Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Infall Explains the Disk Kinematics of AB Aur Without Gravitational Instability

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that infalling streamers of gas, not gravitational instability, can produce the radially converging gas flows and channel-map wiggles seen around the spiral arms of AB Aur.

desk verdict A plausible and important kinematic degeneracy: infall can mimic GI's convergent-flow signature, but the paper's AB Aur-specific claim is underdetermined by a qualitative comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.05601 v2 pith:WEHNXYP5 submitted 2025-10-07 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Josh Calcino , Daniel J. Price , Chris W. Ormel This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords protoplanetarydisksinfallstreamersgravitationalinstabilityspiralarmskinematicsABAurhydrodynamicalsimulations
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 the spiral arms and kinematic perturbations seen in the disk around AB Aur, previously attributed to gravitational instability (GI), could be produced instead by gas falling onto the disk. Using 3D hydrodynamical simulations of infalling streamers and radiative transfer to make synthetic observations, the authors find that streamer impact creates spiral arms with radially converging gas flows, channel-map wiggles, and non-Keplerian arcs—signatures that had been considered hallmarks of GI or planetary wakes, even though disk self-gravity is not included. They conclude that the radially converging flow signature around AB Aur's spiral arms is not uniquely attributable to GI, and that a unified model with infall onto a central binary can explain the observed CO morphology and kinematics, scattered-light spirals, and millimeter continuum. The stakes: if correct, kinematic evidence alone cannot discriminate between GI and infall in disks that are actively accreting late-stage material.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the infalling streamer, modeled as an elliptical filament on a parabolic orbit; its shock against the disk launches spiral arms and pushes the disk away from hydrostatic equilibrium. The depleted region between shock fronts is then refilled by radially converging flows, which produce the kinematic signature at the center of the spiral arms. The authors decompose synthetic observations into radial, azimuthal, and vertical velocity contributions to isolate which component creates the observable wiggles and arcs, showing radial and vertical motions dominate.

What would settle it

Measure the actual masses and infall rates of AB Aur's two observed streamers; if the combined infall rate is an order of magnitude below the simulated ~3.5e-7 solar masses per year, the converging-flow signature would be too weak to explain the observed residuals. Alternatively, a decade-baseline measurement of the spiral pattern speeds yielding a single pattern speed would argue against the infall-only explanation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Spiral arms generated by infalling streamers produce radial velocity perturbations that converge toward the spiral centers, vertical velocity perturbations coherent over large azimuthal ranges, and wiggles in molecular-line iso-velocity curves—the same kinematic fingerprints often used to claim gravitational instability. The paper shows this in hydrodynamic simulations with no self-gravity, so the mechanism is purely the disk's response to infall: the collision and shock of streamer material creates density depletions that the disk refills with converging radial flows. Applied to AB Aur, the simulated moment-1 residuals reproduce the observed radially converging flows around the scattered-li

Load-bearing premise

The inference depends on the idealized simulation setup—particular streamer masses, orientations, locally isothermal gas, and no self-gravity or magnetic fields—matching the real conditions in AB Aur closely enough that the observed radial and vertical velocity residuals are reproduced.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Kinematic signatures alone, including radially converging flows, cannot prove gravitational instability in a disk that is actively receiving infall.
  • AB Aur's spiral arms may be explained without a gravitationally unstable disk, easing the requirement for high disk mass.
  • Disk mass estimates that rely on deviations from Keplerian rotation under quasi-steady-state assumptions may be biased in systems with ongoing infall.
  • Disentangling GI from infall will likely require multi-wavelength observations, such as decade-baseline pattern speed measurements of the spiral arms.
  • Large-scale non-Keplerian arcs and filaments observed in other disks could also be infall-related rather than produced by flybys or planets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the infall mimicry holds, every disk with observed streamers becomes ambiguous: GI interpretations of spirals in such systems should be revisited with infall models first.
  • The underlying mechanism—shock-driven depletion followed by refilling flows—suggests the converging-flow signature depends on the infall rate and streamer mass; mapping this parameter space would give observers a diagnostic to separate infall and GI.
  • The paper's unified model implies a testable prediction: a low-mass inner companion in AB Aur (within roughly 40–45 au) should be detectable with high-resolution imaging, since the binary is invoked to explain the inner cavity and kinematics.
  • A decisive test would be measuring the pattern speeds of AB Aur's spirals over a decade; the infall model predicts a spread of speeds including super-Keplerian, whereas GI predicts a single pattern speed.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses 3D smoothed-particle hydrodynamics (Phantom) simulations of late-stage infall of streamers onto a protoplanetary disk, followed by radiative transfer (MCFOST) and mock 13CO line observations, to study the kinematic signatures of infall. It finds that infall produces spiral arms with radial and vertical velocity residuals that are radially converging around the arms, wiggles in channel maps, and large-scale arcs. These features resemble previously identified signatures of gravitational instability (GI). For a two-streamer simulation (Run 2) tuned to AB Aur, the authors compare synthetic scattered-light, moment-0, and moment-1 maps to VLT/SPHERE and ALMA observations and argue that the observed radially converging flows in AB Aur can be explained by infall without invoking GI. They further suggest a unified model with an inner binary, while noting that the binary was not simulated.

Significance. The paper addresses an important and timely ambiguity in interpreting disk kinematics: distinguishing gravitational instability from infall in a well-known disk, AB Aur. The simulations use standard, well-documented tools, and the decomposition of which velocity component produces which observable is a useful and reproducible contribution. The radially converging flow around infall-induced spirals is an emergent outcome of the hydrodynamics rather than a fitted parameter, and the synthetic observations include realistic beam and noise. If substantiated quantitatively, the result would weaken the GI interpretation of AB Aur's spiral kinematics and strengthen the case for late-stage accretion as a driver of disk structure. However, the key comparison to observations is qualitative, the model is tuned to the target, and the strongest claims in the title and abstract exceed what the analysis actually demonstrates. The paper is of interest to the disk-formation community and, with substantial revision, could become acceptable.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.3, Fig. 4, Eq. (1)] The central claim that infall explains AB Aur's kinematics without GI rests on the visual resemblance between the bottom row of Fig. 4 (Run 2 at t~11000 yr) and the AB Aur moment-1/moment-0 residuals. No quantitative match statistic is given, no GI model is processed with the same filtering pipeline, and the kernel parameters (w0=25, gamma=0.25 in Eq. 1) and the snapshot are selected to produce the match. Since Fig. 3 shows that the residual pattern evolves strongly with snapshot, a sensitivity test over kernel width and snapshot time, or a quantitative comparison metric, is needed to establish that the converging flows are a robust property of the infall model rather than a tuning artifact.
  2. [Sec. 2.2, Table 1] The streamer masses, elliptic axes, pericenter distances, inclinations, and relative orientation in Run 2 are chosen to match the two streamers observed in AB Aur (Speedie et al. 2025). The disk mass, viscosity, and stellar parameters are likewise set to AB Aur values. The similarity in Fig. 4 is therefore partly constructed, not predicted. The paper should test whether the radially converging signature occurs for a range of streamer masses (e.g., within a factor of a few) and geometries, or present an ensemble demonstration. Without this, the mechanism is plausible but it is not shown to be generic or robust.
  3. [Sec. 4.2 and Abstract] The abstract states that 'a unified model invoking infall onto a central binary can explain the CO morphology and kinematics, scattered light spirals, and mm-continuum emission in AB Aur'; however, no binary is included in the simulations. The text concedes that an inner binary 'would likely help resolve the mismatch in the innermost 0.5"' and that the 13CO cavity is not reproduced in the model. The unified model is therefore not actually demonstrated. This overclaim should either be supported by a simulation that includes the binary or removed/qualified.
  4. [Sec. 3.2.1, Fig. 2] The decomposition in Fig. 2 shows that wiggles arise from v_r and arcs from v_z, and the text claims these are 'analogous to those produced by GI.' However, no GI simulation is run through the same post-processing pipeline, and the comparison rests on visual similarity to literature images (e.g., Hall et al. 2020). A side-by-side, like-for-like comparison of infall and GI channel maps, or a quantitative morphology metric, is needed to support the claimed degeneracy.
  5. [Sec. 4.2 and Title] The title and abstract state that the disk kinematics of AB Aur can be explained 'without gravitational instability,' but Sec. 4.2 explicitly says 'this result does not preclude the existence of GI' and that 'kinematic evidence alone is not sufficient evidence to prove GI.' The strong claim in the title is not supported by the analysis, which is better summarized as 'infall can mimic GI-like kinematics.' This mismatch should be corrected.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Affiliations and Abstract] Affiliation 1: 'Being' should be 'Beijing'; abstract: 'produce' should be 'produced'.
  2. [Figure 3] The axis labels in Fig. 3 appear garbled (e.g., 'TΣffial Intenflfiffiff'), likely a LaTeX rendering issue that should be fixed.
  3. [Sec. 3.3] The choice of t~11000 yr for Run 2 is not justified beyond 'for our match to AB Aur.' A brief rationale (e.g., time when the two streamers have interacted and the spiral pattern is quasi-steady) would improve reproducibility.
  4. [References] Hall et al. (2020) is cited as an arXiv e-print; if a peer-reviewed version exists, it should be cited.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the converging-flow signature is an emergent hydrodynamical output, not a fitted input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (i) initialize a locally isothermal, non-self-gravitating disk plus elliptical parabolic streamers (§2.1–2.2, Table 1); (ii) run SPH and find that radial/vertical velocity perturbations co-locate with infall-driven spirals (§3.1); (iii) construct mock observations, decompose the velocity components, and show the radial component produces the channel-map wiggles and the vertical component the arc (§3.2); (iv) process model and AB Aur data with the same residual filter and compare qualitatively (§3.3). The load-bearing result—radially converging flows around infall spirals—is an emergent output of the hydrodynamics: it is not a parameter fitted to the Speedie et al. (2024) residuals, and the paper independently verifies it in unfiltered channel maps via the velocity decomposition. The streamer geometry is indeed chosen to resemble AB Aur's observed streamers ('In AB Aur, two distinct streamers are observed interacting and merging with the disk ... Thus, in the second simulation we initialize two streamers'), and the setup derives from the authors' prior work (Calcino et al. 2024a), but this is calibration of a forward model, not a reduction of the predicted kinematics to those inputs. No equation defines the target quantity in terms of itself; the residual filter (Eq. 1) is applied equally to data and model and is not used to fit the hydrodynamical velocities. Self-citations (Calcino et al. 2024a for the streamer ansatz; Longarini et al. 2025 for infall driving GI) are present but not load-bearing for the central claim. Non-circular limitations, weighed here: Sec. 4.2 concedes the inner binary was not modeled ('We did not include an inner binary in our models for simplicity but this would likely help resolve the mismatch...') while the abstract claims a 'unified model invoking infall onto a central binary' explains AB Aur; and the AB Aur comparison is qualitative (Fig. 4) with no goodness-of-fit. These affect evidential strength, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central inference depends on an idealized, manually tuned model of infall: a low-mass, locally isothermal disk (no self-gravity) with two elliptical gas streamers on parabolic orbits. The emergent kinematic signature is a genuine simulation output, but the model inputs are not independently constrained; they are selected to resemble AB Aur. No new physical entity is introduced.

free parameters (10)
  • Streamer mass (Run 2) = 1e-4 Msun per streamer
    Chosen to be 5% of disk mass each; not derived from observations or star-formation simulations.
  • Streamer ellipse axes = a=1080 au, b=36 au
    Set to approximate the observed streamer size and width in AB Aur.
  • Pericenter distance = 270 au
    Chosen so the streamer impacts the disk at the radius where the observed spirals lie.
  • Streamer inclinations = 30 deg and 50 deg (Run 2)
    Selected to produce vertical velocity perturbations and match the observed streamer geometry.
  • Disk mass = 2e-3 Msun
    Set to a value below the GI threshold; the paper argues AB Aur's disk is low-mass based on uncertain estimates.
  • Sound speed exponent = q=-0.25 (T~R^-0.5)
    Standard flared disk profile; not tuned specifically to AB Aur but an idealization.
  • Viscosity = alpha_SS ~ 2.5e-3
    Typical value for protoplanetary disks; affects spiral arm damping and residual amplitudes.
  • Stellar parameters = T_eff=9970 K, R=2.5 Rsun
    Matched to AB Aur's known stellar properties.
  • Residual kernel parameters = w0=5 pix, gamma=0.5 (Fig 3); w0=25 pix, gamma=0.25 (Fig 4)
    Chosen to replicate the high-pass filtering used by Speedie et al. (2024); not uniquely determined.
  • Snapshot time for AB Aur comparison = t~11000 yr
    Selected from a time series because it provides the best qualitative match to the observed morphology.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Locally isothermal equation of state with c_s~R^-0.25
    Adopted for simplicity; disk temperature is fixed and does not respond to shocks or compressional heating.
  • domain assumption No disk self-gravity, magnetic fields, or dust back-reaction
    Explicitly ignored (Sec. 2.1); the central claim is that infall alone can reproduce the GI signature without self-gravity, but real disks have these processes.
  • ad hoc to paper Streamers modeled as uniform ellipses on parabolic orbits
    An idealized initial condition (Sec. 2.2) chosen to mimic observed filaments, not derived from a star-formation simulation.
  • domain assumption Dust perfectly coupled to gas with a power-law grain size distribution and gas-to-dust ratio 100
    Assumed for radiative transfer (Sec. 2.3); dust dynamics could affect the gas structure in reality.
  • domain assumption 13CO abundance set to ISM value with freeze-out, photo-desorption, and photodissociation
    Standard ISM chemistry assumptions; calibration of the CO tracer could affect the synthetic channel maps.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Infall Explains the Disk Kinematics of AB Aur Without Gravitational Instability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WEHNXYP5

@misc{pith2026251005601,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Infall Explains the Disk Kinematics of AB Aur Without Gravitational Instability},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WEHNXYP5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.05601}
}
read the original abstract

Late-stage infall onto protoplanetary disks can produce large scale spiral arms. In this paper we used 3D smoothed particle hydrodynamics and radiative transfer simulations to study the kinematic perturbations induced in disks by infalling material. We found that deviations from Keplerian rotation are predominantly in the radial and vertical velocity components, spatially correlated with spiral arms in the gas surface density. The infall produces observable wiggles in the channel maps, analogous to those produce by the gravitational instability (GI), along with large-scale arcs and filaments. GI induced spiral arms produce radial velocity perturbations that point towards the center of the spiral arm owing to their higher self-gravity. We found a similar signature from infall-induced spiral arms, despite not including self-gravity in our simulation. Our study suggests that recent evidence of GI in the kinematics of the disk around AB Aur may instead be due to the observed infall, without the need for invoking GI. We further show that a unified model invoking infall onto a central binary can explain the CO morphology and kinematics, scattered light spirals, and mm-continuum emission in AB Aur.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.05601 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Vertically integrated surface density (top row), midplane radial velocities (middle row) and midplane vertical velocities (bottom row) for three snapshots of our single stream simulation (Run 1). Spiral arms generated by the initial shock front of the streamer hitting the disk are seen in the first column and are labelled S1 and S2. Spiral arms intermediate to S1 and S2 are generated due to radially converging flows… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Infall Wiggle: 13CO channel maps from Run 1 made with different assumptions on the velocity field, produced at t ∼ 7250 years (snapshot between the middle and right columns of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Polarized scattered light intensity (top row), moment 0 residuals (middle row) and moment 1 residuals (bottom row) of three simulation snapshots at times t = [5600, 7250, 8950] years. Residuals were obtained as in Speedie et al. (2024). Velocity residuals along the disk major axis show converging flows towards the location of spiral arms mapped in scattered light. ible, confirming that the large azimuthal vertical v… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The observations of AB Aur with VLT/SPHERE and ALMA (top row) with the mock versions of our model (bottom panel). In both AB Aur and our model, spiral arms seen in the scattered light correlate with patterns in the velocity residuals and spiral structures seen in the m…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Azimuthal molecular variations in the AB Aur planet-forming disk

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AB Aur's outer disk is chemically split in azimuth: SO peaks on the infall-hit north side, C2H on the south, pointing to a carbon-to-oxygen gradient.

  2. Puffed-up Edges of Planet-opened Gaps in Protoplanetary Disks. II. The Role of the Planet's Orbital Eccentricity

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Eccentric gap-opening planets enhance dust lofting at gap edges via stronger meridional circulation, make gaps leaky to dust, and produce larger, wider pebble rings than circular planets.

  3. Planet-forming disks and their environment across regions and time from the full NIR census

    astro-ph.SR 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In a 268-disk NIR census, disks embedded in ambient material show spirals and shadows but no rings, linking late infall with disk morphology, variability, and accretion.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2015, ApJ, 805, 15, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/15

    Bae, J., Hartmann, L., & Zhu, Z. 2015, ApJ, 805, 15, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/15

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/805/1/15 2015

  2. [2]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe45e 2021

  3. [3]

    R., Bonnell, I

    Bate, M. R., Bonnell, I. A., & Bromm, V. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 577, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06210.x

    arXiv 2003

  4. [4]

    R., Bonnell, I

    Bate, M. R., Bonnell, I. A., & Price, N. M. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 362, doi: 10.1093/mnras/277.2.362

    doi:10.1093/mnras/277.2.362 1995

  5. [5]

    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, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09991

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.09991 2023

  6. [6]

    2020, A&A, 637, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038008

    Boccaletti, A., Di Folco, E., Pantin, E., et al. 2020, A&A, 637, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038008

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038008 2020

  7. [7]

    J., & Pinte, C

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1145 2021

  8. [8]

    D., Simon, T., Najita, J

    Brittain, S. D., Simon, T., Najita, J. R., & Rettig, T. W. 2007, ApJ, 659, 685, doi: 10.1086/511255

    doi:10.1086/511255 2007

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    J., & Pinte, C

    Calcino, J., Christiaens, V., Price, D. J., & Pinte, C. 2021, MNRAS

    2021

  2. [10]

    J., et al

    Calcino, J., Christiaens, V., Price, D. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 639, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2468

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Hilder, T., et al

    Calcino, J., Price, D. J., Hilder, T., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.18521, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.18521

    doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    J., Pinte, C., et al

    Calcino, J., Price, D. J., Pinte, C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 5763, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1798 —. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 2579, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2770

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    J., et al

    Calcino, J., Norfolk, B., Price, D. J., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.21309, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.21309

    doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 504, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2938

    Cuello, N., Louvet, F., Mentiplay, D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 504, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2938

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 1919, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1584

    Dipierro, G., Lodato, G., Testi, L., & de Gregorio Monsalvo, I. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 1919, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1584

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    2015, MNRAS, 453, L73, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv105

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

    2015 doi

  9. [17]

    2011, AJ, 141, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/2/46

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

    2011 doi

  10. [18]

    P., K¨ uffmeier, M., Goicovic, F., et al

    Dullemond, C. P., K¨ uffmeier, M., Goicovic, F., et al. 2019, A&A, 628, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832632 Garcia Lopez, R., Natta, A., Testi, L., & Habart, E. 2006, A&A, 459, 837, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065575

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    2022, A&A, 658, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141264 10Calcino et al

    Garufi, A., Podio, L., Codella, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141264 10Calcino et al

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    G., et al

    Garufi, A., Ginski, C., van Holstein, R. G., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347586

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Goodman, J., & Rafikov, R. R. 2001, ApJ, 552, 793, doi: 10.1086/320572

    2001 doi

  14. [22]

    P., et al

    Gupta, A., Miotello, A., Williams, J. P., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A133, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348007

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2007.15686

    Hall, C., Dong, R., Teague, R., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2007.15686. https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.15686

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    M., ¨Oberg, K

    Huang, J., Andrews, S. M., ¨Oberg, K. I., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba1e1

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    A., ¨Oberg, K

    Huang, J., Bergin, E. A., ¨Oberg, K. I., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac143e

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    P., Reissl, S., & Goicovic, F

    Kuffmeier, M., Dullemond, C. P., Reissl, S., & Goicovic, F. G. 2021, A&A, 656, A161, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039614

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    2022, ApJ, 928, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac54a8

    Kuznetsova, A., Bae, J., Hartmann, L., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2022, ApJ, 928, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac54a8

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

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

    2010

  21. [29]

    Lodato, G., & Rice, W. K. M. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 1489, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08875.x

    2005

  22. [30]

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

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

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

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

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

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    Clarke, C. J. 2025, MNRAS, 541, 1145, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1018

    2025 doi

  25. [33]

    2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1884, doi: 10.21105/joss.01884

    Mentiplay, D. 2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1884, doi: 10.21105/joss.01884

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    2022, A&A, 658, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142219

    Mesa, D., Ginski, C., Gratton, R., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142219

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    2005, ApJ, 634, 1126, doi: 10.1086/497123

    Wyckoff, S. 2005, ApJ, 634, 1126, doi: 10.1086/497123

    2005 doi

  28. [36]

    Monaghan, J. J. 1992, ARA&A, 30, 543, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.002551

    1992

  29. [37]

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

    Norfolk, B. J., Pinte, C., Calcino, J., et al. 2022, ApJL, 936, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac85ed

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    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, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.10066

    2023 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.06520, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.06520 P´ erez, S., Casassus, S., & Ben ´ ıtez-Llambay, P

    Pelkonen, V.-M., Padoan, P., Juvela, M., Haugbølle, T., & Nordlund, ˚A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.06520, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.06520 P´ erez, S., Casassus, S., & Ben ´ ıtez-Llambay, P. 2018, MNRAS, 480, L12, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly109 Pi´ etu, V., Guilloteau, S., & D...

    2024 doi arXiv

  32. [40]

    J., Min, M., et al

    Pinte, C., Harries, T. J., Min, M., et al. 2009, A&A, 498, 967, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811555

    2009 doi

  33. [41]

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

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

    2006 doi

  34. [42]

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

    Pinte, C., Teague, R., Flaherty, K., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 645, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09528

    2023 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    J., M´ enard, F., et al

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

    doi

  36. [44]

    2018b, A&A, 609, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731377

    Pinte, C., M´ enard, F., Duchˆ ene, G., et al. 2018b, A&A, 609, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731377

    doi

  37. [45]

    D., Huang, J., et al

    Pinte, C., Ilee, J. D., Huang, J., et al. 2025, ApJL, 984, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc433

    2025 doi

  38. [46]

    P., Calcino, J., Cuello, N., et al

    Poblete, P. P., Calcino, J., Cuello, N., et al. 2020, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1655

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    Price, D. J. 2007, PASA, 24, 159, doi: 10.1071/AS07022 —. 2012, Journal of Computational Physics, 231, 759, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2010.12.011

    2007 doi

  40. [48]

    J., Cuello, N., Pinte, C., et al

    Price, D. J., Cuello, N., Pinte, C., et al. 2018a, MNRAS, 477, 1270, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty647

    doi

  41. [49]

    J., Wurster, J., Tricco, T

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

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

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

    2002 doi

  43. [51]

    M., et al

    Ren, B., Dong, R., Esposito, T. M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 857, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab7f5

    2018 doi

  44. [52]

    G., et al

    Ren, B., Dong, R., van Holstein, R. G., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2007.04980. https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.04980

    2020 arXiv

  45. [53]

    J., Brown, J

    Salyk, C., Herczeg, G. J., Brown, J. M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 21, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/21

    2013 doi

  46. [54]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.02196, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.02196

    Speedie, J., Dong, R., Hall, C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.02196, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.02196

    2024 doi arXiv

  47. [55]

    2025, ApJL, 981, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adb7d5

    Speedie, J., Dong, R., Teague, R., et al. 2025, ApJL, 981, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adb7d5

    2025 doi

  48. [56]

    W., Guilloteau, S., Pi´ etu, V., et al

    Tang, Y. W., Guilloteau, S., Pi´ etu, V., et al. 2012, A&A, 547, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219414

    2012 doi

  49. [57]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6af7

    Tang, Y.-W., Guilloteau, S., Dutrey, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 840, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6af7

    2017 doi

  50. [58]

    2018, bettermoments: A robust method to measure line centroids, v1.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1419754

    Teague, R., & Foreman-Mackey, D. 2018, bettermoments: A robust method to measure line centroids, v1.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1419754

    2018 doi

  51. [59]

    2025, ApJL, 984, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc43b

    Teague, R., Benisty, M., Facchini, S., et al. 2025, ApJL, 984, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc43b

    2025 doi

  52. [60]

    1964, ApJ, 139, 1217, doi: 10.1086/147861

    Toomre, A. 1964, ApJ, 139, 1217, doi: 10.1086/147861

    1964 doi

  53. [61]

    2022, ApJ, 941, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca410

    Unno, M., Hanawa, T., & Takasao, S. 2022, ApJ, 941, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca410

    2022 doi

  54. [62]

    2024, A&A, 688, A136, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348237 Infall in AB Aur11

    Veronesi, B., Longarini, C., Lodato, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A136, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348237 Infall in AB Aur11

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    2021, ApJL, 914, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abfe6a

    Veronesi, B., Paneque-Carre˜ no, T., Lodato, G., et al. 2021, ApJL, 914, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abfe6a

    2021 doi

  56. [64]

    C., & Draine, B

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

    2001 doi

  57. [65]

    L., & Rood, R

    Wilson, T. L., & Rood, R. 1994, ARA&A, 32, 191, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.32.090194.001203

    1994

  58. [66]

    J., Benisty, M., & Andrews, S

    Winter, A. J., Benisty, M., & Andrews, S. M. 2024, ApJL, 972, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6d5d

    2024 doi

  59. [67]

    J., Benisty, M., Izquierdo, A

    Winter, A. J., Benisty, M., Izquierdo, A. F., et al. 2025, ApJL, 990, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf113

    2025 doi

  60. [68]

    2021, ApJL, 906, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd241

    Xie, C., Ren, B., Dong, R., et al. 2021, ApJL, 906, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd241

    2021 doi

  61. [69]

    B., Dong, R., et al

    Xie, C., Ren, B. B., Dong, R., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346305

    2023 doi

  62. [70]

    2018, ApJL, 869, L47, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf744

    Zhang, S., Zhu, Z., Huang, J., et al. 2018, ApJL, 869, L47, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf744

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.