Monte Carlo post-processing for radiation hydro simulations of accreting planets in protoplanetary disks

Anton Krieger; Hubert Klahr; Julio David Melon Fuksman; Sebastian Wolf

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 59 references

Monte Carlo post-processing for radiation hydro simulations of accreting planets in protoplanetary disks

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that flux-limited diffusion radiation hydrodynamics and Monte Carlo radiative transfer yield gas temperatures agreeing to about 10 percent in the planet-hosting region of a protoplanetary disk, with systematic regional…

desk verdict A useful parameter-swept error census for RHD-vs-MCRT temperatures and fluxes in accreting-planet disks, but the '10 percent agreement' headline is a symmetric δT (closer to 20% in ordinary relative terms) and the non-iterative MCRT opacity check is thinner than the central claim needs. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14858 v1 pith:GDE6DHBR submitted 2025-01-24 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM

Anton Krieger , Hubert Klahr , Julio David Melon Fuksman , Sebastian Wolf This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IM

keywords radiationhydrodynamicsMonteCarloradiativetransferprotoplanetarydisksplanet-diskinteractionaccretingplanetsflux-limiteddiffusionsyntheticobservationstemperaturecomparison

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 is trying to establish how much a fast radiation-hydrodynamics (RHD) model can be trusted when its temperatures are recalculated with a more complete Monte Carlo radiative transfer (MCRT) scheme for accreting planets in protoplanetary disks. Across 18 models spanning two planet masses, three grid resolutions, and three accretion timescales, the two temperature distributions match within about 10 percent in the high-resolution region, measured by the antisymmetric difference $\delta T = (T_{\rm RHD}-T_{\rm MC})/(T_{\rm RHD}+T_{\rm MC})$. The agreement is not uniform: the RHD model runs warmer in the dense midplane and colder at the photosphere and in the far outer disk. The paper attributes these systematic differences to angle- and frequency-averaging and missing scattering in the diffusion treatment, and to missing compressional heating and internal-energy advection in the Monte Carlo step. This matters because synthetic images of forming planets are only as reliable as the temperature maps they are built from.

What carries the argument

The comparison is carried by a non-iterative opacity-matching step: in each Monte Carlo cell the dust-to-gas ratio is lowered so that the cell's Rosseland mean opacity equals the value $\kappa_R(T_{\rm RHD})$ already used in the RHD simulation, allowing both solvers to work with the same optical properties without iterating temperature-dependent opacities. On top of this sits the antisymmetric relative difference $\delta T = (T_{\rm RHD}-T_{\rm MC})/(T_{\rm RHD}+T_{\rm MC})$, which maps the agreement region by region. The authors verify a posteriori that 98–100 percent of cells fall in the same dust-sublimation zone under both temperature fields, so the fixed-opacity premise does not drive the result.

What would settle it

Recompute the Monte Carlo temperatures for the same 18 snapshots with fully iterative, temperature-dependent opacities and compare zone classifications cell by cell; if substantial populations of cells cross the sublimation boundary, the fixed-opacity premise is the thing to blame, whereas if the temperatures stay within the reported $|\delta T| \lesssim 0.1$ bounds, the premise is exonerated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, for local high-resolution radiation-hydrodynamical models of a 10 or 300 Earth-mass planet embedded in a global protoplanetary disk, flux-limited diffusion plus stellar ray tracing and a Monte Carlo radiative-transfer post-processing step give essentially the same gas temperatures: for all cells in the high-resolution region and all tested resolutions and accretion parameters, $|\delta T| \lesssim 0.1$–$0.13$, with the planet's Hill region on average $0.01$–$0.1$ colder in the RHD run. The discrepancies that remain are systematic and regional rather than Monte Carlo noise. The RHD model is too warm in the optically thick midplane because the angle-averaged diffusion treatment lets the inward stellar flux and the outward cooling flux interact unphysically; it is too cool just above the photosphere and in the outer disk because frequency-averaged opacities and the neglect of scattering suppress heating there. The MCRT model, in turn, cannot represent negative energy sources such as local compressional work and internal-energy advection, which shows up in spiral wakes. The paper concludes that neither method alone is the "true" temperature and that the path to closer agreement runs through multigroup or angularly discretized transport on the hydro side and MCRT schemes that can handle negative source terms.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison rests on the assumption that fixing each Monte Carlo cell's opacity to the value from the hydro run does not push cells across the dust-sublimation boundary; if it did, the reported temperature differences would be biased, and the paper's own check finds 98–100 percent zone agreement after the fact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In viscosity-dominated optically thick regions and irradiation-dominated optically thin layers the two methods agree closely, so existing RHD temperatures are reliable there without Monte Carlo post-processing.
Switching from RHD to MCRT temperatures changes visual-wavelength flux maps negligibly, but NIR thermal dust flux rises by roughly 160 percent and submillimeter total flux changes by up to about 15 percent, with regional submillimeter differences exceeding 100 percent.
Raising resolution from N1 to N3 does not remove the systematic temperature bias; submillimeter flux similarity improves only in limited regions, such as the inner high-resolution zone and the circumplanetary region for the 300 Earth-mass planet.
Because neither solver contains all the relevant physics, the roughly 10 percent agreement represents a floor on temperature accuracy for this kind of accreting-planet model, not a convergence certificate.

Reading between the lines

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

If the artificial flux-flux interaction at the $\tau=1$ surface is the main midplane bias, then multigroup or angularly discretized transport should push RHD temperatures down toward MCRT values specifically in the densest regions; the paper names such schemes as the next step without testing them here.
The missing compressional work in MCRT implies that post-processed temperatures are least trustworthy exactly where planet-driven spirals compress gas, so time-dependent or negative-source-term MCRT would likely raise inferred spiral-wake temperatures for massive planets.
A practical consequence the paper does not spell out: synthetic observations meant to constrain planet mass from gap or spiral morphology should be computed from MCRT temperatures, while hydrodynamical conclusions can keep using RHD temperatures, because the two uses have different error budgets.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing you should know: this is a genuinely useful error census, and the central numbers are probably about right in the bulk of the disk, but the '10 percent' headline is easy to misread. They define δT = (TRHD - TMC)/(TRHD + TMC), so δT ≈ 0.1 means about a 20–22% temperature difference in the usual sense. Keep that in mind when you see 'about 10 percent.'

What's new: it is the first systematic parameter sweep (two planet masses, three resolutions, three accretion timescales, 18 models) that quantifies where FLD-based RHD and MCRT temperatures diverge for embedded accreting planets, and it connects those differences to flux errors at VIS/NIR/submm. The FLD flux-crossing diagnosis for midplane overheating is plausible and well supported by the controlled axisymmetric runs that switch irradiation and viscosity on and off. The authors are also honest that MCRT is not a 'true' reference: it lacks PdV work and internal-energy advection, which matters in spiral wakes.

Where it's soft: the non-iterative MCRT opacity fixing (Eq. 12) uses κR(TRHD) to set the dust-to-gas ratio per cell, and the a posteriori validation is only zone classification (dust vs. sublimation) for the reference model. The N3 300 M⊕ model reaches Tevp inside the planetary cell, where the Rosseland opacity is steep; a 10% temperature error there could shift the opacity a lot. The paper argues that cells crossing sublimation become optically thin and insensitive to the exact opacity, which mitigates the worry, but they don't demonstrate that for all 18 models. So the ~10% agreement claim is not bulletproof near sublimation fronts, though it's probably robust in the dust-dominated bulk.

Also minor: the abstract says flux errors are 'independently of the amount of gas piling up in the Hill sphere and the used model resolution,' but flux maps were only made for the A32 accretion timescale and N1/N3 resolutions, not the full grid. And no code or data are released, which hampers reproducibility.

Overall: worth a serious referee. This delivers a quantitative error budget the community will use; it needs a clearer statement of the δT metric and a broader validity check for the non-iterative MCRT step. I'd bring it to a reading group.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper quantifies how closely gas temperatures from radiation-hydrodynamical (RHD) flux-limited-diffusion simulations of protoplanetary disks with accreting planets agree with temperatures recomputed by Monte Carlo radiative transfer (MCRT) post-processing. The authors compare 18 three-dimensional models spanning two planet masses, three resolutions, and three accretion timescales, embedding each local high-resolution RHD model in an axisymmetric global disk. They report typical relative temperature differences of about 10% in the high-resolution region, with larger differences at the photosphere and in far-outer regions, and they attribute these differences to known limitations of FLD (angle and frequency averaging, missing scattering, optical-depth limiter) and of MCRT (missing PdV work and internal-energy advection). Controlled axisymmetric experiments isolate specific mechanisms, and synthetic flux maps at VIS, NIR, and submillimeter wavelengths translate the temperature differences into observable flux errors.

Significance. The paper provides a valuable, quantitative benchmark for a widely used modeling pipeline: RHD simulations of planet-disk interaction followed by MCRT post-processing. Its strengths are the broad parameter scan (18 models, three resolutions, two planet masses, three accretion parameters), the deliberate matching of opacities and density fields between the two schemes, the controlled axisymmetric experiments that separate irradiation, viscosity, frequency dependence, and the optical-depth limiter, and the flux-error analysis that connects temperature discrepancies to observable quantities. If the central agreement figures survive scrutiny, the paper gives practical error estimates for synthetic observations of accreting planets and a clear roadmap for improving RHD temperature solvers.

major comments (3)

[Section 4, first bullet list; Figs. 3 and 4] The bullet 'For all cells in the high-resolution region, the temperature estimates agree across all tested resolutions and accretion parameters by |δT| ≲ 0.1−0.13' is contradicted by the paper's own reference-model results. In Fig. 3 (upper right panel), the midplane relative difference reaches about 1/3 near r ≈ 4–5 au, which is inside the high-resolution region, and the radial profile in Fig. 4 shows negative relative differences of order −0.2 to −0.3 in the green-shaded high-resolution region outside the planet. The abstract itself acknowledges values exceeding 40% at the photosphere. The 'all cells' claim should be replaced with a quantile-based statement (e.g., the 90th or 99th percentile), or the photosphere and outer regions should be explicitly excluded. As written, the contradiction between the headline summary and the displayed profiles weakens the central quantitative message.
[Section 2.2, Eq. (12); Section 3.1.1; Section 4.2] The non-iterative opacity-fixing procedure is load-bearing: the MCRT temperature TMC is computed with opacities fixed at κR(TRHD) via the cell-wise dust-to-gas adjustment of Eq. (12), and the whole comparison treats TMC as the reference. The a posteriori validation is reported only for the reference model and only as a three-zone classification (dust-dominated, transition, gas-dominated). Because the Rosseland opacity changes by orders of magnitude across the 200-K sublimation transition (Eq. (11) and Fig. 1), a cell can be classified correctly while its opacity at TMC differs substantially from κR(TRHD); the N3 300M⊕ model reaches or exceeds the sublimation temperature in the planetary cell. The authors should provide a quantitative sensitivity test, for example an iterative MCRT run for one model or a subset of cells, or a map of |κR(TMC) − κR(TRHD)|/κR(TRHD) throughout the high-resolution region, and they should report the zone-agreement statistics for all 18 models rather than only the reference. Without this, the reported ~10% agreement could be biased by an uncontrolled systematic in the reference solution itself. The authors' own list of future work (Sect. 4.2: 'consistent Planck opacities for the dust-evaporation regions') confirms that the issue is live.
[Section 3.1.1; Section 3.3.2] The claim that the observed temperature differences are 'systematic' rather than Monte Carlo noise is not backed by a quantitative noise estimate. The MCRT temperature calculation uses 10^8 photon packages, but no repeat-run or cell-wise variance estimate is provided. In the NIR flux maps (Sect. 3.3.2), the authors themselves state that differences outside the inner region are 'completely dominated by MC noise', yet the temperature-difference histograms in Figs. 5 and 8 are presented without error bars. A simple estimate of the MCRT temperature noise floor would substantiate the systematic-origin argument and make the 10% figure more robust.

minor comments (5)

[Section 2.2, first paragraph] The stellar radius is given as 'R∗ = 2.5 L⊙'; this should be 'R∗ = 2.5 R⊙' to agree with Sect. 2.1.1.
[Section 2.1.1] The word 'axisymetric' should be 'axisymmetric'.
[Section 3.1.1, Eq. (13)] The quantity δT is an antisymmetric relative difference; the paper should state this explicitly when translating δT into 'percent' values, since δT ≈ ΔT/(2T) for small differences.
[Section 3.3.2] The statement that NIR relative differences outside the inner region are 'completely dominated by MC noise' should be accompanied by a quantitative noise estimate for the flux maps, otherwise the reader cannot separate noise from genuine temperature-driven flux differences in the NIR.
[Section 4, first bullet list] The phrase 'typical discrepancy' is used without a formal definition; specifying whether 'typical' means the mean, median, or standard deviation of the histogram would make the headline number reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MCRT temperatures are an independent radiative-equilibrium solve, and the opacity matching in Eq. (12) does not impose the reported 10% agreement.

full rationale

The paper is a direct code-to-code comparison rather than a derivation in which an output is equivalent to an input. Eq. (12) matches the MCRT Rosseland opacity to the RHD value, but the MCRT temperature TMC is still obtained by solving the full frequency-dependent radiative-equilibrium problem with photon packages; it is not set equal to TRHD. The reported discrepancies (|δT| ≲ 0.1–0.13 in the high-resolution region) are measured residuals, and no parameter is fitted to minimize them. The a posteriori check that 98–100% of cells agree in dust-dominated versus sublimation zone classification is a validity test of the non-iterative opacity assumption, not an input that forces agreement. Self-citations (Kuiper et al. 2010, Krieger & Wolf 2020/2022, Pfeil & Klahr 2019, Klahr & Kley 2006) provide the numerical tools and initial conditions; they are not invoked as an external uniqueness theorem or as the evidence for the temperature comparison. The only unpublished self-citation (Klahr et al., in prep) concerns the accretion-rate independence, which is peripheral to the central temperature-agreement claim. The acknowledged limitation that opacity fixed at κR(TRHD) can bias TMC near sublimation fronts is a legitimate accuracy caveat, explicitly flagged by the authors as future work (Sect. 4.2), but it does not make the comparison circular by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central comparison depends on standard numerical approximations (FLD, fixed-opacity MCRT, matched opacity prescriptions). The hand-set floor opacities and optical depth limiter are explicitly shown to affect the temperature differences, and the paper treats them as sources of systematic error rather than fitting them to force agreement. No parameter is fitted to the discrepancy metric, keeping the circularity burden low, at the cost of making the comparison dependent on the chosen numerical regularizations.

free parameters (4)

Rosseland optical depth floor = 10^-2 per cell
Chosen in Section 2.1.3 for numerical performance; the paper shows in Section 3.2.2 that removing it changes temperatures near the photosphere and inside 0.3 au.
Planck opacity floor for evaporating dust = 10^-2 cm^2/g
Set in Section 2.1.3 as an unconstrained floor when dust evaporates; its value sets the Planck-opacity ratio in RHD and is identified as one cause of the RHD-MCRT discrepancy.
Evaporation transition width = 200 K (RHD), 100 K sigmoid in axisymmetric tests
Numerical smoothing of the opacity transition in Section 2.1.3; the axisymmetric tests use a 100 K sigmoid for convergence, and the width is a hand-chosen regularization.
Planet potential smoothing length = equal to local cell size
Section 2.1.2 sets the gravitational softening to the cell size; this affects the peak temperature inside the Hill sphere, as discussed in Section 3.1.2.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Flux-limited diffusion with the Levermore-Pomraning limiter and one-temperature coupling adequately represents radiation hydrodynamics for the comparison.
Invoked in Section 2.1.2 via Eqs. 3 to 7. The paper's purpose is to test this assumption, so it is a premise rather than a conclusion.
domain assumption MCRT in radiative equilibrium with Rosseland opacities fixed at TRHD is a valid reference temperature distribution.
Section 2.2, Eq. 12 adjusts the dust-to-gas ratio so MCRT opacities match RHD values; validity is tested a posteriori through zone classification agreement rather than proven.
domain assumption Neglect of scattering in RHD and neglect of PdV work and internal energy advection in MCRT are acceptable for reproducing the dominant temperature structure.
Assumed in the energy equation (Eq. 2) and in the MCRT source handling (Section 2.2); the paper itself quantifies the impact of these omissions in Section 3.4.
domain assumption The dust opacity model, with the MRN size distribution, silicate and graphite mixture, and Isella and Natta evaporation, is identical in both simulation types.
Specified in Section 2.1.3 and used in Eq. 12 to match RHD and MCRT opacities; this consistency is central to the comparison's interpretation.
domain assumption The initial global disk model from the 1+1D atmospheres of Pfeil and Klahr (2019) represents a realistic background state for the embedded local simulations.
Section 2.1.1 uses this model for initialization and for the radial damping layers; any systematic error in the background propagates into both RHD and MCRT results.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Monte Carlo post-processing for radiation hydro simulations of accreting planets in protoplanetary disks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GDE6DHBR

@misc{pith2026250114858,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Monte Carlo post-processing for radiation hydro simulations of accreting planets in protoplanetary disks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GDE6DHBR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14858}
}

read the original abstract

This paper is part of a series investigating the observational appearance of planets accreting from their nascent protoplanetary disk (PPD). We evaluate the differences between gas temperature distributions determined in our radiation hydrodynamical (RHD) simulations and those recalculated via post-processing with a Monte Carlo (MC) radiative transport (RT) scheme. Our MCRT simulations were performed for global PPD models, each composed of a local 3D high-resolution RHD model embedded in an axisymmetric global disk simulation. We report the level of agreement between the two approaches and point out several caveats that prevent a perfect match between the temperature distributions with our respective methods of choice. Overall, the level of agreement is high, with a typical discrepancy between the RHD and MCRT temperatures of the high-resolution region of only about 10 percent. The largest differences were found close to the disk photosphere, at the transition layer between optically dense and thin regions, as well as in the far-out regions of the PPD, occasionally exceeding values of 40 percent. We identify several reasons for these discrepancies, which are mostly related to general features of typical radiative transfer solvers used in hydrodynamical simulations (angle- and frequency-averaging and ignored scattering) and MCRT methods (ignored internal energy advection and compression and expansion work). This provides a clear pathway to reduce systematic temperature inaccuracies in future works. Based on MCRT simulations, we finally determined the expected error in flux estimates, both for the entire PPD and for planets accreting gas from their ambient disk, independently of the amount of gas piling up in the Hill sphere and the used model resolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14858 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Wavelength and temperature dependence of the opacity. Upper plot: Dust opacity as a function of wavelength. Middle plot: Rosseland mean opacity exemplarily for five gas densities (10−18, 10−16, 10−14 , 10−12, and 10−10 g/cm3 ) in ascending order in the plot (red = this paper; brown = Bell & Lin 1994). Lower plot: Planck opacities for the same gas densities, likewise in ascending order in the plot (red: Trad = Tgas; … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Vertical cut through the simulated model space depicting the embedment of a 3D high-resolution model (green region) into an axisymmetric global background model (in between gray regions) with the star (yellow) at the origin of the coordinate system and a planet (blue) located at a distance of 10 au from the star. provided by Bell & Lin (1994), which is the first cause of the discrepancy between temperatures of R… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Cuts through the temperature distributions derived by the MCRT (left column) and RHD simulations (central column) and their relative differences δT (right column). The upper and lower rows show results for the midplane and a vertical cut through it at the azimuthal position of the planet, respectively. The color bar for the temperature distributions (relative differences) is displayed above (to the right). Additiona… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (9 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Comparison of temperature profiles (upper row) determined using the MCRT (purple lines) and RHD (orange lines) simulations and their relative differences (lower row, gray lines). Left: Radial temperature profiles of the midplane in the azimuthal direction of the planet…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Scatter plot for derived RHD and MCRT temperatures. Data for the high-resolution (Hill) region is color coded in blue (red). The gray dashed line marks the region of matching temperature estimates. general locations in the TRHD-δT -plane that correspond to cells of thr…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Relative temperature differences between RHD and MCRT simulations of the reference model. Top: Normalized histogram. Center: Scatter plot for derived RHD temperatures and corresponding relative temperature differences. Bottom: Scatter plot for derived RHD gas densiti…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Comparison of temperature profiles inside the planetary Hill sphere determined using MCRT simulations (upper row) and their differences (lower row) relative to the corresponding RHD temperature profiles. Each plot contains three color coded curves that correspond to th…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Overview of normalized histograms illustrating relative temperature differences for the 300 M⊕ models, as in the upper plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Temperature comparison overview for three axisymmetric uPPD models. The model is denoted at the top of each column. Different rows highlight different aspects of the comparisons between the FLD and MCRT temperatures. Row labels (a - g) at the top left of each row indic…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Change of similarity, ∆∥δT ∥, in a vertical cut through the midplane of the uPPD. The upper (lower) plot shows the results for switching from model D+I to model D+Iν (D+Iκ). In regions where ∆∥δT ∥ is positive (negative), the change led to an increased (decreased) a…

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Total flux maps (first row from the top) at three different wavelengths, the VIS (left column), NIR (central column), and submm (right column) range, for the reference model based on the temperature distribution TMC. The total flux maps were calculated as the sum of t…

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Relative flux difference maps for models based on the resolution N1 that simulate a 300 M⊕ (upper row) or 10 M⊕ (lower row) planet when assuming observing wavelengths in the VIS (left column), NIR (central column), or submm (right column) range. For the purpose of bet…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

[1]

M., Huang, J., Pérez, L

Andrews, S. M., Huang, J., Pérez, L. M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, L41

2018
[2]

P., Garufi, A., et al

Avenhaus, H., Quanz, S. P., Garufi, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 44

2018
[3]

2018, ApJ, 864, L26

Bae, J., Pinilla, P., & Birnstiel, T. 2018, ApJ, 864, L26

work page 2018
[4]

R., Cassen, P

Bell, K. R., Cassen, P. M., Klahr, H. H., & Henning, T. 1997, ApJ, 486, 372

work page 1997
[5]

Bell, K. R. & Lin, D. N. C. 1994, The Astrophysical Journal, 427, 987 Benítez-Llambay, P. & Masset, F. S. 2016, ApJS, 223, 11

work page 1994
[6]

L., Vigan, A., Mouillet, D., et al

Beuzit, J. L., Vigan, A., Mouillet, D., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A155

2019
[7]

P., Zhu, Z., et al

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

2018
[8]

2013, A&A, 549, A124

Bitsch, B., Crida, A., Morbidelli, A., Kley, W., & Dobbs-Dixon, I. 2013, A&A, 549, A124

work page 2013

Show all 59 references

[9]

Bjorkman, J. E. & Wood, K. 2001, ApJ, 554, 615

2001
[10]

& Baes, M

Camps, P. & Baes, M. 2018, ApJ, 861, 80

2018
[11]

& Nesvorný, D

Chrenko, O. & Nesvorný, D. 2020, A&A, 642, A219

2020
[12]

Clarke, D. A. 2010, ApJS, 187, 119

2010
[13]

2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 751

Currie, T., Lawson, K., Schneider, G., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 751

2022
[14]

W., Stone, J

Davis, S. W., Stone, J. M., & Jiang, Y .-F. 2012, ApJS, 199, 9 de Val-Borro, M., Edgar, R. G., Artymowicz, P., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 529

2012
[15]

2016, ApJ, 826, 75

Dong, R., Fung, J., & Chiang, E. 2016, ApJ, 826, 75

2016
[16]

Draine, B. T. & Lee, H. M. 1984, ApJ, 285, 89

1984
[17]

Draine, B. T. & Malhotra, S. 1993, ApJ, 414, 632

1993
[18]

Eastwood, J. W. 1986, Computer Physics Communications, 43, 89

1986
[19]

F., & Maddison, S

Fouchet, L., Gonzalez, J. F., & Maddison, S. T. 2010, A&A, 518, A16 Gárate, M., Cuadra, J., Montesinos, M., & Arévalo, P. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 3113

2010
[20]

2018, A&A, 620, A94

Garufi, A., Benisty, M., Pinilla, P., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A94

2018
[21]

P., Schmid, H

Garufi, A., Quanz, S. P., Schmid, H. M., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, A8

2016
[22]

Y ., Bohn, A

Haffert, S. Y ., Bohn, A. J., de Boer, J., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 749

2019
[23]

& Natta, A

Isella, A. & Natta, A. 2005, A&A, 438, 899

2005
[24]

2022, A&A, 661, A80

Jakobsen, P., Ferruit, P., Alves de Oliveira, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A80

2022
[25]

2021, ApJS, 253, 49

Jiang, Y .-F. 2021, ApJS, 253, 49

2021
[26]

2018, A&A, 617, A44

Keppler, M., Benisty, M., Müller, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A44

2018
[27]

& Kley, W

Klahr, H. & Kley, W. 2006, A&A, 445, 747

2006
[28]

H., Henning, T., & Kley, W

Klahr, H. H., Henning, T., & Kley, W. 1999, ApJ, 514, 325

1999
[29]

1999, MNRAS, 303, 696

Kley, W. 1999, MNRAS, 303, 696

1999
[30]

M., Youdin, A

Krapp, L., Kratter, K. M., Youdin, A. N., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 153

2024
[31]

& Wolf, S

Krieger, A. & Wolf, S. 2020, A&A, 635, A148

2020
[32]

& Wolf, S

Krieger, A. & Wolf, S. 2021, A&A, 645, A143

2021
[33]

& Wolf, S

Krieger, A. & Wolf, S. 2022, A&A, 662, A99

2022
[34]

& Wolf, S

Krieger, A. & Wolf, S. 2023, A&A, 680, A67

2023
[35]

& Wolf, S

Krieger, A. & Wolf, S. 2024, A&A, 682, A99

2024
[36]

2010, A&A, 511, A81

Kuiper, R., Klahr, H., Dullemond, C., Kley, W., & Henning, T. 2010, A&A, 511, A81

2010
[37]

2002, The Messenger, 107, 7

Kurz, R., Guilloteau, S., & Shaver, P. 2002, The Messenger, 107, 7

2002
[38]

& Draine, B

Laor, A. & Draine, B. T. 1993, ApJ, 402, 441

1993
[39]

Levermore, C. D. & Pomraning, G. C. 1981, ApJ, 248, 321

1981
[40]

2019, MNRAS, 486, 453

Lodato, G., Dipierro, G., Ragusa, E., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 453

2019
[41]

Lucy, L. B. 1999, A&A, 344, 282

1999
[42]

G., Klahr, H., Semenov, D., Henning, T., & Dullemond, C

Malygin, M. G., Klahr, H., Semenov, D., Henning, T., & Dullemond, C. P. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 605, A30

2017
[43]

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

Mathis, J. S., Rumpl, W., & Nordsieck, K. H. 1977, ApJ, 217, 425

1977
[44]

2023, A&A, 678, A175 Melon Fuksman, J

Matsumoto, K., Camps, P., Baes, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A175 Melon Fuksman, J. D., Klahr, H., Flock, M., & Mignone, A. 2021, ApJ, 906, 78

2023
[45]

2019, A&A, 632, A25

Mesa, D., Keppler, M., Cantalloube, F., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A25

2019
[46]

D., & Klahr, H

Muley, D., Melon Fuksman, J. D., & Klahr, H. 2023, A&A, 678, A162 Article number, page 23 of 32 A&A proofs: manuscript no. main

2023
[47]

D., & Klahr, H

Muley, D., Melon Fuksman, J. D., & Klahr, H. 2024, A&A, 687, A213 Müller, A., Keppler, M., Henning, T., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, L2 Müller, T. W. A. & Kley, W. 2013, A&A, 560, A40

2024
[48]

L., & Klahr, H

Ober, F., Wolf, S., Uribe, A. L., & Klahr, H. H. 2015, A&A, 579, A105

2015
[49]

2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

Paardekooper, S., Dong, R., Du ffell, P., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. In- utsuka, Y . Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 685

2023
[50]

& Klahr, H

Pfeil, T. & Klahr, H. 2019, ApJ, 871, 150

2019
[51]

B., Hollenbach, D., Beckwith, S., et al

Pollack, J. B., Hollenbach, D., Beckwith, S., et al. 1994, ApJ, 421, 615

1994
[52]

A., & Owen, J

Robinson, A., Booth, R. A., & Owen, J. E. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 1524

2024
[53]

P., Wolf, S., Uribe, A

Ruge, J. P., Wolf, S., Uribe, A. L., & Klahr, H. H. 2013, A&A, 549, A97

2013
[54]

2003, Astron- omy & Astrophysics, 410, 611 Szulágyi, J., Masset, F., Lega, E., et al

Semenov, D., Henning, T., Helling, C., Ilgner, M., & Sedlmayr, E. 2003, Astron- omy & Astrophysics, 410, 611 Szulágyi, J., Masset, F., Lega, E., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 2853

2003
[55]

Weingartner, J. C. & Draine, B. T. 2001, ApJ, 548, 296

2001
[56]

& D’Angelo, G

Wolf, S. & D’Angelo, G. 2005, ApJ, 619, 1114

2005
[57]

& V oshchinnikov, N

Wolf, S. & V oshchinnikov, N. V . 2004, Computer Physics Communications, 162, 113

2004
[58]

2018, ApJ, 869, L47

Zhang, S., Zhu, Z., Huang, J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, L47

2018
[59]

Ziampras, A., Kley, W., & Dullemond, C. P. 2020, A&A, 637, A50 Article number, page 24 of 32 Anton Krieger et al.: Monte Carlo post-processing for radiation hydro simulations of accreting planets in protoplanetary disks Appendix A: Optical depth map Figure A.1 shows an optical...

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

M., Huang, J., Pérez, L

Andrews, S. M., Huang, J., Pérez, L. M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, L41

2018

[2] [2]

P., Garufi, A., et al

Avenhaus, H., Quanz, S. P., Garufi, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 44

2018

[3] [3]

2018, ApJ, 864, L26

Bae, J., Pinilla, P., & Birnstiel, T. 2018, ApJ, 864, L26

work page 2018

[4] [4]

R., Cassen, P

Bell, K. R., Cassen, P. M., Klahr, H. H., & Henning, T. 1997, ApJ, 486, 372

work page 1997

[5] [5]

Bell, K. R. & Lin, D. N. C. 1994, The Astrophysical Journal, 427, 987 Benítez-Llambay, P. & Masset, F. S. 2016, ApJS, 223, 11

work page 1994

[6] [6]

L., Vigan, A., Mouillet, D., et al

Beuzit, J. L., Vigan, A., Mouillet, D., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A155

2019

[7] [7]

P., Zhu, Z., et al

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

2018

[8] [8]

2013, A&A, 549, A124

Bitsch, B., Crida, A., Morbidelli, A., Kley, W., & Dobbs-Dixon, I. 2013, A&A, 549, A124

work page 2013