pith. sign in

arxiv: 2601.15285 · v2 · pith:B7ZF5AUDnew · submitted 2026-01-21 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

A radially broad collisional cascade in the debris disk of γ Ophiuchi observed by JWST

Yinuo Han , Mark Wyatt , Kate Y. L. Su , Antranik A. Sefilian , Joshua B. Lovell , Carlos del Burgo , Jonathan P. Marshall , Sebastian Marino
show 8 more authors
David J. Wilner Brenda C. Matthews Max Sommer A. Meredith Hughes John M. Carpenter Meredith A. MacGregor Nicole Pawellek Thomas Henning
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 15:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords debris diskγ OphiuchiJWST MIRIcollisional cascadeplanetesimal beltmid-infrared imagingdisk asymmetry
0
0 comments X

The pith

The mid-infrared radial profile of the γ Ophiuchi debris disk indicates a single radially broad steady-state collisional cascade with uniform grain sizes throughout.

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

JWST/MIRI imaging at 15 and 25.5 microns shows smooth emission extending to at least 250 AU around the A1V star γ Ophiuchi. When this is combined with prior ALMA data, the observations point to dust production via collisions operating across a wide radial span rather than material displaced outward from a narrow source region. A reader would care because this implies the underlying planetesimals themselves are distributed from tens of AU out to well beyond 200 AU, altering expectations for how such belts form and evolve in other systems.

Core claim

JWST/MIRI imaging at 15 and 25.5 μm reveals smooth and radially broad emission extending to a radius of at least 250 au at 25.5 μm. Combined with prior ALMA imaging, the mid-infrared radial profile suggests a radially broad steady-state collisional cascade with the same grain size distribution throughout the disk. This implies the system is populated by a radially broad planetesimal belt from tens of au or less to well over 200 au, rather than a narrow planetesimal belt from which the observed dust is displaced to appear broad.

What carries the argument

Radially broad steady-state collisional cascade maintaining the same grain size distribution at all radii, which accounts for the observed smooth mid-infrared brightness profile without requiring outward transport from a narrow belt.

If this is right

  • The disk contains planetesimals distributed from inner regions outward to beyond 200 AU.
  • The observed asymmetry corresponds to a disk eccentricity of roughly 0.03 that can be induced by a planet.
  • No resolvable radial gap is expected from the proposed planetary companion.
  • The breadth does not require recent dynamical stirring or separate dust populations to explain it.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar broad belts may exist undetected in other debris disks previously modeled as narrow rings with scattered dust.
  • Additional infrared or submillimeter observations at varying resolutions could test whether grain properties stay constant across the full extent.
  • The small eccentricity opens the possibility of detecting a low-mass planet at tens of AU through continued monitoring of the offset.

Load-bearing premise

The smooth radial brightness profile arises from one steady-state collisional cascade with uniform grain sizes at every radius rather than multiple components, recent events, or wavelength-dependent effects.

What would settle it

High-resolution multi-wavelength data that show grain sizes varying with radius or reveal distinct ringed structures at mid-infrared wavelengths would falsify the single uniform cascade interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.15285 by A. Meredith Hughes, Antranik A. Sefilian, Brenda C. Matthews, Carlos del Burgo, David J. Wilner, John M. Carpenter, Jonathan P. Marshall, Joshua B. Lovell, Kate Y. L. Su, Mark Wyatt, Max Sommer, Meredith A. MacGregor, Nicole Pawellek, Sebastian Marino, Thomas Henning, Yinuo Han.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: PSF-subtracted MIRI F2550W (top row) and F1500W (bottom row) images. The left column subtracts off a point source centred on the star scaled to the stellar flux density inferred from the SED (205 mJy for F2550W and 591 mJy for F1500W; see Section 5.3 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Gallery of nonparametric and parametric models fitted to the MIRI F2550W PSF-subtracted (assuming stellar SED flux) image of γ Oph. Each group of 3 panels displays the PSF-convolved disk-only model image (i.e., stellar component not included, displayed on a logarithmic colour scale, to be compared with the top-left panel in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Gaussian model fitted to the MIRI F1500W image of γ Oph. The panels are the same as those described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: ALMA Band 7 observations presented in S. Marino et al. (2026), imaged with clean using a robust parameter of 2.0 and with primary beam correction ap￾plied. The beam FWHM is indicated with a white ellipse in the bottom-left corner. Contours are drawn at 0.06, 0.12 and 0.15 mJy arcsec−2 based on the image smoothed with a 1 arcsec UV taper. (15 au) than the REASONS observations. A clean im￾age of the ALMA obs… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The SED of γ Oph. The photometric data points were collected from Hipparcos ( ESA 1997; E. Høg et al. 2000), the J. C. Mermilliod (2006) UBV catalogue, 2MASS (R. M. Cutri et al. 2003), Gaia ( Gaia Collaboration et al. 2018), AKARI (D. Ishihara et al. 2010), WISE (E. L. Wright et al. 2010), Spitzer (K. Y. L. Su et al. 2006; C. H. Chen et al. 2014; IRSA & SSC 2020), Herschel (G. L. Pilbratt et al. 2010; N. P… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Constraints on the mass (left axis), eccentricity (right axis) and semimajor axis of a hypothetical planet re￾quired to explain the stellocentric offset of the disk. Lower bounds in the mass–semimajor axis parameter space are plot￾ted with thick lines and upper bounds with thin lines. Ori￾gins of lower bounds include a sufficiently fast secular pertur￾bation timescale such that the disk becomes eccentric w… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Radial surface brightness profiles at the ALMA Band 7 (left), MIRI F2550W (middle) and MIRI F1500W (right) wavelengths. Solid lines indicate deconvolved and deprojected disk-only (i.e., star-subtracted) profiles fitted directly to observa￾tions at the corresponding wavelength, with an exception being the F1500W profile, which is the PSF-convolved profile measured directly by azimuthally averaging the (star… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The geometric optical depth profile of the debris disk of γ Oph inferred from surface brightness profiles shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The azimuthally averaged F2550W (left) and F1500W (right) radial profiles measured from the PSF-subtracted (assuming SED flux) image, which are displayed in solid blue lines. The black dotted lines correspond to the PSF observations scaled to match the radial profile of the disk at its centre. Farhat, M. A., Sefilian, A. A., & Touma, J. R. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 2067, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad316 Foreman-Mackey, … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The A1V star $\gamma$ Oph, at a distance of 29.7 pc, is known from Spitzer imaging to host a debris disk with a large radial extent and from its spectral energy distribution to host inner warm dust. We imaged $\gamma$ Oph with JWST/MIRI at 15 and 25.5 $\mu$m, revealing smooth and radially broad emission that extends to a radius of at least 250 au at 25.5 $\mu$m. In contrast to JWST findings of an inner small-grain component with distinct ringed structures in Fomalhaut and Vega, the mid-infrared radial profile combined with prior ALMA imaging suggests a radially broad steady-state collisional cascade with the same grain size distribution throughout the disk. This further suggests that the system is populated by a radially broad planetesimal belt from tens of au or less to well over 200 au, rather than a narrow planetesimal belt from which the observed dust is displaced to appear broad. The disk is also found to be asymmetric, which could be modelled by a stellocentric offset corresponding to a small eccentricity of $\sim$0.03. Such a disk eccentricity could be induced by a mildly eccentric $<10\,M_\mathrm{Jup}$ giant planet outside 10 au, or a more eccentric companion up to stellar mass at a few au, without producing a resolvable radial gap in the disk.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents new JWST/MIRI observations of the γ Ophiuchi debris disk at 15 and 25.5 μm, revealing smooth, radially broad mid-infrared emission extending to at least 250 au. Combined with existing ALMA millimeter imaging, the authors interpret the lack of substructure and the radial profile as evidence for a single steady-state collisional cascade with a spatially invariant grain size distribution n(a) ∝ a^{-q} from tens of au to beyond 200 au. This leads to the conclusion that the system hosts a radially broad planetesimal belt rather than a narrow source region with outward dust displacement. The disk is also found to be asymmetric and is modeled with a small eccentricity of ~0.03, potentially induced by a low-mass planet.

Significance. If the central interpretation holds, the result provides important evidence that some debris disks are populated by extended planetesimal belts rather than narrow rings with migrated dust, contrasting with the ringed inner components reported for Fomalhaut and Vega. The multi-wavelength comparison between JWST mid-IR and ALMA data is a clear strength, and the eccentricity modeling offers testable predictions for unseen companions. The work highlights JWST's ability to map smooth dust distributions at wavelengths sensitive to small grains.

major comments (2)
  1. [Discussion] The interpretation in the discussion that the smooth JWST radial brightness profiles, when combined with ALMA data, demonstrate a radially broad steady-state collisional cascade with uniform grain size distribution at all radii is not supported by quantitative forward modeling. No synthetic radial profiles are presented for the alternative hypothesis of a narrow planetesimal belt plus PR-drag or collisional migration, nor for a radially varying q(r) or wavelength-dependent optical depth effects. Without such comparisons, the smoothness alone does not yet exclude scenarios that could mimic breadth, which is load-bearing for the claim that the planetesimal belt itself is radially extended.
  2. [§3] §3 (Observations and Data Reduction): the manuscript does not provide sufficient detail on background subtraction, PSF modeling, or the quantitative fitting procedure used to extract the mid-IR surface-brightness profiles. These steps are essential to assess whether the reported smoothness and lack of ringed substructure are robust against instrumental or reduction artifacts, directly affecting the central claim that the profile indicates a single broad cascade.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'prior ALMA imaging' without a specific citation; adding the reference to the ALMA data source would improve traceability.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions for the radial profiles should explicitly state the radial binning, uncertainty estimation method, and any masking applied to the asymmetric features.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed report, which has helped us improve the clarity and robustness of the manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating the revisions made.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Discussion] The interpretation in the discussion that the smooth JWST radial brightness profiles, when combined with ALMA data, demonstrate a radially broad steady-state collisional cascade with uniform grain size distribution at all radii is not supported by quantitative forward modeling. No synthetic radial profiles are presented for the alternative hypothesis of a narrow planetesimal belt plus PR-drag or collisional migration, nor for a radially varying q(r) or wavelength-dependent optical depth effects. Without such comparisons, the smoothness alone does not yet exclude scenarios that could mimic breadth, which is load-bearing for the claim that the planetesimal belt itself is radially extended.

    Authors: We agree that the central claim would be strengthened by direct quantitative comparisons to alternative models. The original manuscript presented the interpretation based on the observed smoothness at mid-IR wavelengths combined with the ALMA millimeter data and the absence of ring-like substructure, arguing this is most consistent with a single broad collisional cascade. However, we acknowledge that explicit forward modeling of narrow-belt plus migration scenarios was not included. In the revised manuscript we have added a new paragraph in the discussion section that provides simple analytic estimates of the radial surface-brightness profiles expected under Poynting-Robertson drag and collisional migration from a narrow source. These estimates indicate that such models would produce a more centrally peaked distribution or steeper outer fall-off than observed, which is inconsistent with the smooth JWST profiles. We have also noted the limitations of these analytic approximations and stated that full numerical simulations remain beyond the present scope. We believe this addition addresses the concern while preserving the original conclusion as the most parsimonious interpretation of the multi-wavelength data. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§3] §3 (Observations and Data Reduction): the manuscript does not provide sufficient detail on background subtraction, PSF modeling, or the quantitative fitting procedure used to extract the mid-IR surface-brightness profiles. These steps are essential to assess whether the reported smoothness and lack of ringed substructure are robust against instrumental or reduction artifacts, directly affecting the central claim that the profile indicates a single broad cascade.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting the need for greater methodological transparency. In the revised version of the manuscript we have expanded §3 with additional subsections that now describe: (i) the background subtraction procedure, including the choice of off-source regions, any polynomial fitting applied, and checks for residual artifacts; (ii) the PSF modeling approach, specifying the reference star observations used, the scaling and subtraction method, and validation against the expected diffraction-limited core; and (iii) the quantitative fitting procedure for the surface-brightness profiles, including the functional form adopted, the fitting algorithm, the radial binning scheme, and how uncertainties were estimated from both photon noise and systematic residuals. These additions should enable readers to evaluate the robustness of the reported smoothness and lack of substructure. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained against external data

full rationale

The paper's core interpretation—that the smooth JWST 15/25.5 μm radial profiles combined with prior ALMA imaging indicate a single radially broad steady-state collisional cascade with spatially invariant grain size distribution—rests on direct observational comparison rather than any quantity defined in terms of itself or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The suggestion of a broad planetesimal belt follows from the observed extent and lack of substructure without forward-modeling loops or self-citation chains that bear the central load. External ALMA data and standard collisional cascade expectations provide independent benchmarks, rendering the argument non-circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The interpretation relies on standard debris-disk modeling assumptions; the eccentricity is introduced as a fitted parameter to account for asymmetry.

free parameters (1)
  • disk eccentricity = ~0.03
    Fitted value of approximately 0.03 used to reproduce the observed stellocentric offset and asymmetry.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The observed mid-IR emission traces a steady-state collisional cascade with radially constant grain size distribution
    Invoked to explain the smooth radial profile without rings or gaps.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5863 in / 1308 out tokens · 102270 ms · 2026-05-21T15:33:41.112934+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The multi-wavelength vertical structure of the archetypal $\beta$ Pictoris debris disk

    astro-ph.EP 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    The β Pictoris debris disk is on average 1.5 times thicker vertically in the mid-infrared than at millimeter wavelengths, with a relatively constant scale height across radius and warping consistent with secular pertu...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 101 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    H., et al

    Argyriou, I., Lage, C., Rieke, G. H., et al. 2023, A&A, 680, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346490 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346490 2023

  2. [2]

    P., Su, K

    Ballering, N. P., Su, K. Y. L., Rieke, G. H., & G´ asp´ ar, A. 2016, ApJ, 823, 108, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/108

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/108 2016

  3. [3]

    F., & Huffman, D

    Bohren, C. F., & Huffman, D. R. 1983, Absorption and scattering of light by small particles (Wiley)

    work page 1983

  4. [4]

    A., Lamy, P

    Burns, J. A., Lamy, P. L., & Soter, S. 1979, Icarus, 40, 1, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(79)90050-2

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(79)90050-2 1979

  5. [5]

    2024,, 1.14.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6984365

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2025, JWST Calibration Pipeline, 1.18.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6984365

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.6984365 2025

  6. [6]

    2016, A&A, 589, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527484

    Chelli, A., Duvert, G., Bourg` es, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 589, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527484

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527484 2016

  7. [7]

    H., Mittal, T., Kuchner, M., et al

    Chen, C. H., Mittal, T., Kuchner, M., et al. 2014, ApJS, 211, 25, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/25

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/25 2014

  8. [8]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, 2MASS All Sky Catalog of point sources.,

    work page 2003

  9. [9]

    M., Carter, E

    Daley, C., Hughes, A. M., Carter, E. S., et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1074

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1074 2019

  10. [10]

    J., & Hillenbrand, L

    David, T. J., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2015, ApJ, 804, 146, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/146

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/804/2/146 2015

  11. [11]

    Dohnanyi, J. S. 1969, J. Geophys. Res., 74, 2531, doi: 10.1029/JB074i010p02531

    work page doi:10.1029/jb074i010p02531 1969

  12. [12]

    P., Mora, A., et al

    Eiroa, C., Marshall, J. P., Mora, A., et al. 2013, A&A, 555, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321050 ESA, ed. 1997, ESA Special Publication, Vol. 1200, The HIPPARCOS and TYCHO catalogues. Astrometric and photometric star catalogues derived from the ESA HIPPARCOS Space Astrometry Mission 18 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Radius (au) 10 2 10 1 100 101 102 S...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321050 2013

  13. [13]

    A., Sefilian, A

    Farhat, M. A., Sefilian, A. A., & Touma, J. R. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 2067, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad316

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad316 2023

  14. [14]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  15. [15]

    F., Pearce, T

    Friebe, M. F., Pearce, T. D., & L¨ ohne, T. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 4441, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac664 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 G´ asp´ ar, A., Rieke, G. H., & Ballering, N. 2016, ApJ, 826, 171, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/171 G´ asp´ ar, A., Su, K. Y. L., Rieke, G. H., et al....

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac664 2022

  16. [16]

    V., Booth, M., & L¨ ohne, T

    Geiler, F., Krivov, A. V., Booth, M., & L¨ ohne, T. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 332, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3160

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3160 2019

  17. [17]

    2026, A&A, 705, A196, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556450

    Han, Y., Mansell, E., Jennings, J., et al. 2026, A&A, 705, A196, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556450

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556450 2026

  18. [18]

    C., & Marino, S

    Han, Y., Wyatt, M. C., & Marino, S. 2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf282

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf282 2025

  19. [19]

    C., & Matr` a, L

    Han, Y., Wyatt, M. C., & Matr` a, L. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 4921, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac373

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac373 2022

  20. [20]

    2024, What causes warm dust interior to planetesimal belts?,, JWST Proposal

    Han, Y., Wyatt, M., Carpenter, J., et al. 2024, What causes warm dust interior to planetesimal belts?,, JWST Proposal. Cycle 3, ID. #5709

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357–362, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  22. [22]

    C., Schneider, G., Hollenbach, D., et al

    Hines, D. C., Schneider, G., Hollenbach, D., et al. 2007, ApJL, 671, L165, doi: 10.1086/525016 Høg, E., Fabricius, C., Makarov, V. V., et al. 2000, A&A, 355, L27

    work page doi:10.1086/525016 2007

  23. [23]

    S., Matthews, B

    Holland, W. S., Matthews, B. C., Kennedy, G. M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 3606, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1378

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1378 2017

  24. [24]

    M., Duchˆ ene, G., & Matthews, B

    Hughes, A. M., Duchˆ ene, G., & Matthews, B. C. 2018, ARAA, 56, 541, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-052035

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-052035 2018

  25. [25]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing In Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    work page 2007

  26. [26]

    O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al

    Husser, T. O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058 Imaz Blanco, A., Marino, S., Matr` a, L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 6150, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1221 IRSA, & SSC. 2020, Spitzer Enhanced Imaging Products,, NASA IPAC DataSet, IRSA433 doi: 10.26131/IRSA433

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219058 2013

  27. [27]

    2010, A&A, 514, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913811

    Ishihara, D., Onaka, T., Kataza, H., et al. 2010, A&A, 514, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913811

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913811 2010

  28. [28]

    R., Pawellek, N., Zander, J., et al

    Jankovic, M. R., Pawellek, N., Zander, J., et al. 2026, A&A, 705, A204, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556637

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556637 2026

  29. [29]

    R., Wyatt, M

    Jankovic, M. R., Wyatt, M. C., & L¨ ohne, T. 2024, A&A, 691, A302, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451080

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451080 2024

  30. [30]

    Clarke, C. J. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3209, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1365

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1365 2020

  31. [31]

    J., Loeb, A., & Hernquist, L

    Kennedy, G. M., & Wyatt, M. C. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 1253, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16528.x 19

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16528.x 2010

  32. [32]

    2022, A&A, 657, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142146

    Kervella, P., Arenou, F., & Th´ evenin, F. 2022, A&A, 657, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142146

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142146 2022

  33. [33]

    Krivov, A. V. 2010, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 10, 383, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/10/5/001

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/10/5/001 2010

  34. [34]

    V., & Wyatt, M

    Krivov, A. V., & Wyatt, M. C. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 718, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2385

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2385 2021

  35. [35]

    J., & Chiang, E

    Lee, E. J., & Chiang, E. 2016, ApJ, 827, 125, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/125

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/827/2/125 2016

  36. [36]

    Li, A., & Greenberg, J. M. 1997, A&A, 323, 566

    work page 1997

  37. [37]

    B., Hales, A

    Lovell, J. B., Hales, A. S., Kennedy, G. M., et al. 2026, A&A, 705, A200, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556568

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556568 2026

  38. [38]

    B., & Lynch, E

    Lovell, J. B., & Lynch, E. M. 2023, MNRAS, 525, L36, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad083

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slad083 2023

  39. [39]

    B., Marino, S., Wyatt, M

    Lovell, J. B., Marino, S., Wyatt, M. C., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 1978, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1678

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1678 2021

  40. [40]

    M., & Lovell, J

    Lynch, E. M., & Lovell, J. B. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 2538, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3566

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3566 2022

  41. [41]

    A., Matr` a, L., Kalas, P., et al

    MacGregor, M. A., Matr` a, L., Kalas, P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa71ae

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa71ae 2017

  42. [42]

    A., Weinberger, A

    MacGregor, M. A., Weinberger, A. J., Nesvold, E. R., et al. 2019, ApJL, 877, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab21c2

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab21c2 2019

  43. [43]

    1993, Nature, 365, 819, doi: 10.1038/365819a0

    Malhotra, R. 1993, Nature, 365, 819, doi: 10.1038/365819a0

    work page doi:10.1038/365819a0 1993

  44. [44]

    Mamajek, E. E. 2012, ApJL, 754, L20, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/L20

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/l20 2012

  45. [45]

    2021, MNRAS, 503, 5100, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab771

    Marino, S. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 5100, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab771

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab771 2021

  46. [46]

    M., et al

    Marino, S., Matr` a, L., Hughes, A. M., et al. 2026, A&A, 705, A195, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556489

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556489 2026

  47. [47]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 1257, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz049

    Marino, S., Yelverton, B., Booth, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1257, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz049

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz049 2019

  48. [48]

    C., et al

    Marino, S., Carpenter, J., Wyatt, M. C., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 5423, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1790

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1790 2018

  49. [49]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 1319, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2386

    Marino, S., Zurlo, A., Faramaz, V., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 1319, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2386

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2386 2020

  50. [50]

    2025a, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1990

    Peimbert, A. 2025a, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1990

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1990

  51. [51]

    P., Wang, L., Kennedy, G

    Marshall, J. P., Wang, L., Kennedy, G. M., Zeegers, S. T., & Scicluna, P. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 6168, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3917

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3917 2021

  52. [52]

    P., Milli, J., Choquet, E., et al

    Marshall, J. P., Milli, J., Choquet, E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 5940, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad913

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad913 2023

  53. [53]

    P., Hengst, S., Young, R., et al

    Marshall, J. P., Hengst, S., Young, R., et al. 2025b, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2221 Matr` a, L., Wyatt, M. C., Wilner, D. J., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab06c0 Matr` a, L., Dent, W. R. F., Wilner, D. J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba0a4 Matr` a, L., Marino, S., Wilner, D. J., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A151...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf2221 2019

  54. [54]

    Mermilliod, J. C. 2006, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Homogeneous Means in the UBV System (Mermilliod 1991),, VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/168. Originally published in: Institut d’Astronomie, Universite de Lausanne (1991)

    work page 2006

  55. [55]

    2026, A&A, 705, A199, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556523 Mo´ or, A., K´ osp´ al,´A., ´Abrah´ am, P., et al

    Milli, J., Olofsson, J., Bonduelle, M., et al. 2026, A&A, 705, A199, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556523 Mo´ or, A., K´ osp´ al,´A., ´Abrah´ am, P., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 577, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2442

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556523 2026

  56. [56]

    K., & van de Weygaert, R

    Morbidelli, A., Emel’yanenko, V. V., & Levison, H. F. 2004, MNRAS, 355, 935, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08372.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08372.x 2004

  57. [57]

    2015, ApJ, 799, 41, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/41

    Morrison, S., & Malhotra, R. 2015, ApJ, 799, 41, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/41

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/1/41 2015

  58. [58]

    D., & Dermott, S

    Murray, C. D., & Dermott, S. F. 1999, Solar System Dynamics, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139174817

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9781139174817 1999

  59. [59]

    Cacciato, A

    Mustill, A. J., & Wyatt, M. C. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 3074, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19948.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19948.x 2012

  60. [60]

    M., Fehr, A

    Nederlander, A., Hughes, A. M., Fehr, A. J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 917, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abdd32

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abdd32 2021

  61. [61]

    2010, A&A, 518, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014444

    Nilsson, R., Liseau, R., Brandeker, A., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014444

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014444 2010

  62. [62]

    M., & Bayo, A

    Olofsson, J., Th´ ebault, P., Kennedy, G. M., & Bayo, A. 2022, A&A, 664, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243794 Olofsson et al., J. submitted, A&A

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243794 2022

  63. [63]

    Pan, M., & Schlichting, H. E. 2012, ApJ, 747, 113, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/747/2/113

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/747/2/113 2012

  64. [64]

    Pawellek, N., & Krivov, A. V. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3207, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2142

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2142 2015

  65. [65]

    V., Marshall, J

    Pawellek, N., Krivov, A. V., Marshall, J. P., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 65, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/65

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/792/1/65 2014

  66. [66]

    D., & Wyatt, M

    Pearce, T. D., & Wyatt, M. C. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 2541, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1302

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1302 2014

  67. [67]

    D., Krivov, A

    Pearce, T. D., Krivov, A. V., Sefilian, A. A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 3876, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3462

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3462 2024

  68. [68]

    L., Riedinger, J

    Pilbratt, G. L., Riedinger, J. R., Passvogel, T., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014759

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014759 2010

  69. [69]

    Plavchan, P., Jura, M., & Lipscy, S. J. 2005, ApJ, 631, 1161, doi: 10.1086/432568

    work page doi:10.1086/432568 2005

  70. [70]

    A., Hines, D

    Schneider, G., Grady, C. A., Hines, D. C., et al. 2014, AJ, 148, 59, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/148/4/59

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/148/4/59 2014

  71. [71]

    Sefilian, A. A. 2024, ApJ, 966, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad32d1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad32d1 2024

  72. [72]

    A., Kratter, K

    Sefilian, A. A., Kratter, K. M., Wyatt, M. C., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 3123, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1555

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1555 2025

  73. [73]

    A., Rafikov, R

    Sefilian, A. A., Rafikov, R. R., & Wyatt, M. C. 2021, ApJ, 910, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abda46

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abda46 2021

  74. [74]

    A., Rafikov, R

    Sefilian, A. A., Rafikov, R. R., & Wyatt, M. C. 2023, ApJ, 954, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace68e 20

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace68e 2023

  75. [75]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, L116, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw143

    Shannon, A., Bonsor, A., Kral, Q., & Matthews, E. 2016, MNRAS, 462, L116, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw143

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slw143 2016

  76. [76]

    2025, MNRAS, 539, 439, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf494

    Sommer, M., Wyatt, M., & Han, Y. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 439, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf494

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf494 2025

  77. [77]

    R., Holmes, E

    Stapelfeldt, K. R., Holmes, E. K., Chen, C., et al. 2004, ApJS, 154, 458, doi: 10.1086/423135

    work page doi:10.1086/423135 2004

  78. [78]

    E., & Chiang, E

    Strubbe, L. E., & Chiang, E. I. 2006, ApJ, 648, 652, doi: 10.1086/505736

    work page doi:10.1086/505736 2006

  79. [79]

    Su, K. Y. L., Rieke, G. H., Stapelfeldt, K. R., et al. 2008, ApJL, 679, L125, doi: 10.1086/589508

    work page doi:10.1086/589508 2008

  80. [80]

    Su, K. Y. L., Rieke, G. H., Misselt, K. A., et al. 2005, ApJ, 628, 487, doi: 10.1086/430819

    work page doi:10.1086/430819 2005

Showing first 80 references.