yet load-bearing because the models are run at gas masses up to two orders of magnitude above the observed disks. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10740 v2 pith:CBXQKO3B submitted 2025-06-12 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

Nicolas T. Kurtovic , Matias Gárate , Paola Pinilla , Ke Zhang , Giovanni P. Rosotti , Rossella Anania , Ilaria Pascucci , Benoît Tabone
show 13 more authors
Leon Trapman Dingshan Deng Miguel Vioque John Carpenter Lucas A. Cieza Laura M. Pérez Carolina Agurto-Gangas Anibal Sierra Dary A. Ruíz-Rodriguez James Miley Camilo González-Ruilova Estephani Torres-Villanueva Aleksandra Kuznetsova
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords dustevolutiontrapspressurebumpsprotoplanetarydisksmillimetercontinuumspectralindexAGE-PROsurveyplanetformation
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 asks whether dust-trapping pressure bumps are a common feature of planet-forming disks by comparing a large grid of dust evolution simulations to ALMA's AGE-PRO observations of 30 disks in three star-forming regions spanning about 0.5 to 10 million years. It argues that, after about 1–2 million years, the observed millimeter fluxes, disk sizes, and spectral indices of most AGE-PRO disks are matched only by models that include weak or strong dust traps; models without traps lose their pebbles to inward drift too quickly and fail to follow the observed trends. The same comparison shows that the observed spread in disk gas masses is wider than pure viscous evolution with a constant turbulence parameter can produce, implying additional gas removal or redistribution mechanisms. If the trap conclusion is right, dust retention in protoplanetary disks is efficient and widespread, which directly affects how much solid material is available to build planets.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the Gaussian bump in the turbulence profile, $\alpha(r)=\alpha_0\left(1+\sum_i A_{\rm gap}\exp(-(r-r_{{\rm gap},i})^2/2w_{\rm gap}^2)\right)$, with weak ($A_{\rm gap}=1$) or strong ($A_{\rm gap}=4$) bumps at fixed radii 10, 40, and 70 au. These bumps create pressure maxima that act as dust traps, halting the inward radial drift of pebbles; without them, the largest grains drift inward and deplete the outer disk. The paper's comparison uses synthetic 1.3 mm and 1.05 mm images generated from the simulated dust distributions to measure the same quantities as AGE-PRO: total continuum flux, the radius enclosing 90% of the emission, and the spectral index between the two bands.

What would settle it

Observe the 1.3 mm continuum of the AGE-PRO disks at angular resolution close to a few au: if most disks older than 2 Myr show smooth, ring-free emission yet retain high millimeter fluxes and low spectral indices, the claim that dust traps are required would be contradicted. A modeling alternative that retains pebbles without pressure bumps, such as strong dust back-reaction or dead zones, would similarly weaken the trap uniqueness.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the AGE-PRO observations cannot be reproduced by smooth, trap-free disk evolution once the disks are older than roughly 1–2 Myr. In the Lupus and Upper Sco samples, the simulations without dust traps underproduce the 1.3 mm fluxes, evolve disk sizes in the wrong direction, and push the spectral index to high values too early, while simulations with weak or strong Gaussian pressure bumps track the observed flux–mass–size–spectral index behavior. Young Ophiuchus disks do not yet distinguish the scenarios, so the early dust content is still close to the initial reservoir. The paper also finds that the gas masses inferred from AGE-PRO span several orders of magnitude and are not reproduced by the viscous-only models, pointing to extra physics in gas dispersal.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Gaussian turbulence bumps in the models faithfully represent how real pressure bumps trap dust, and that a completely smooth disk is a fair counterfactual for showing that traps are required.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Most planet-forming disks older than about 2 Myr contain dust-trapping pressure bumps, so pebbles survive in the outer disk long enough to feed planetesimal and core formation.
  • The millimeter size of a disk with traps tracks the outermost trap; the observed positive relation between gas mass and millimeter size then suggests that more massive disks form traps at larger radii.
  • The spread of observed spectral indices between about 2 and 4 reflects a variety of trap strengths and locations, while trap-free disks become optically thin too quickly to match the data.
  • Disk gas masses cannot be explained by viscous evolution alone, so additional processes such as winds or photoevaporation must remove gas from disks starting before 1 Myr.
  • For disks younger than about 1 Myr, continuum fluxes and sizes do not distinguish trapping scenarios, so young-dust content can be treated as a near-initial reservoir.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If dust traps are this common, the ring and gap substructures resolved in a minority of disks by high-resolution ALMA imaging are probably representative of most disks rather than a special subset, just seen at higher contrast.
  • Because the traps are fixed at 10, 40, and 70 au in the models, the agreement constrains the presence of traps more strongly than their real locations; matching the gas-mass–size trend to disk-specific simulations could turn the observed R90–Mgas relation into a mass-dependent trap-radius diagnostic.
  • The models' sensitivity to small-grain opacity suggests a sharper test: multi-wavelength millimeter observations that separate large-grain emission from small-grain emission could confirm traps without needing to resolve gaps directly.
  • If gas is removed faster than dust by winds or photoevaporation while traps retain the dust, dust-to-gas ratios should rise with disk age; this is measurable with CO-based gas masses and continuum-based dust masses in a larger age-stratified sample.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 compares AGE-PRO observations of disks in Ophiuchus, Lupus, and Upper Sco to a large grid of 1D dust evolution simulations (DustPy) post-processed with RADMC-3D radiative transfer. The grid covers stellar masses of 0.25-1.0 Msun, initial disk masses of 0.01-0.1 Mstar, characteristic radii of 15-120 au, viscosities of 1e-4 and 1e-3, and initial dust-to-gas ratios of 0.01 and 0.05. Dust traps are modeled as Gaussian bumps in the alpha profile (Eq. 5) with amplitudes 0, 1, and 4 at fixed radii of 10, 40, and 70 au. The authors compare simulated gas masses, pebble masses, 1.3 mm fluxes, 90% radii, and spectral indices to the AGE-PRO measurements as a function of age. The central claim is that at ages above about 1-2 Myr, most AGE-PRO disks are consistent only with simulations that include weak or strong dust traps, while no-trap models cannot reproduce the observed fluxes, sizes, and spectral indices. A secondary result is that the observed gas masses are not reproduced by pure viscous evolution, indicating additional gas-removal mechanisms. Appendix A presents synthetic observations to assess beam convolution effects.

Significance. If the central claim survives scrutiny, the paper would provide population-level evidence that efficient dust retention via pressure bumps is common in planet-forming disks, strengthening the connection between substructure and dust survival. The paper has clear strengths: it uses publicly available, versioned codes (DustPy, RADMC-3D, OpTool), runs a large grid (3888 snapshots; 19440 radiative transfer models), and includes a careful synthetic-observation appendix showing that recovered radii are robust for bright disks larger than about three beam widths. It also makes a falsifiable prediction linking outer trapped-dust radii to disk gas mass. However, the central claim currently rests on qualitative comparisons executed in a gas-mass regime that overlaps only partially with the observed sample, and on a narrow prescribed dust-trap model. These gaps are acknowledged in the text but are load-bearing for the conclusion that dust traps are favored.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 3.1 and 4.1, Fig. 3] The model grid and the AGE-PRO sample are not in the same gas-mass regime. Section 3.1 shows that the lowest observed Mgas values in Ophiuchus lie about two orders of magnitude below the lowest initial model mass (0.01 Mstar), and only about half of the Lupus and Upper Sco targets fall within the model range. Because the Stokes number (Eq. 1) and the radial drift velocity (Eq. 2) depend directly on the gas surface density, dust evolution and trapping efficiency can differ substantially at these lower gas masses. The comparisons in Figs. 5, 7, and 8 and the conclusion that no-trap models are excluded (Section 3.5 and Conclusions) are therefore computed with gas reservoirs up to about 100 times larger than some observed disks. The paper explicitly acknowledges this in Section 4.1: “Since Mgas is higher in our simulations... The impact of this discrepancy on the trends derived from dust observables remains to be investigated.” This is precisely the missing step. The authors should re-run a subset of the grid at lower initial disk masses, or with an early mass-loss prescription that matches the observed Mgas distribution, and show whether the separation between trap and no-trap branches in the F1.3mm-R90%-alpha_mm planes persists. Without this, the claim that dust traps are favored is not established for the observed low-gas-mass disks.
  2. [Sections 3.3-3.5, Figs. 5-8] The comparisons are made by visual inspection of model envelopes and observed markers, with no quantitative consistency metric and no displayed observational uncertainties. Statements such as “most of the disks ... are consistent with simulations that have either weak or strong dust traps” (Abstract) and “the simulations with no traps are unable to follow the observational trends” (Conclusions) are not tied to a defined acceptance criterion. Given the wide ranges spanned by the model outputs and the known measurement uncertainties in the AGE-PRO measurements, the authors should provide a simple quantitative test, for example the fraction of observed sources that fall within a stated percentile interval of the model flux, size, and spectral-index distributions, computed separately for the none, weak, and strong trap groups. Such a test would also clarify the status of the disks that appear consistent with no-trap models in one observable but not in another.
  3. [Sections 2.2, 2.3, and 4.2, Eq. 5] The dust-trap counterfactual is defined by a single prescription: Gaussian bumps in alpha with Agap = 1 or 4 at fixed radii of 10, 40, and 70 au, static in time (Eq. 5). The conclusion that the observed population requires traps therefore depends on these prescribed traps being representative of real pressure bumps. The paper notes in Section 4.2 that variable or leaky traps would behave more like no-trap models, and it excludes back-reaction and 3D effects (Sections 2.1 and 2.2), but none of these alternatives are tested in the comparison. At minimum, the authors should test sensitivity to trap leakage and to later-forming or migrating traps, and state explicitly how the inferred need for traps would change under those variations. This would not require a full alternative-physics grid, but it would make the “traps are required” claim proportionate to the model coverage.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.5] The text contains a duplicated word: “and we we also assume” should read “and we also assume”.
  2. [Equation (8)] The sentence introducing the distance reads “where is d the distance to each star”; this should be “where d is the distance to each star”.
  3. [Sections 3.2-3.3] The distinction between the Mpebble comparison, where no-trap models fail at early ages, and the flux comparison, where Section 3.3 notes that some disks can be explained without traps, is important for the overall conclusion; the text could state this nuance more explicitly.
  4. [Figure 9] The figure caption reports p-values without stating which correlation test was used; please specify the test and how non-detections or upper limits were handled.
  5. [Section 3.5 and Fig. 8] The spectral-index comparison shows only Lupus and Upper Sco sources; please clarify whether Ophiuchus spectral indices were measured and, if so, why they are omitted from the figure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model grid is a forward computation with parameters set independently of the AGE-PRO data, and the trap-favoring conclusion is a model-selection result rather than a fitted or self-referential prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that the AGE-PRO observations favor dust-trap models over no-trap models, is obtained by comparing independently computed DustPy/RADMC-3D simulations to measured millimeter fluxes, sizes, and spectral indices. The model parameters (stellar mass, initial disk mass, characteristic radius, viscosity, dust-to-gas ratio, trap amplitude and location) are set a priori, and the paper explicitly states in Sect. 2.3 that the simulations were run while AGE-PRO data were still arriving and were not tailored to the observed gas masses. No parameter is fitted to the AGE-PRO observables and then renamed as a prediction; the trap/no-trap distinction is an input variable whose observational consequences are computed. The acknowledged gas-mass mismatch between the models and the sample (Sect. 3.1 and Sect. 4.1) is a serious scientific limitation and a correctness risk, but it is not circularity: the dust observables are not derived from the observed gas masses, and the paper explicitly flags that the impact of the Mgas discrepancy on dust trends remains to be investigated. The use of the Gaussian alpha-bump prescription from Stadler et al. (2022), which includes some of the present authors, is a modeling choice rather than a load-bearing self-citation: the conclusion is not justified solely by that citation but by the forward-model comparison. Similarly, the references to companion AGE-PRO papers supply the observational measurements, not the model outputs. There is no equation in which the claimed prediction reduces by construction to an input, and no fitted parameter called a prediction. Under the hard rules of this review, the absence of such a reduction means the circularity score is 0.

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

All parameters of the model grid are chosen by hand or from the literature rather than fitted to the AGE-PRO data. The trap amplitude and locations are the most consequential choices because the main conclusion is that observations favor models with dust traps. The paper introduces no new physical entities. The assumptions listed are standard disk-model ingredients, with the caveat that the Gaussian-bump trap prescription and the absence of alternative dust-retention mechanisms carry the interpretation.

free parameters (9)
  • Initial disk mass ratio (Mdisk/Mstar) = 0.01, 0.05, 0.1
    Chosen grid values; they define the initial gas reservoir and drive the gas mass evolution comparison in Section 3.1.
  • Initial characteristic radius (rc) = 15, 30, 60, 120 au
    Chosen grid values; sets initial disk size and influences where traps sit.
  • Viscosity parameter (alpha0) = 1e-3, 1e-4
    Chosen values for Shakura-Sunyaev viscosity; central to gas dispersal and dust drift timescales.
  • Initial dust-to-gas ratio (epsilon0) = 0.01, 0.05
    Chosen values for the initial solids reservoir.
  • Dust trap amplitude (Agap) = 0, 1, 4 (none, weak, strong)
    Hand-set bump amplitude in Eq. 5; the key model ingredient separating no-trap from trap scenarios.
  • Dust trap locations (rgap) = 10, 40, 70 au, when rgap <= 2 rc
    Hand-set gap radii; the outer trap location largely determines model R90 sizes.
  • Fragmentation turbulence floor (alpha_frag) = 5e-4 for alpha0=1e-4 runs
    Introduced to avoid computationally expensive grain growth; affects maximum grain sizes in low-alpha models.
  • Fragmentation velocity (vfrag) = 10 m/s
    Adopted from laboratory experiments; controls when grains shatter and is a key input to dust growth.
  • Stellar mass and luminosity grid = Mstar 0.25-1.0 Msun, Lstar 0.15-1.0 Lsun
    Matched to AGE-PRO hosts; sets disk temperature and thermal structure.
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption Viscous evolution with constant alpha: nu = alpha c_s h_g (Eq. 3), alpha constant in radius and time.
    Used throughout the model grid; if alpha varies in time or radius, the gas mass evolution conclusions change. The paper notes this caveat in Section 4.1.
  • standard math Gas surface density follows the Lynden-Bell and Pringle self-similar solution (Eq. 4).
    Standard initial condition; model conclusions inherit its assumptions about exponential tapering.
  • domain assumption Dust growth and fragmentation follow the Smoluchowski equation with Epstein/Stokes drag, and dust back-reaction is neglected.
    Section 2.1; back-reaction can alter dust concentrations and trap behavior, and the paper explicitly excludes it.
  • ad hoc to paper Gaussian bumps in the alpha profile (Eq. 5) generate self-sustained gaps that act as dust traps.
    The central model ingredient for the trap conclusion is imposed by hand rather than derived from disk physics; the paper acknowledges this static-trap limitation in Section 2.2.
  • domain assumption Disk temperature is set only by stellar irradiation via Eq. 6, with no viscous or external heating.
    Section 2.2; a different temperature profile would change pressure gradients, drift speeds, and emission.
  • domain assumption Initial dust size distribution follows the ISM distribution (Mathis et al. 1977) with uniform epsilon0.
    Section 2.2; the initial condition for dust growth and a source of uncertainty for early-time fluxes.
  • domain assumption Dust opacities follow the Ricci et al. (2010) composition (10% silicate, 20% carbon, 30% water ice, 40% vacuum).
    Section 2.5; opacity choice strongly affects millimeter fluxes and sizes, as the paper discusses for DSHARP opacities in Section 4.2.
  • domain assumption Dust vertical structure is Gaussian with the Dubrulle et al. (1995) scale height (Eq. 7).
    Assumed for converting 1D dust profiles into 3D density for radiative transfer.
  • domain assumption Photoevaporation, MHD winds, and 3D effects are not included in the model.
    Section 2.2; the paper uses the gas mass mismatch to argue these mechanisms are needed, so the mismatch result is partly a statement about the absence of these processes in the models.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The ALMA Survey of Gas Evolution of PROtoplanetary Disks (AGE-PRO): VI. Comparison of Dust Evolution Models to AGE-PRO Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CBXQKO3B

@misc{pith2026250610740,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The ALMA Survey of Gas Evolution of PROtoplanetary Disks (AGE-PRO): VI. Comparison of Dust Evolution Models to AGE-PRO Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CBXQKO3B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10740}
}
abstract

The potential for planet formation of a circumstellar disk depends on the dust and gas reservoirs, which evolve as a function of the disk age. The ALMA Large Program AGE-PRO has measured several disk properties across three star-forming regions of different ages, and in this study we compare the observational results to dust evolution simulations. Using DustPy for the dust evolution, and RADMC-3D for the radiative transfer, we ran a large grid of models spanning stellar masses of 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, and 1.0 $M_\odot$, with different initial conditions, including: disk sizes, disk gas masses, and dust-to-gas ratio, and viscosity. Our models are performed assuming smooth, weakly, or strongly substructured disks, aiming to investigate if any observational trend can favor or exclude the presence of dust traps. The observed gas masses in the disks of the AGE-PRO sample are not reproducible with our models, which only consider viscous evolution with constant $\alpha$, suggesting that additional physical mechanisms play a role in the evolution of the gas mass of disks. When comparing the dust continuum emission fluxes and sizes at 1.3 mm, we find that most of the disks in the AGE-PRO sample are consistent with simulations that have either weak or strong dust traps. The evolution of spectral index in the AGE-PRO sample is also suggestive of an unresolved population of dust traps. Future observations at high angular resolution are still needed to test several hypotheses that result from comparing the observations to our simulations, including that more massive disks in gas mass have the potential to form dust traps at larger disk radii.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10740 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Dust size distribution for a disk with (top) and without (bottom) substructures at 1 Myr. The simu￾lations correspond to a disk with M⋆ = 1 M⊙, Mdisk = 1 M∗, rc = 60 au, α0 = 10−3 , and ϵ0 = 0.01. resulting in 3888 different snapshots of the disks evolu￾tion. 2.5. Radiative Transfer The millimeter flux of the dust continuum emission is obtained from the simulated dust size distribution with the radiative transfer co… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Dust spatial distribution of small (top, 1 µm) and large (bottom 1 mm) grains, for a disk with substructures at 1 Myr from the same model presented in the top panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of disk gas mass (Mgas) as a function of stellar mass (M⋆) for different times of evolution, as shown at the top of each panel. The shaded regions enclose the disks with the same initial disk mass relative to their host star, and the markers show the maximum, median, and minimum value. The spread in Mgas for a fixed stellar mass comes from the different initial disk characteristic size rc within the same g… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Pebble mass vs. stellar mass at different ages and trap amplitudes (strong, weak, and none from top to bottom, respectively) from simulations, considering pebbles as grain sizes between 0.1 mm and 10 cm. The shaded regions enclose the simulated disks of different initi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radius enclosing 90% of the pebble mass vs. stellar mass. The shaded regions enclose the simulated disks of different initial disk critical radius, as shown by their different symbols. The dashed lines show the location of the dust traps in the simulations. distinguish…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Radius enclosing 90% of the millimeter flux continuum as a function of the stellar mass. The symbols and colors regions are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Spectral index between 230GHz and 283GHz (1.3 mm and 1.06 mm) vs. stellar mass, representative of the wavelengths covered by the AGE-PRO ALMA Band 6 and Band 7 observations. The colored regions enclose the minimum and maximum spectral indexes for each initial disk mass…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Observed spectral index between 230GHz and 283GHz (1.3 mm and 1.06 mm), compared to other observational properties. The dashed lines in panel (i) show the median spectral index for each SFR. to-dust mass ratio of the disks (panel g in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Example of the different components of a synthetic observation. Panel a) shows an image of the pixel noise following a Gaussian distribution. Panel b) shows the same noise image, but convolved with a Gaussian of 0.25′′ of FWHM, and normalized to a standard deviation o…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison between the R90 in the radiative transfer images (R90,mod)and in the synthetic observations (R90,obs). Each dot represents a different disk, and images from all ages are included. The dots are colorcoded by the total flux of the model. When measuring R100% …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., Sierra, A., et al

    Agurto-Gangas, C., P´ erez, L. M., Sierra, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 4

    2025

  2. [2]

    2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed

    Cieza, L. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 475–496

    2014

  3. [3]

    P., G´ arate, M., et al

    Anania, R., Rosotti, G. P., G´ arate, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 8

    2025

  4. [4]

    Andrews, S. M. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 483

    2020

  5. [5]

    M., Rosenfeld, K

    Andrews, S. M., Rosenfeld, K. A., Kraus, A. L., & Wilner, D. J. 2013, ApJ, 771, 129

    2013

  6. [6]

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

    Ansdell, M., Williams, J. P., van der Marel, N., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 46

    2016

  7. [7]

    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

    2023

  8. [8]

    A., Carpenter, J

    Barenfeld, S. A., Carpenter, J. M., Ricci, L., & Isella, A. 2016, ApJ, 827, 142

    2016

Show all 93 references
  1. [9]

    Bate, M. R. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 5618

    2018

  2. [10]

    2024, ARA&A, 62, 157

    Birnstiel, T. 2024, ARA&A, 62, 157

    2024

  3. [11]

    P., & Brauer, F

    Birnstiel, T., Dullemond, C. P., & Brauer, F. 2010, A&A, 513, A79

    2010

  4. [12]

    2016, SSRv, 205, 41

    Birnstiel, T., Fang, M., & Johansen, A. 2016, SSRv, 205, 41

    2016

  5. [13]

    P., Zhu, Z., et al

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

    2018

  6. [14]

    2024, A&A, 682, A61

    Cacciapuoti, L., Macias, E., Gupta, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A61

    2024

  7. [15]

    Clark, B. G. 1980, A&A, 89, 377

    1980

  8. [16]

    J., Gendrin, A., & Sotomayor, M

    Clarke, C. J., Gendrin, A., & Sotomayor, M. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 485

    2001

  9. [17]

    T., & Flock, M

    Das, S., Kurtovic, N. T., & Flock, M. 2024, A&A, 689, A104

    2024

  10. [18]

    N., G´ arate, M., Okuzumi, S., et al

    Delage, T. N., G´ arate, M., Okuzumi, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A190

    2023

  11. [19]

    2022, A&A, 658, A97

    Dzyurkevich, N. 2022, A&A, 658, A97

    2022

  12. [20]

    2024, A&A, 688, A81

    Delussu, L., Birnstiel, T., Miotello, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A81

    2024

  13. [21]

    2025, ApJ, 989, 3

    Deng, D., Vioque, M., Pascucci, I., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 3

    2025

  14. [22]

    2023, ApJ, 957, 11

    Doi, K., & Kataoka, A. 2023, ApJ, 957, 11

    2023

  15. [23]

    2021, OpTool: Command-line driven tool for creating complex dust opacities, , , ascl:2104.010

    Dominik, C., Min, M., & Tazaki, R. 2021, OpTool: Command-line driven tool for creating complex dust opacities, , , ascl:2104.010

    2021

  16. [24]

    2008, ApJS, 178, 89

    Dotter, A., Chaboyer, B., Jevremovi´ c, D., et al. 2008, ApJS, 178, 89

    2008

  17. [25]

    Draine, B. T. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 241 Dr¸ a˙ zkowska, 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

    2003

  18. [26]

    1995, Icarus, 114, 237

    Dubrulle, B., Morfill, G., & Sterzik, M. 1995, Icarus, 114, 237

    1995

  19. [27]

    P., Juhasz, A., Pohl, A., et al

    Dullemond, C. P., Juhasz, A., Pohl, A., et al. 2012, RADMC-3D: A multi-purpose radiative transfer tool, , , ascl:1202.015

    2012

  20. [28]

    Jayawardhana, R., & Oliveira, J. M. 2010, A&A, 510, A72

    2010

  21. [29]

    Fromang, S., & Nelson, R. P. 2009, A&A, 496, 597 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1 G´ arate, M., Birnstiel, T., Dr¸ a˙ zkowska, J., & Stammler, S. M. 2020, A&A, 635, A149 G´ arate, M., Delage, T. N., Stadler, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 65...

    2009

  22. [30]

    2025, A&A, 694, A290

    Garufi, A., Carrasco-Gonz´ alez, C., Mac ´ ıas, E., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A290

    2025

  23. [31]

    L., Espaillat, C

    Grant, S. L., Espaillat, C. C., Wendeborn, J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 123

    2021

  24. [32]

    2015, ApJ, 798, 34

    Gundlach, B., & Blum, J. 2015, ApJ, 798, 34

    2015

  25. [33]

    2011, Icarus, 214, 717

    Gundlach, B., Kilias, S., Beitz, E., & Blum, J. 2011, Icarus, 214, 717

    2011

  26. [34]

    P., Kreuzig, C., et al

    Gundlach, B., Schmidt, K. P., Kreuzig, C., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 1273

    2018

  27. [35]

    2020, ApJ, 895, 126

    Hendler, N., Pascucci, I., Pinilla, P., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, 126

    2020

  28. [36]

    Hildebrand, R. H. 1983, QJRAS, 24, 267 H¨ ogbom, J. A. 1974, A&AS, 15, 417

    1983

  29. [37]

    M., Cleeves, L

    Huang, J., Andrews, S. M., Cleeves, L. I., et al. 2018, ApJ, 852, 122 18 Kurtovic, G´arate, Pinilla, et al

    2018

  30. [38]

    S., & Haugbølle, T

    Kuffmeier, M., Jensen, S. S., & Haugbølle, T. 2023, European Physical Journal Plus, 138, 272

    2023

  31. [39]

    T., P´ erez, L

    Kurtovic, N. T., P´ erez, L. M., Benisty, M., et al. 2018, ApJL, 869, L44

    2018

  32. [40]

    T., Pinilla, P., Long, F., et al

    Kurtovic, N. T., Pinilla, P., Long, F., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A139

    2021

  33. [41]

    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

    2023

  34. [42]

    Liu, H. B. 2019, ApJL, 877, L22

    2019

  35. [43]

    E., Manara, C

    Lodato, G., Scardoni, C. E., Manara, C. F., & Testi, L. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 4700

    2017

  36. [44]

    J., et al

    Long, F., Pinilla, P., Herczeg, G. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 17 —. 2020, ApJ, 898, 36

    2018

  37. [45]

    M., Rosotti, G., et al

    Long, F., Andrews, S. M., Rosotti, G., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 6

    2022

  38. [46]

    Lynden-Bell, D., & Pringle, J. E. 1974, MNRAS, 168, 603

    1974

  39. [47]

    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

    2023

  40. [48]

    F., Rosotti, G., Testi, L., et al

    Manara, C. F., Rosotti, G., Testi, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 591, L3

    2016

  41. [49]

    S., Rumpl, W., & Nordsieck, K

    Mathis, J. S., Rumpl, W., & Nordsieck, K. H. 1977, ApJ, 217, 425 M´ enard, F., Cuello, N., Ginski, C., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, L1

    1977

  42. [50]

    D., Pascucci, I., Manara, C

    Mulders, G. D., Pascucci, I., Manara, C. F., et al. 2017, ApJ, 847, 31

    2017

  43. [51]

    2019, ApJ, 873, 58

    Musiolik, G., & Wurm, G. 2019, ApJ, 873, 58

    2019

  44. [52]

    1986, Icarus, 67, 375

    Nakagawa, Y., Sekiya, M., & Hayashi, C. 1986, Icarus, 67, 375

    1986

  45. [53]

    Offner, S. S. R., Moe, M., Kratter, K. 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, 275

    2023

  46. [54]

    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

    2023

  47. [55]

    J., et al

    Pascucci, I., Testi, L., Herczeg, G. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 125

    2016

  48. [56]

    2012, A&A, 545, A81

    Pinilla, P., Benisty, M., & Birnstiel, T. 2012, A&A, 545, A81

    2012

  49. [57]

    2013, A&A, 554, A95

    Pinilla, P., Birnstiel, T., Benisty, M., et al. 2013, A&A, 554, A95

    2013

  50. [58]

    2020, A&A, 635, A105

    Pinilla, P., Pascucci, I., & Marino, S. 2020, A&A, 635, A105

    2020

  51. [59]

    Pringle, J. E. 1981, ARA&A, 19, 137 Ribas, ´A., Bouy, H., & Mer ´ ın, B. 2015, A&A, 576, A52

    1981

  52. [60]

    2010, A&A, 512, A15

    Ricci, L., Testi, L., Natta, A., et al. 2010, A&A, 512, A15

    2010

  53. [61]

    E., Loomis, R., Cabrit, S., et al

    Rodriguez, J. E., Loomis, R., Cabrit, S., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 150

    2018

  54. [62]

    Rosotti, G. P. 2023, NewAR, 96, 101674

    2023

  55. [63]

    P., Tazzari, M., Booth, R

    Rosotti, G. P., Tazzari, M., Booth, R. A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 4829

    2019

  56. [64]

    A., Gonz´ alez-Ruilova, C., Cieza, L

    Ruiz-Rodriguez, D. A., Gonz´ alez-Ruilova, C., Cieza, L. A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 2

    2025

  57. [65]

    2021, A&A, 649, A19

    Sanchis, E., Testi, L., Natta, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A19

    2021

  58. [66]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

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

    1973

  59. [67]

    M., Sotomayor, B., et al

    Sierra, A., P´ erez, L. M., Sotomayor, B., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 306

    2024

  60. [68]

    2023, ApJL, 954, L13

    Somigliana, A., Testi, L., Rosotti, G., et al. 2023, ApJL, 954, L13

    2023

  61. [69]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 5927

    Somigliana, A., Toci, C., Rosotti, G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 5927

    2022

  62. [70]

    2022, A&A, 668, A104

    Stadler, J., G´ arate, M., Pinilla, P., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A104

    2022

  63. [71]

    M., & Birnstiel, T

    Stammler, S. M., & Birnstiel, T. 2022, ApJ, 935, 35

    2022

  64. [72]

    2019, ApJ, 874, 60

    Steinpilz, T., Teiser, J., & Wurm, G. 2019, ApJ, 874, 60

    2019

  65. [73]

    P., Lodato, G., et al

    Tabone, B., Rosotti, G. P., Lodato, G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, L74

    2022

  66. [74]

    P., Trapman, L., et al

    Tabone, B., Rosotti, G. P., Trapman, L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 7

    2025

  67. [75]

    Takeuchi, T., & Lin, D. N. C. 2002, ApJ, 581, 1344

    2002

  68. [76]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 5117

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

    2021

  69. [77]

    F., et al

    Testi, L., Natta, A., Manara, C. F., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A98

    2022

  70. [78]

    G., Rosotti, G., & Trapman, L

    Toci, C., Lodato, G., Livio, F. G., Rosotti, G., & Trapman, L. 2023, MNRAS, 518, L69

    2023

  71. [79]

    M., Birnstiel, T., & Wilner, D

    Tripathi, A., Andrews, S. M., Birnstiel, T., & Wilner, D. J. 2017, ApJ, 845, 44 van der Marel, N., & Pinilla, P. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.09077

    2017 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Villenave, M., M´ enard, F., Dent, W. R. F., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A164

    2020

  73. [81]

    R., Duchˆ ene, G., et al

    Villenave, M., Stapelfeldt, K. R., Duchˆ ene, G., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 11

    2022

  74. [82]

    T., Trapman, L., et al

    Vioque, M., Kurtovic, N. T., Trapman, L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 9 19

    2025

  75. [83]

    2011, ApJ, 737, 36

    Yamamoto, T. 2011, ApJ, 737, 36

    2011

  76. [84]

    G., & Brandt, R

    Warren, S. G., & Brandt, R. E. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 113, doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009744. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10. 1029/2007JD009744

    2008 doi

  77. [85]

    Pessah, M. E. 2018, ApJ, 854, 153

    2018

  78. [86]

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

    1977

  79. [87]

    J., Booth, R

    Winter, A. J., Booth, R. A., & Clarke, C. J. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 5522

    2018

  80. [88]

    2017, A&A, 608, A134

    Yen, H.-W., Takakuwa, S., Chu, Y.-H., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A134

    2017

  81. [89]

    A., Rodr ´ ıguez, L

    Zapata, L. A., Rodr ´ ıguez, L. F., Fern´ andez-L´ opez, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 896, 132

    2020

  82. [90]

    M., Pascucci, I., et al

    Zhang, K., P´ erez, L. M., Pascucci, I., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 1

    2025

  83. [91]

    P., & Andrews, S

    Zormpas, A., Birnstiel, T., Rosotti, G. P., & Andrews, S. M. 2022, A&A, 661, A66

    2022

  84. [92]

    G., Mennella, V., Colangeli, L., & Bussoletti, E

    Zubko, V. G., Mennella, V., Colangeli, L., & Bussoletti, E. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 1321

    1996

  85. [93]

    2023, European Physical Journal Plus, 138, 411 20 Kurtovic, G´arate, Pinilla, et al

    Zurlo, A., Gratton, R., P´ erez, S., & Cieza, L. 2023, European Physical Journal Plus, 138, 411 20 Kurtovic, G´arate, Pinilla, et al. APPENDIX A. SYNTHETIC OBSER V ATIONS: COMPARISON WITH CLEAN IMAGES There are three main products to consider when generating an image from inte...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.