Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 51 references

An inclined, eccentric planet plus height-gated stellar wind can reproduce AU Mic’s fast-moving dust clumps.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-30 11:13 UTC pith:5XFKG5NC

load-bearing objection A concrete, falsifiable planet-kick + wind model for AU Mic’s clumps that produces real morphological resemblance, but rests on an ad-hoc height switch and heavy tuning. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27186 v1 pith:5XFKG5NC submitted 2026-07-29 astro-ph.EP

An Inclined, Eccentric Planet and an Inner Debris Disk Could Reproduce AU Mic Structure

Arcelia Hermosillo Ruiz , Ruth Murray-Clay , Meredith A. MacGregor , Renata Frelikh This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords debris disksAU Microscopiiplanet-disk interactionstellar windscattered lightdust dynamicsexoplanets
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

AU Mic’s edge-on debris disk shows bright clumps of small dust racing outward above the mid-plane on one side, spaced by roughly seven to ten years, with two fainter features on the other side. This paper argues that an as-yet-undiscovered inclined, eccentric planet just inside an inner dust ring can kick groups of grains upward once per orbit; once those grains rise above a threshold height, stellar wind accelerates them into the observed fast trajectories. Best-matching runs use a roughly two-Jupiter-mass planet at three to four astronomical units, eccentricity about 0.37, inclination 30 degrees, a particle ring at five to six au, and a wind-to-gravity force ratio near 1.8. Surface-brightness maps of the simulations yield arch-like, elongating features whose projected speeds, elevations, and spacing are comparable to the observed southeast clumps. If the picture is right, the clumps become a dynamical clock for a hidden outer planet rather than a pure wind or avalanche effect.

Core claim

N-body simulations with an observationally allowed planet of about two Jupiter masses at roughly 3.5 au (eccentricity 0.37, inclination 30 degrees), a coplanar particle ring between 5 and 6 au, a stellar-wind height threshold zh ≈ 0.02 r, and β ≈ 1.8 produce periodic dust ejections whose projected velocities, elevations, arch-like morphology, and ~8–9 year spacing match the AU Mic southeast clumps in qualitative and quantitative comparison.

What carries the argument

Planet–disk impulse with height-threshold stellar wind: an inclined eccentric planet delivers a vertical kick near apocenter each orbit, and stellar wind (parameterized by β) is applied only to particles that exceed zh = h r, so elevated grains are blown outward while mid-plane material is left in place.

Load-bearing premise

Stellar wind is switched on only when a grain rises above a free height threshold and off again if it falls below—an ad-hoc gate needed so the mid-plane is not cleared while the clumps escape.

What would settle it

A search that rules out a roughly Jupiter-mass planet at 3–4 au, or high-resolution maps showing no dust reservoir near 5–6 au, would remove the required periodic driver and grain source.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The AU Mic clump spacing would mark the orbital period of a still-undetected outer planet at a few au.
  • An inner disk edge near 5–6 au is a concrete prediction for higher-resolution millimeter imaging.
  • Similar planet–disk–wind coupling could explain other one-sided or fast debris features, including the Cat’s tail in β Pic.
  • Planet searches around AU Mic at a few au gain a dynamical prior from the observed clump period.
  • β ≈ 1.8 is consistent with published AU Mic wind mass-loss and speed ranges for ~0.2 μm grains.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If a two-Jupiter-mass planet warps the disk too quickly, lower-mass planets with adjusted ejection angles could still launch comparable clumps and would be harder to detect.
  • The northwest features moving toward the star may be opposite-side ejections seen at a different viewing angle—a geometry multi-epoch imaging can test.
  • The height switch is a stand-in for collisional grain production at each passage or mid-plane shielding; identifying which process operates would turn the free parameter into a derived quantity.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that an as-yet-undetected inclined, eccentric planet (fiducial values MP ≈ 2 MJ, aP ≈ 3.5 au, eP ≈ 0.37, iP ≈ 30°) interior to a narrow particle ring at ~5–6 au can periodically kick dust above the mid-plane; stellar wind with β ≈ 1.8 then accelerates those grains outward, producing the fast-moving southeast clumps of AU Mic. The stellar wind is applied only when a particle’s |z| exceeds a free threshold zh = h r (h ≈ 0.02) and is switched off again below it. Pilot N-body runs, an MCMC fit of Rd, planet period, blowout angle, β, and a time offset to the Boccaletti et al. (2018) projected distances and speeds (Table 1, Fig. 4), and a large-scale REBOUND/REBOUNDx integration are used to argue for a promising qualitative morphological and kinematic match (Figs. 6–9).

Significance. AU Mic’s fast clumps remain unexplained by existing models; a concrete, observationally allowed planet that ties the ~7–10 yr spacing to an orbital period would be a genuine advance and would motivate targeted searches at a few au. Strengths include standard N-body tooling with radiation forces, an explicit MCMC velocity fit, surface-brightness visualizations that recover arch-like morphology and projected speeds inside the observational error bars, and an unusually candid §4 discussion of self-shielding, collisional production, and secular timescales. The model is also framed as potentially relevant to other asymmetric debris disks. These are real contributions if the selective-ejection physics and long-term disk–planet coexistence can be placed on firmer ground.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2, §3.1, §4.2] The height-gated stellar-wind switch is load-bearing for the entire selective-ejection morphology, yet remains an external free parameter rather than a derived condition. In §2.2 and §3.1 the code sets β = 1.76 if |z_pt| > zh and β = 0 otherwise (checked every 0.005 yr). Section 4.2’s own estimates undermine the three motivating scenarios: fiducial mid-plane optical depth in 0.2 µm grains is τ ∼ 0.08 ≪ 1, so self-shielding fails; collisional production per passage yields ∼10^{-9} M⊕ versus an estimated clump mass ∼8 × 10^{-9} M⊕; continuous blow-out drains a 0.02 M⊕ reservoir in 10–20 Myr, comparable to the system age. Without a physically justified height dependence (or an explicit demonstration that continuous β plus a steady mid-plane supply still yields distinct elevated clumps), the mechanism either clears the inner disk or fails to isolate the observed one-sided puffs. The paper sh
  2. [§4.4; also §3.1 fiducial parameters] The preferred 2 MJ planet at ~3.5 au warps or aligns the disk on a secular timescale of ≈6000 yr (§4.4, citing Costa et al. 2024 Eqs. 6–7), orders of magnitude shorter than the ~23 Myr system age, while the simulations assume a thin, unwarped coplanar ring for 200 yr. The text notes that a ~0.01 MJ planet would push the secular time to ~10^6 yr and asserts that lower-mass planets can still produce comparable trajectories, but no such run is shown, and the MCMC/large-scale results (Table 1, Figs. 7–9) are reported only for 2 MJ. Either demonstrate with N-body that a lower-mass (or more distant) planet still recovers the observed elevations, velocities, and one-sided morphology, or quantify how recently the planet must have been scattered onto its present orbit and whether that is compatible with the observed axisymmetric mm disk.
  3. [§2.2.2, §3.2.1, abstract, §5] The kinematic and morphological match is obtained after fitting Rd, P, ω_l, β, and t_off to the clump projected distances and speeds (Table 1, Fig. 4, §2.2.2) and then rotating the viewing geometry (180° about x, 60° about z) until the edge-on appearance ‘best matches’ (§3.2.1). That is legitimate for a ‘could reproduce’ claim, but the abstract and §5 state a ‘promising qualitative match’ without conveying how much of the agreement is prior-driven. Please report (i) the range of viewing angles that still produce predominantly SE elevated clumps, (ii) whether the NW features (inward-moving, below mid-plane) arise naturally in any allowed geometry or require additional physics, and (iii) a clear statement that surface-brightness maps with r^{-0.5} weighting are not scattered-light predictions (as already noted in §3.2) so that brightness and contrast are not over-interpreted.
minor comments (6)
  1. [title page / keywords] Keywords are still placeholders (‘keyword1 – keyword2’). Replace with standard AAS keywords (e.g., debris disks, planet–disk interactions, AU Microscopii).
  2. [§2.2.1, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) for the impulse height is useful but the text states that simulations deviate by factors of 2–3 even for Rd/aP ≲ 2 and that the approximation breaks for Rd/aP ≳ 2. A short comparison plot of predicted vs. measured z_pt for the fiducial run would help readers judge when the analytic guide is reliable.
  3. [Fig. 5; §3.1] Figure 5 caption notes that particles lingering near zh produce unphysical elliptical orbits because β turns off abruptly; this is an important caveat and should be cross-referenced when interpreting the large-scale maps in §3.
  4. [§4.1, Eq. (2)] β ≈ 1.76 is shown to be consistent with Ṁ_* = 300 Ṁ_⊙, V_sw = 2200 km/s, s = 0.2 µm, ρ = 1.78 g cm^{-3} (§4.1). Given the large literature ranges in Ṁ_* and V_sw, a one-line sensitivity statement (how β scales if Ṁ_* is 10 or 2500 Ṁ_⊙) would strengthen the physical anchoring.
  5. [Figs. 7–9] Several figure panels (e.g., Fig. 7 labels SE1–SE5 vs. SE1'–SE5'; Fig. 8 spine) are dense; ensuring consistent primed/unprimed nomenclature and a single clear color key would improve readability.
  6. [abstract; Table 1] Minor prose issues: ‘mid-planet’ in the abstract should be ‘mid-plane’; ‘to (yr)’ in Table 1 header is t_o/t_off; arXiv-style future draft date is fine for submission but should be updated.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

MCMC-fitted Rd, P, ω, β (and toff) are optimized directly on the same projected distance–speed clump data later shown as a velocity ‘match’; morphology has more independent content.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [§2.2.2, Table 1, Fig. 4; carried into §3.1 and Fig. 9]
    "We are specifically interested in finding best-fit parameters for the inner edge of the disk (Rd), blowout angle (θ), period of the planet (P), stellar wind force (β), and offset timescale... We used a log-likelihood metric, L=−χ²/2, to determine the quality of fit between the particle trajectories and data... best fit parameters... Rd=5.35... P=8.56 yr... β=1.76... The grey dashed line represents the expected velocity trajectory of the particles in our simulation, based on the results of the MCMC (Figure 4). We confirm that the simulated puffs actually follow this trajectory."

    Rd, P, ωl, β (and toff) are optimized so single-particle hyperbolic trajectories pass through the observed SE clump projected distances and speeds. The large-scale simulation adopts those fitted values and Fig. 9 presents agreement with the same velocity–distance points (plus the MCMC curve) as support for the model. The velocity/period ‘match’ is statistically forced by the fit, not an independent prediction from untuned dynamics.

  2. fitted input called prediction [§3.2.1 (viewing geometry); Abstract / §3 comparison claims]
    "When searching for an edge-on perspective that had the best qualitative match to the observations of AU Mic, we found that rotating the disk 180 degrees about the x-axis and 60 degrees about the z-axis produced the best match... The configuration on the left panels produces the majority of ejections at the top left of the disk and proves to be the best qualitative match to observations of AU Mic."

    After parameters are fixed, the observer orientation is scanned and the rotation that yields one-sided SE-like clumps is selected as the comparison geometry. Combined with the MCMC-tuned ejection angle and β, the reported morphological similarity on the preferred line of sight is partly arranged by that choice rather than predicted a priori for a fixed viewing angle.

full rationale

The paper’s dynamical mechanism (inclined eccentric planet imparting periodic vertical kicks; stellar wind on elevated grains) is not tautological and is explored with impulse estimates and N-body pilots before fitting. However, the quantitative claim that simulated clump velocities and ~8–9 yr spacing are comparable to AU Mic is largely forced by construction: §2.2.2 runs an MCMC whose likelihood is the χ² fit of single-particle trajectories to the Boccaletti et al. projected distance–speed points (Fig. 1 / Table 2), with free parameters Rd, planet period P, blowout angle ωl, β, and toff. Table 1 and Fig. 4 report those best-fits; the large-scale run (§3.1) adopts them (aP=3.52 au, Rd=5.36–5.8 au, β=1.76); Fig. 9 then plots simulated clump velocities against the same data and overlays ‘the expected particle trajectory based on our MCMC.’ That velocity agreement is therefore the fit restated, not an out-of-sample prediction. Viewing geometry is also chosen post hoc for best edge-on morphology (§3.2.1). Planet mass/e/i and zh remain partly free modeling choices rather than circular reductions. Net: partial circularity on the velocity/period match (pattern 2), with real independent content in the ejection morphology and one-sided geometry. Score 5—not 0, not 8+.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 5 axioms · 2 invented entities

The claim rests on a fitted planet and disk geometry, an ad-hoc height switch for stellar wind, standard N-body gravity plus a β force, and the postulate of an undetected ~2 MJ planet allowed by current JWST limits. Dust supply and mid-plane retention are supported only by order-of-magnitude estimates that the authors flag as marginal.

free parameters (8)
  • β (stellar-wind to gravity ratio) = ≈1.76–1.8
    Fitted by MCMC to clump projected speed–distance data; best-fit 1.76+0.22/−0.18 used in the large-scale run.
  • planet semi-major axis / period = P≈8.56 yr, aP≈3.52 au
    MCMC-fitted period ~8.56 yr (aP≈3.52 au) to match clump spacing.
  • disk inner edge Rd = ≈5.35–5.36 au (ring to ~5.8 au)
    MCMC-fitted source radius for particle release.
  • blowout angle ω_l / ejection angle = ≈0.036 rad (best fit)
    MCMC free parameter controlling hyperbolic trajectory direction.
  • time offset toff = ≈1.56 yr
    MCMC nuisance parameter aligning first ejection with observed clump phases.
  • height threshold zh = h r = h≈0.02–0.023
    Free model parameter; stellar wind turned on only for |z|>zh. Chosen near maximum particle height so ejections are periodic (h≈0.02–0.023).
  • planet mass, eccentricity, inclination = 2 MJ, e=0.37, i=30°
    Hand-fixed after pilot surveys (MP=2 MJ, eP=0.8 ecross≈0.37, iP=30°) rather than sampled in the MCMC; control kick strength and morphology.
  • observer viewing angles = 180° x-rot, 60° z-rot
    Disk rotated 180° about x and 60° about z by eye to obtain the preferred one-sided southeast morphology.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Stellar wind and radiation pressure on a grain can be combined into a constant β = Fwind/Fgrav opposing gravity, with radiation pressure negligible for AU Mic so β≈βwind.
    Standard debris-disk treatment (Burns et al. 1979); invoked throughout §1–2 and Eq. 2.
  • domain assumption An inclined eccentric planet delivers a near-impulsive vertical kick near apocenter that can be estimated by the impulse approximation (Eq. 1), valid when Rd/aP ≲ 2.
    Used to motivate parameter space in §2.2.1; authors note breakdown at larger separations.
  • ad hoc to paper Stellar wind is applied to a particle if and only if its instantaneous |z| exceeds zh, and set to zero otherwise.
    Core implementation choice in §2.2 and §3.1; not derived from a wind or optical-depth calculation.
  • domain assumption Test particles are massless and non-self-gravitating; the outer disk beyond ~5.9 au can be represented by a static coplanar particle screen for visualization.
    Standard N-body debris-disk approximation; stated in §3.1–3.2.
  • domain assumption A planet ≲2 MJ at a few au remains allowed by existing JWST detection probability limits (Lawson et al. 2023).
    Cited in §1 and §2.2.1 to keep the planet ‘observationally allowed’.
invented entities (2)
  • Undiscovered ~2 MJ planet at 3–4 au with e≈0.37, i≈30° no independent evidence
    purpose: Provides the periodic vertical impulse that launches each dust clump once per orbit.
    No direct detection; mass and orbit chosen to fit clump period and kick height while staying under quoted imaging limits. Independent evidence is currently only non-detection upper bounds.
  • Height-threshold stellar-wind switch (zh) no independent evidence
    purpose: Lets elevated grains be blown out while mid-plane material is retained without continuous replenishment in the simulation.
    Introduced as a free parameter; three physical stories are offered in §4.2 but fiducial numbers do not clearly establish self-shielding, so the switch functions as a model device.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-daily-grok45 · 26325 in / 4413 out tokens · 82896 ms · 2026-07-30T11:13:38.002311+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The debris disk orbiting the M star AU Microscopii has a series of large-scale clumps that move away from the star at high velocities above the mid-plane on the southeast side. Two more bright features lie on the northwest side of the disk, localized below the mid-plane and moving toward the star. These clumps are only observed in scattered light indicating that they affect small 0.2$\mu$m-sized grains. We present a mechanism for emitting periodic dust clumps by appealing to stellar forces and an inclined, eccentric planet interacting with an exterior debris disk. In our best-matching simulations, the planet exerts an impulse on the disk every orbital period, generating periodic enhancements in dust above the mid-plane. We assume that the stellar wind only acts on grains once they reach a height above the mid-planet that exceeds a threshold value (a free parameter in our model), at which point they are accelerated outward. The behavior of periodic particle ejections and trajectories depends significantly on the planet's mass, eccentricity, and inclination; separation between the planet and disk; and the ratio of stellar wind force to the star's gravitational force ($\beta$). We find a promising qualitative match to observations with simulations that include an as-yet-undiscovered and observationally allowed planet with mass $2 M_J$, semi-major axis between 3-4 au, eccentricity of 0.37, and inclination of 30$^\circ$, a ring of particles between 5-6 au, and a stellar wind height threshold of $z_h = hr$, where $h \approx 0.02$. We visualize our simulation with surface brightness maps to compare with existing observations of AU Mic. We find that a value of $\beta \approx 1.8$ accelerates the clumps radially outward at velocities that are comparable to the clumps seen in the AU Mic disk and produces features similar to those observed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27186 by Arcelia Hermosillo Ruiz, Meredith A. MacGregor, Renata Frelikh, Ruth Murray-Clay.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: We simulate four particles with a different combination of initial distance from the star (𝑅𝑑), stellar wind force (𝛽), and ejection angle (𝜃), demonstrating how these parameters affect the projected speed at a given projected distance; line styles are consistent across panels. Left: Projected speed and projected distance of the four particles and the five southeastern dust clumps SE5 (blue triangle), SE4 … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A not-to-scale schematic of an eccentric, inclined planet and exterior debris disk model proposed in this paper. The planet imparts a larger vertical kick on particles when it reaches apocenter, compared to elsewhere in the disk. This kick occurs once every orbit and a new dust clump is kicked up every orbital period; therefore, the periodicity of the clumps match the planet’s orbital period. The clumps mo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example of particles’ trajectories (top) and height over time (bottom), showing the behavior that produces particle ejections every period. Particles are ejected in the negative and positive verti￾cal direction. They are ejected by the stellar wind when their height reaches a certain value, 𝑧ℎ, which is left as a free parameter in the simulation. We choose the highest 𝑧ℎ possible (i.e. a value close to the… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Corner plot showing the best-fit parameters for 𝑅𝑑, 𝑃, 𝜔𝑙 , and 𝛽 to produce particle trajectories that match the projected distance and speed and periodicity of data from A. Boccaletti et al. (2018) (see, e.g [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example particle behavior for a simulation with a 0.6𝑀⊙ star, 2𝑀𝐽 planet, and 200 massless particles. The planet is initialized with 𝑎𝑃 = 3.52 au, 𝑒𝑃 = 0.37, 𝑖𝑃 = 30◦ . The particles are uniformly distributed between 𝑎𝑙 = 5.36 − 5.86 au on coplanar, circular orbits. 𝛽 = 1.76. The low 𝛽 value means particles feel a smaller outward acceleration compared to the simulation in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Snapshots, one year apart, of the simulation described in Section 3, as seen from above. Yellow, red, and blue circles with a dashed outline are shown to denote 3 different particle ejections. The same circles show up in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Edge-on view of the disk and clumps every 8 years for two different observer lines of sight. Dust clumps on the top, left side of the disk are denoted with yellow, red, and blue circles, which correspond with circles shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The ”spine” of the simulated disk at four different time snapshots. This is calculated by finding the pixel above the mid-plane and on the left side of the disk where the intensity is highest. The blue, purple, pink, yellow, and brown horizontal lines represent the width and uncertainty in the position of the clumps SE5’, SE4’, SE3’, SE2’, and SE1’, respectively. The ‘x’ marks the location of the puff, whi… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Projected velocity vs projected distance of the 5 clumps in our simulation: SE5’ (triangle), SE4’ (circle), SE3’ (square), SE2’ (diamond), SE1’ (pentagon). The velocities are calculated relative to the positions at 93.16 yr and 99.17 yr (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Animation of our simulation snapshots over 200 years, illustrating the evolution of the disk and clumps under the influence of the planet and stellar wind. The labels A-E in the top-down view (top panel) mark five observer lines of sight indicated by angled carets representing the observer eye symbol. The bottom five panels show the corresponding edge-on configurations of the disk as seen from each of tho… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D., Cohen, O., Drake, J

    Alvarado-G´omez, J. D., Cohen, O., Drake, J. J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 928, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac54b8

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac54b8 2022

  2. [2]

    A., Weinberger, A

    Arnold, J. A., Weinberger, A. J., Videen, G., & Zubko, E. S. 2019, AJ, 157, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab095e

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab095e 2019

  3. [3]

    A., Weinberger, A

    Arnold, J. A., Weinberger, A. J., Videen, G., & Zubko, E. S. 2022, ApJ, 930, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac63a9 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy ...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac63a9 2022

  4. [4]

    C., & Beust, H

    Augereau, J. C., & Beust, H. 2006, A&A, 455, 987, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054250

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054250 2006

  5. [5]

    2015, Nature, 526, 230, doi: 10.1038/nature15705

    Boccaletti, A., Thalmann, C., Lagrange, A.-M., et al. 2015, Nature, 526, 230, doi: 10.1038/nature15705

    doi:10.1038/nature15705 2015

  6. [6]

    M., et al

    Boccaletti, A., Sezestre, E., Lagrange, A. M., et al. 2018, A&A, 614, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732462

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732462 2018

  7. [7]

    D., Krivov, A

    Booth, M., Pearce, T. D., Krivov, A. V., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 6180, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad938

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad938 2023

  8. [8]

    A., Lamy, P

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

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

  9. [9]

    2017, ApJ, 848, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa89e6

    Chiang, E., & Fung, J. 2017, ApJ, 848, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa89e6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa89e6 2017

  10. [10]

    D., & Krivov, A

    Costa, T., Pearce, T. D., & Krivov, A. V. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 7317, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3582

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3582 2024

  11. [11]

    N., & Durisen, R

    Cuzzi, J. N., & Durisen, R. H. 1990, Icarus, 84, 467, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(90)90049-F

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(90)90049-f 1990

  12. [12]

    M., Carter, E

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1074 2019

  13. [13]

    F., Cristofari, P

    Donati, J. F., Cristofari, P. I., Finociety, B., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 455, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1193

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1193 2023

  14. [14]

    2014, A&A, 563, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322469

    Faramaz, V., Beust, H., Th´ebault, P., et al. 2014, A&A, 563, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322469

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322469 2014

  15. [15]

    P., Kalas, P

    Fitzgerald, M. P., Kalas, P. G., Duchˆene, G., Pinte, C., & Graham, J. R. 2007, ApJ, 670, 536, doi: 10.1086/521344

    work page doi:10.1086/521344 2007

  16. [16]

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

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

    doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  17. [17]

    2010, Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science, 5, 65, doi: 10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65

    Goodman, J., & Weare, J. 2010, Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science, 5, 65, doi: 10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65

    doi:10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65 2010

  18. [18]

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

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556450

  19. [19]

    M., Duchˆene, G., & Matthews, B

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

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

  20. [20]

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

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  21. [21]

    C., & Matthews, B

    Kalas, P., Liu, M. C., & Matthews, B. C. 2004, Science, 303, 1990, doi: 10.1126/science.1093420

    doi:10.1126/science.1093420 2004

  22. [22]

    Koschny, D., & Gr¨ un, E. 2001, Icarus, 154, 391, doi: 10.1006/icar.2001.6707 16 Figure 10.Animation of our simulation snapshots over 200 years, illustrating the evolution of the disk and clumps under the influence of the planet and stellar wind. The labels A-E in the top-down view (top panel) mark five observer lines of sight indicated by angled carets r...

    arXiv 2001

  23. [23]

    M., Gratadour, D., Chauvin, G., et al

    Lagrange, A. M., Gratadour, D., Chauvin, G., et al. 2009, A&A, 493, L21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200811325

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200811325 2009

  24. [24]

    M., Wilkinson, C., Mˆalin, M., et al

    Lagrange, A. M., Wilkinson, C., Mˆalin, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.15081, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.15081

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.15081 2025

  25. [25]

    E., Leisenring, J

    Lawson, K., Schlieder, J. E., Leisenring, J. M., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aced08

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aced08 2023

  26. [26]

    A., Wilner, D

    MacGregor, M. A., Wilner, D. J., Rosenfeld, K. A., et al. 2013, ApJL, 762, L21, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/762/2/L21

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/762/2/l21 2013

  27. [27]

    E., & Bell, C

    Mamajek, E. E., & Bell, C. P. M. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 2169, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1894

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1894 2014

  28. [28]

    C., et al

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1790 2018

  29. [29]

    Martioli, E., H´ebrard, G., Correia, A. C. M., Laskar, J., & Lecavelier des Etangs, A. 2021, A&A, 649, A177, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040235

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040235 2021

  30. [30]

    C., Krivov, A

    Matthews, B. C., Krivov, A. V., Wyatt, M. C., Bryden, G., & Eiroa, C. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S

    2014

  31. [31]

    Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 521–544, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816531240-ch023

    doi:10.2458/azu

  32. [32]

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

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

  33. [33]

    D., & Wyatt, M

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1302 2014

  34. [34]

    D., Krivov, A

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3462 2024

  35. [35]

    W., Chen, C

    Plavchan, P., Werner, M. W., Chen, C. H., et al. 2009, ApJ, 698, 1068, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1068

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/698/2/1068 2009

  36. [36]

    2020, Nature, 582, 497, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2400-z

    Plavchan, P., Barclay, T., Gagn´e, J., et al. 2020, Nature, 582, 497, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2400-z

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2400-z 2020

  37. [37]

    P., L¨ohne, T., Pearce, T

    Poblete, P. P., L¨ohne, T., Pearce, T. D., & Sefilian, A. A. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 2017, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2827

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2827 2023

  38. [38]

    C., & Faber, P

    Quillen, A. C., & Faber, P. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 1245, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11122.x

    arXiv 2006

  39. [39]

    C., Kammerer, J., et al

    Rebollido, I., Stark, C. C., Kammerer, J., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad1759

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad1759 2024

  40. [40]

    Rein, H., & Liu, S. F. 2012, A&A, 537, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118085

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118085 2012

  41. [41]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 4632, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2503

    Rein, H., Tamayo, D., & Brown, G. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 4632, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2503

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2503 2019

  42. [42]

    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 Sch¨ uppler, C., L¨ohne, T., Krivov, A. V., et al. 2015, A&A, 581, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525664

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

  43. [43]

    A., Kratter, K

    Sefilian, A. A., Kratter, K. M., Wyatt, M. C., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 3123, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1555 Sezestre, ´E., Augereau, J. C., Boccaletti, A., & Th´ebault, P. 2017, A&A, 607, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731061

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1555 2025

  44. [44]

    E., & Chiang, E

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

    doi:10.1086/505736 2006

  45. [45]

    Tamayo, D., Rein, H., Shi, P., & Hernandez, D. M. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 2885, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2870 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science Engineering, 13, 22, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2870 2020

  46. [46]

    E., et al

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

    doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  47. [47]

    M., Carter, E

    Vizgan, D., Hughes, A. M., Carter, E. S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac80b8 Wes McKinney. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. St´efan van der Walt & Jarrod Millman, 56 – 61, doi: 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac80b8 2022

  48. [48]

    M., Plavchan, P

    Wittrock, J. M., Plavchan, P. P., Cale, B. L., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 232, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acfda8

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acfda8 2023

  49. [49]

    Wyatt, M. C. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 339, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110525

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  50. [50]

    2025, MNRAS, 536, 2046, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2655

    Yu, H., Garai, Z., Cretignier, M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 2046, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2655

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2655 2025

  51. [51]

    M., et al

    Zawadzki, B., Fehr, A., Hughes, A. M., et al. 2026, A&A, 705, A197, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556505

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556505 2026