Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 87 references

DBNets2.0: simulation-based inference for planet-induced dust substructures in protoplanetary discs

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that a single dust-continuum image of a protoplanetary disc gap can be mapped to a calibrated four-dimensional posterior over planet mass, disc viscosity, scale height, and dust Stokes number.

desk verdict A genuinely useful SBI pipeline with well-calibrated posteriors on synthetic data; the population-level planet masses rest on a single-planet model that the paper's own confidence score cannot flag. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.11200 v1 pith:R5ETDSXG submitted 2025-06-12 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM

A. Ruzza , G. Lodato , G. P. Rosotti , P. J. Armitage This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IM
keywords simulation-basedinferenceneuralposteriorestimationnormalizingflowsprotoplanetarydiscsplanet-discinteractiondustcontinuumconvolutionalnetworksplanetmass
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 authors are trying to establish that the morphology of a dust gap in a protoplanetary disc carries enough information to recover not just the mass of an embedded planet, but also the disc's viscosity, scale height, and dust grain size — and that these can be recovered together as a full joint posterior, with the degeneracies between them made explicit. This matters because planet mass alone cannot be inferred from a gap without knowing the disc conditions; a tool that exposes the degeneracy allows astronomers to combine independent measurements and actually constrain the planet population. The paper builds a simulation-based inference pipeline, validates it on held-out synthetic observations, and then applies it to 49 real gaps in 34 discs. The resulting population is mostly low-mass planets, consistent with the failure of direct imaging surveys to detect them.

What carries the argument

The pipeline is a CNN-plus-normalizing-flow architecture: a convolutional network turns the input image (with its resolution as an extra conditioning input) into low-dimensional summary statistics, and masked autoregressive flows perform neural posterior estimation on those summaries. The CNN is trained with augmentation that randomizes beam size and outer disc boundary, which is what makes the tool's accuracy independent of observational resolution; Monte Carlo dropout generates 1500 summary-statistic samples per image, and a confidence score built on Fourier-domain comparison with the training set provides a recommended rejection threshold of 0.6.

What would settle it

Create two-planet synthetic observations with the same FARGO3D setup and known masses, run DBNets2.0, and check the confidence scores: the paper already reports that all such images score above the recommended 0.6 threshold, so a corrected confidence metric that actually rejects these out-of-model images — or, alternatively, a PDS 70 run whose planet-mass posterior brackets the directly measured companion masses — would settle whether the reliability claims hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that DBNets2.0, a two-stage simulation-based inference pipeline, produces well-calibrated posteriors for the planet-to-star mass ratio $M_p/M_\star$, the disc $\alpha$-viscosity, the aspect ratio $h$, and the dust Stokes number $St$ from a single ALMA dust continuum image of a disc with substructure. The first stage is a CNN that compresses each image, together with its beam size, into a set of summary statistics via Monte Carlo dropout; the second stage is an ensemble of masked autoregressive normalizing flows that learn the posterior $p(M_p, \alpha, h, St \mid x, b)$. On a held-out synthetic test set the full four-dimensional posteriors pass a TARP coverage test, with the planet mass recovered most precisely. Applied to 49 observed gaps in 34 discs, the tool infers generally low viscosities and scale heights, and planet masses below one Jupiter mass in 83% of cases.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the training-set premise that each observed gap is carved by exactly one planet in a locally isothermal, viscous disc with pressureless dust and no feedback, self-gravity, migration or accretion; the paper's own test shows the confidence score cannot flag two-planet systems, so if real gaps are multi-planet or non-planar, the inferred masses and disc properties are not reliable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single ALMA image of a gap can be converted into a calibrated four-dimensional posterior, so degeneracies such as the planet-mass–viscosity correlation are exposed rather than hidden inside a point estimate.
  • Independent constraints on one disc property, such as a measured $\alpha$, can be folded in as a prior; the paper demonstrates a roughly 15% reduction in planet-mass error and uncertainty when $\alpha$ is constrained this way.
  • The 49-gap survey implies low local viscosities and long viscous timescales, and a planet population that is 83% sub-Jupiter, which explains why direct imaging surveys have mostly failed to detect these putative planets.
  • Because the tool is public and returns full posteriors rather than point estimates, it can be re-run with different priors or applied to new observations without retraining.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The systematic offset the paper finds between local $\alpha$ inferred from gap morphology and global accretion-based viscous timescales, if it survives selection effects, is evidence for an additional angular-momentum-loss channel such as disc winds; the paper notes this possibility but stops short of making it a quantitative claim.
  • The confidence score's failure to reject two-planet synthetic images — all scores stay above the recommended 0.6 threshold — suggests that the tool as designed cannot detect the most likely alternative to the single-planet model, so a multi-planet extension or a joint posterior over multiple gaps is needed before multi-gap discs are fitted independently.
  • A natural validation that the paper does not perform explicitly is to run DBNets2.0 on PDS 70, whose two embedded planets have direct mass measurements, and check whether the inferred mass posteriors bracket those measurements; the paper's published PDS 70 estimate is consistent, but a dedicated validation with updated masses would tighten the test.
  • The same summary-statistics-plus-normalizing-flows recipe could be applied to other disc observables, such as gas kinematics or scattered-light polarization, wherever a forward simulator exists; that template is implicit in the paper's design but not pursued.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents DBNets2.0, a simulation-based inference pipeline that compresses ALMA-like dust continuum images with a CNN and fits the four-dimensional posterior p(Mp, alpha, h, St | x) with normalizing flows. The training and test data are single-planet FARGO3D simulations with a locally isothermal gas and pressureless dust, augmented with noise, beam convolution, and masking. The authors validate on a held-out synthetic test set with TARP coverage tests, rmse/r2 metrics, and three posterior predictive checks; they then apply the pipeline to 49 gaps in 34 observed discs and report generally low alpha, low h, and a population with 83% masses below 1 MJ.

Significance. The central methodological contribution is solid: the 4D TARP curve is well calibrated (ks-pval 0.999), the planet-mass rmse is 0.07 in normalized units, the code is public, and the paper is honest about many limitations. If the validation transfers to real observations, the tool will be useful for interpreting dust substructures and for Bayesian integration of external constraints such as direct imaging limits. The main limitation is that this transfer is not demonstrated: the confidence-score metric fails to flag the paper's own two-planet simulations, and the observational population results depend on a single-planet model that real discs may violate.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A.1 / Sect. 6] The two-planet test in Fig. A.4 shows that every two-planet image receives a confidence score above the recommended 0.6 threshold, and Table E.1 shows that all 49 real observations also score above 0.6. Since Sect. 6 interprets each of these observations as a single embedded planet, the confidence score does not protect the results against the most likely excluded scenario, multiple planets per gap. I acknowledge the caveats in Sect. 3.4 and 8, but the abstract and Sect. 6 present the 83% sub-Jupiter population without this qualification. Please either add an OOD test that demonstrates measurable degradation on two-planet systems or explicitly rephrase the Sect. 6 population results as conditional on the single-planet model.
  2. [Sect. 4.1 / Sect. 3.1] The test-set size is stated inconsistently: Sect. 3.1 reports 534 test observations, while Sect. 4.1 reports that 900 synthetic observations were selected for the test set. Please clarify that the 534 are the filtered subset of the 900 snapshots from the 300 held-out simulations, and state explicitly that no snapshot from a simulation contributing to the training or validation folds appears in the test set. Without this clarification, the reported TARP and rmse results cannot be independently verified against leakage between snapshots of the same simulation.
  3. [Sect. 3.1 / Sect. 4.2] The validation is entirely in-distribution: the test simulations use the same hydrodynamics code, the same single-planet and locally isothermal assumptions, and the same LHS parameter ranges as the training simulations. A calibrated posterior under this forward model does not by itself quantify the risk that real gaps were not generated by that model. The confidence score was intended to address this, but its two-planet test does not flag the excluded scenario. Please make the model-conditional nature of the Sect. 6 inferences explicit in the abstract and conclusions, or provide a quantitative OOD validation (e.g., coverage or posterior error on two-planet and non-planar simulations) that bounds the misspecification error for the real-data claims.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sect. 4.2, Eq. (5)] The r2-score definition is missing squared terms in the printed equation; as written it is 1 - Sum(theta - theta_hat)/Sum(theta - theta_bar), which is dimensionally inconsistent and not the standard coefficient of determination. Please correct it to 1 - Sum(theta - theta_hat)^2 / Sum(theta - theta_bar)^2.
  2. [Sect. 4.2] The description of TARP curve shapes appears reversed: an overconfident posterior typically gives ECP below the diagonal for all alpha_TARP, whereas an underconfident posterior gives ECP above the diagonal at low alpha_TARP. Please check the wording.
  3. [Sect. 3.3] The stopping criterion for the normalizing-flow training ('no longer improve') should specify the patience and the validation metric used, to make the procedure reproducible.
  4. [Sect. 7.2] The simulated external priors in the constraint-integration test are unbiased by construction (their means are drawn around the true value of the constrained property), so the reported improvements are optimistic relative to real external constraints that may be biased; please state this caveat explicitly.
  5. [Appendix A] The confidence score uses linear interpolation on the training images as a surrogate for simulations; this makes the score sensitive to training-set density and interpolation details. A sentence describing the interpolation scheme and its limitations should be added.
  6. [Fig. 16 / Table E.1] The caption of Fig. 16 refers to 'HD14266', which does not match the object 'HD 142666' in Table E.1; please correct the typo.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the SBI pipeline is trained and tested under the stated forward model; self-citations are data-source references, and the two-planet confidence-score failure is a robustness limitation, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the paper's actual claims. The posterior estimator is trained on a forward model stated explicitly in Sect. 3.1 (FARGO3D simulations with one planet, locally isothermal equation of state, pressureless dust, and no migration, accretion, self-gravity, or dust feedback), and its accuracy is measured on a held-out test set of 300 additional simulations that is never used for hyperparameter tuning (Sect. 4.1). The TARP test (Sect. 4.2) is an external calibration criterion from Lemos et al. 2023a; the reported ks-pval = 0.999 is a measured outcome, not an identity forced by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The CNN and normalizing flows are trained by minimizing MSE and negative log-likelihood (Eqs. 2 and 3), and the rmse/r2 metrics are evaluated on held-out synthetic observations, so the accuracy claim is an empirical benchmark internal to the model family rather than a circular prediction. Citations to Ruzza et al. 2024 are data-source and comparison citations; the physical assumptions are restated in this paper rather than imported as an unverified uniqueness or ansatz result. The paper itself flags the key limitations: Sect. 3.4 states that the inferred distributions 'cannot account for scenarios which are not included in our model, e.g. presence of other planets,' and Appendix A.1 shows that all two-planet simulations receive confidence scores above the recommended 0.6 threshold while conceding that the metric 'cannot point out degeneracies with OOD systems.' These are model-misspecification and robustness limitations that weaken the real-data population claims in Sect. 6, but they do not make any derived quantity equal to an input by the paper's own equations. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

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

The central result rests on a forward model built from hydrodynamical simulations plus a set of hand-chosen statistical hyperparameters. The largest loaded assumptions are single-planet causation and the physical simplifications of the disc model; these are acknowledged by the authors but still bound the scientific validity of the real-data application.

free parameters (4)
  • Training parameter priors = log-uniform alpha in [1e-4,1e-2], St in [1e-3,1e-1], Mp in [1e-5,1e-2]; linear h in [0.03,0.1]
    These ranges define the prior and the normalization of all inferred posteriors; changing them changes the results on real data.
  • MC dropout rate = 0.20
    Dropout rate used during CNN training and inference to generate 1500 summary-statistic samples; chosen by hand and affects posterior width.
  • Augmentation Gaussian noise variance = 0.1
    Added to input images during training to improve robustness; selected by hand and affects calibration.
  • Confidence score rejection threshold = 0.6
    Chosen from calibration tests in Appendix A.1; used to decide which real-data inferences to reject.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Each dust substructure is caused by a single embedded planet in a locally isothermal viscous disc.
    Central modeling assumption of the training set, invoked in Sect. 3.1 and 3.4; excludes multiple planets and alternative gap-formation mechanisms.
  • domain assumption Dust is a pressureless fluid subject to gas drag, without dust feedback, self-gravity, planet migration, or accretion.
    Simulation physics choices in Sect. 3.1 that define the forward model and therefore all inferences.
  • domain assumption The CNN summary statistics are sufficient statistics for the four target parameters.
    The normalizing flows view only the CNN outputs, so information discarded by the CNN cannot be recovered; posterior accuracy depends on this approximation (Sects. 3.2-3.3).
  • standard math TARP coverage is a valid necessary-and-sufficient probe of posterior accuracy for this finite test set.
    Used in Sect. 4.2 to validate posteriors; relies on Lemos et al. 2023a, with finite-sample and bootstrap uncertainties acknowledged.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DBNets2.0: simulation-based inference for planet-induced dust substructures in protoplanetary discs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R5ETDSXG

@misc{pith2026250611200,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DBNets2.0: simulation-based inference for planet-induced dust substructures in protoplanetary discs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R5ETDSXG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.11200}
}
abstract

Dust substructures in protoplanetary discs can be signatures of embedded young planets whose detection and characterisation would provide a better understanding of planet formation. Traditional techniques used to link substructures' morphology to the properties of putative embedded planets present several limitations that the use of deep learning methods has partly overcome. In our previous work, we developed DBNets, a tool exploiting an ensemble of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) to estimate the mass of putative planets in disc dust substructures. This inference problem, however, is degenerate as planets of different masses could produce the same rings and gaps if other physical disc properties were different. In this paper, we address this issue improving our simulation-based inference pipeline to estimate the full posterior distribution for the planet mass and three additional disc properties: the disc $\alpha$-viscosity, the scale height and the dust Stokes number. We also address some minor issues of our previous tool. The new pipeline involves a CNN that summarises the input images in a set of summary statistics, followed by an ensemble of normalising flows that model the inferred posterior for the target properties. We tested our pipeline on a dedicated set of synthetic observations using the TARP test and standard metrics, demonstrating its accuracy and precision. Additionally, we use the results obtained on the test set to study the degeneracies between pairs of parameters. Finally, we apply the developed pipeline to a set of 49 gaps in 34 protoplanetary discs' continuum observations. The results show typically low values of $\alpha$-viscosity, disc scale heights, and planet masses, with 83% of them being lower than 1M$_J$. These low masses are consistent with the non-detections of these putative planets in direct imaging surveys. Our tool is publicly available.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.11200 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of DBNets2.0 pipeline and objective [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Metrics computed on the test set for the 4 different inferred pa￾rameters and at varying resolution of the input images. The rmse and r2-score are computed using the median of the inferred distributions as best estimates. The σ indicates the mean standard deviation of the in￾ferred distributions. used for convolving the input image. As noted in Sect. 5.1, we still observe that the results are not strongly affected b… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. TARP curves computed, using the entire pipeline, on the test set with the input images convolved with gaussian beams of different sizes. The shaded areas mark the curves uncertainty evaluated bootstrapping the test data. and precision of single parameter estimates, that can be obtained by marginalizing the full joint posterior over the other disc or planet properties. In this context, for this marginalization, we as… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Results on the test set for each inferred property. For each targeted disc or planet property, the plots show the correlation between DBNets2.0 estimates and target values by plotting the median of the inferred distributions and the region between the 16th and 84th per…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Pearson correlation coefficients between pairs of inferred properties computed for each element of the test set using 5000 samples from the inferred posterior. The bottom left corner shows for each pair of target properties the distribution of values of the relative Pe…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of the inferred properties for the 49 actual gap observations considered. To construct these histograms we combine 5000 samples extracted from each inferred posterior. AS 209 (9 au) AS 209 (99 au) HD 163296 (10 au) HD 163296 (48 au) HD 163296 (86 au) IM Lu…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of DBNets2.0 and literature estimates of discs’ vis￾cous timescales for a subset of the analysed discs. Violin plots show the distribution p(αh 2 |x) inferred with DBNets2.0. Red and green points correspond to literature estimates obtained through αh 2 ∼ M˙ …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison between DBNets2.0 and literature estimates for the mass of the proposed planets in the actual 49 observations analysed. The left plots shows a comparison with Lodato et al. (2019) who assumed the gap width to scale as the planet Hill radius. The right plot …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Mass and semi-major orbital axis of the over 7000 exoplanets’ confirmed detections (grey points, data from exoplanet.eu). The red points are the proposed planets in protoplanetary discs characterised by DBNets2.0 with error bars marking the 16th and 84th percentiles o…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Distribution of resolutions of the set of dust continuum obser￾vations with substructures considered in this work. value of θc (which we know because we are using synthetic ob￾servations) with standard deviation σc,θ. We then evaluate how the constraint on θc affects …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Distributions of errors of DBNets best estimates (median of the inferred posteriors) for the planet mass obtained with and without prior constraints on the other target properties. The test was performed on the test set [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The rmse of the planet mass estimates, obtained by integrating the tool’s results with external constraints on one of the other inferred properties, as a function of the assumed uncertainty of the independent constraint. 7.3. Observed degeneracies and comparison with …
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Degeneracies between pairs of properties highlighted by the inferred posteriors on the test set. For each simulation in the test set, these plots show the slope of the major axis of the 2D Gaussian that best fits the inferred posterior as a function of the Pearson cor…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2015, TensorFlow: Large-Scale Machine Learning on Heterogeneous Distributed Systems

    Abadi, M., Agarwal, A., Barham, P., et al. 2015, TensorFlow: Large-Scale Machine Learning on Heterogeneous Distributed Systems

    2015

  2. [2]

    M., Huang, J., P \' e rez, L

    Andrews, S. M., Huang, J., P \' e rez, L. M., et al. 2018, ApJL, 869, L41

    2018

  3. [3]

    M., Wilner, D

    Andrews, S. M., Wilner, D. J., Zhu, Z., et al. 2016, AJ, 820, L40

    2016

  4. [4]

    2021, A & A, 652, A101

    Asensio-Torres, R., Henning, T., Cantalloube, F., et al. 2021, A & A, 652, A101

    2021

  5. [5]

    Auddy , S., Dey , R., Lin , M.-K., Carrera , D., & Simon , J. B. 2022, , 936, 93

    2022

  6. [6]

    Auddy, S., Dey, R., Lin, M.-K., & Hall, C. 2021

    2021

  7. [7]

    & Lin, M.-K

    Auddy, S. & Lin, M.-K. 2020, AJ, 900, 62

    2020

  8. [8]

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

    Bae , J., Isella , A., Zhu , Z., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 423

    2023

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    L., & Previn-Ratnasingam, R

    Barge, P., Ricci, L., Carilli, C. L., & Previn-Ratnasingam, R. 2017, A & A, 605, A122

    2017

  2. [10]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 304

    Baruteau, C., Barraza, M., P \' e rez, S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 304

    2019

  3. [11]

    2021, ApJL, 916, L2

    Benisty, M., Bae, J., Facchini, S., et al. 2021, ApJL, 916, L2

    2021

  4. [12]

    Ben \' i tez-Llambay, P., Krapp, L., & Pessah, M. E. 2019, AJ Supplement Series, 241, 25

    2019

  5. [13]

    & Masset, F

    Benitez-Llambay, P. & Masset, F. S. 2016, AJ Supplement Series, 223, 11

    2016

  6. [14]

    2015, Keras

    Chollet et al., F. 2015, Keras

    2015

  7. [15]

    2019, ApJL, 877, L33

    Christiaens, V., Cantalloube, F., Casassus, S., et al. 2019, ApJL, 877, L33

    2019

  8. [16]

    J., Tazzari, M., Juhasz, A., et al

    Clarke, C. J., Tazzari, M., Juhasz, A., et al. 2018, AJ, 866, L6

    2018

  9. [17]

    2022, Nat

    Currie, T., Lawson, K., Schneider, G., et al. 2022, Nat. Astron., 6, 751

    2022

  10. [18]

    & Laibe, G

    Dipierro, G. & Laibe, G. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 1932

    2017

  11. [19]

    2015, MNRAS: Letters, 453, L73

    Dipierro, G., Price, D., Laibe, G., et al. 2015, MNRAS: Letters, 453, L73

    2015

  12. [20]

    & Fung, J

    Dong, R. & Fung, J. 2017, AJ, 835, 146

    2017

  13. [21]

    2018, AJ, 866, 110

    Dong, R., Li, S., Chiang, E., & Li, H. 2018, AJ, 866, 110

    2018

  14. [22]

    Duffell, P. C. & Macfadyen, A. I. 2013, AJ, 769, 41

    2013

  15. [23]

    Dullemond, C. P. & Penzlin, A. B. T. 2018, A & A, 609, A50

    2018

  16. [24]

    2020, A & A, 639, A121

    Facchini, S., Benisty, M., Bae, J., et al. 2020, A & A, 639, A121

    2020

  17. [25]

    2023, A & A, 672

    Fedele, D., Bollati, F., & Lodato, G. 2023, A & A, 672

    2023

  18. [26]

    2018, A & A, 610, A24

    Fedele, D., Tazzari, M., Booth, R., et al. 2018, A & A, 610, A24

    2018

  19. [27]

    M., Simon, J

    Flaherty, K., Hughes, A. M., Simon, J. B., et al. 2020, AJ, 895, 109

    2020

  20. [28]

    M., Simon, J

    Flaherty, K., Hughes, A. M., Simon, J. B., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 363

    2024

  21. [29]

    M., Hughes, A

    Flaherty, K. M., Hughes, A. M., Rosenfeld, K. A., et al. 2015, AJ, 813, 99

    2015

  22. [30]

    2019, J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc), 182, 389

    Gabry, J., Simpson, D., Vehtari, A., Betancourt, M., & Gelman, A. 2019, J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc), 182, 389

    2019

  23. [31]

    & Ghahramani, Z

    Gal, Y. & Ghahramani, Z. 2015

    2015

  24. [32]

    2019, A & A, 623, A140

    Gratton, R., Ligi, R., Sissa, E., et al. 2019, A & A, 623, A140

    2019

  25. [33]

    Y., Bohn, A

    Haffert, S. Y., Bohn, A. J., de Boer, J., et al. 2019, Nat. Astron., 3, 749

    2019

  26. [34]

    J., et al

    Hammond, I., Christiaens, V., Price, D. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS: Letters, 522, L51

    2023

  27. [35]

    2021, AJ, 911, 5

    Hashimoto, J., Muto, T., Dong, R., et al. 2021, AJ, 911, 5

    2021

  28. [36]

    Hawley, J. F. 2001, AJ, 554, 534

    2001

  29. [37]

    2016, in 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR, 1

    He , K., Zhang , X., Ren , S., & Sun , J. 2016, in 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR, 1

    2016

  30. [38]

    2019, , 885, 36

    Hu , X., Zhu , Z., Okuzumi , S., et al. 2019, , 885, 36

    2019

  31. [39]

    M., Dullemond, C

    Huang, J., Andrews, S. M., Dullemond, C. P., et al. 2020 a , AJ, 891, 48

    2020

  32. [40]

    M., \" O berg, K

    Huang, J., Andrews, S. M., \" O berg, K. I., et al. 2020 b , AJ, 898, 140

    2020

  33. [41]

    2019, AJ, 879, L25

    Isella, A., Benisty, M., Teague, R., et al. 2019, AJ, 879, L25

    2019

  34. [42]

    2016, PRL, 117, 251101

    Isella, A., Guidi, G., Testi, L., et al. 2016, PRL, 117, 251101

    2016

  35. [43]

    D., Muto, T., Tanaka, H., et al

    Kanagawa, K. D., Muto, T., Tanaka, H., et al. 2016, PASJ, 68, 43

    2016

  36. [44]

    D., Tanaka, H., Muto, T., Tanigawa, T., & Takeuchi, T

    Kanagawa, K. D., Tanaka, H., Muto, T., Tanigawa, T., & Takeuchi, T. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 994

    2015

  37. [45]

    & Gal, Y

    Kendall, A. & Gal, Y. 2017, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017-December, 5575

    2017

  38. [46]

    2019, A & A, 625, A118

    Keppler, M., Teague, R., Bae, J., et al. 2019, A & A, 625, A118

    2019

  39. [47]

    2020, AJ, 888, 72

    Kim, S., Takahashi, S., Nomura, H., et al. 2020, AJ, 888, 72

    2020

  40. [48]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2110.04286

    Le Folgoc , L., Baltatzis , V., Desai , S., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2110.04286

    2021 arXiv

  41. [49]

    2023 a , 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, 202, 19256

    Lemos , P., Coogan , A., Hezaveh , Y., & Perreault-Levasseur , L. 2023 a , 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, 202, 19256

    2023

  42. [50]

    H., Hahn , C., et al

    Lemos , P., Parker , L. H., Hahn , C., et al. 2023 b , in Machine Learning for Astrophysics, 18

    2023

  43. [51]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 453

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

    2019

  44. [52]

    2022, MNRAS, 518, 4481

    Lodato, G., Rampinelli, L., Viscardi, E., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 518, 4481

    2022

  45. [53]

    J., et al

    Long, F., Pinilla, P., Herczeg, G. J., et al. 2018, AJ, 869, 17

    2018

  46. [54]

    2025, ApJL, 984, L17

    Longarini, C., Lodato, G., Rosotti, G., et al. 2025, ApJL, 984, L17

    2025

  47. [55]

    F., Ansdell, M., Rosotti, G

    Manara, C. F., Ansdell, M., Rosotti, G. P., et al. 2023, ASPC, 534, 539

    2023

  48. [56]

    F., Testi, L., Natta, A., et al

    Manara, C. F., Testi, L., Natta, A., et al. 2014, A & A, 568, A18

    2014

  49. [57]

    2023, ApJL, 950, L12

    Mao, S., Dong, R., Lu, L., et al. 2023, ApJL, 950, L12

    2023

  50. [58]

    M., et al

    Mao , S., Dong , R., Yi , K. M., et al. 2024, , 976, 200

    2024

  51. [59]

    2021, MNRAS, 503, 5100

    Marino, S. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 5100

    2021

  52. [60]

    2024, A & A, 686, A9

    Martire, P., Longarini, C., Lodato, G., et al. 2024, A & A, 686, A9

    2024

  53. [61]

    2019, A & A, 632, A25

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

    2019

  54. [62]

    A., Clarke, C

    Nazari, P., Booth, R. A., Clarke, C. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 5914

    2019

  55. [63]

    L., De Rosa, R

    Nielsen, E. L., De Rosa, R. J., Macintosh, B., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 13

    2019

  56. [64]

    I., Guzm \'a n , V

    \"O berg , K. I., Guzm \'a n , V. V., Walsh , C., et al. 2021, , 257, 1

    2021

  57. [65]

    2023, ASPC, 534, 567

    Pascucci, I., Cabrit, S., Edwards, S., et al. 2023, ASPC, 534, 567

    2023

  58. [66]

    2019, AJ, 158, 15

    P \' e rez, S., Casassus, S., Baruteau, C., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 15

    2019

  59. [67]

    2019, Nat

    Pinte, C., van der Plas, G., M \' e nard, F., et al. 2019, Nat. Astron., 3, 1109

    2019

  60. [68]

    R., Chauvin, G., et al

    Reggiani, M., Meyer, M. R., Chauvin, G., et al. 2016, A & A, 586, A147

    2016

  61. [69]

    Rosotti, G. P. 2023, New Astron. Rev., 96, 101674

    2023

  62. [70]

    P., Juhasz, A., Booth, R

    Rosotti, G. P., Juhasz, A., Booth, R. A., & Clarke, C. J. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 2790

    2016

  63. [71]

    Ruzza, A., Lodato, G., & Rosotti, G. P. 2024, A & A, 685, A65

    2024

  64. [72]

    E., Clarke, C

    Scardoni, C. E., Clarke, C. J., Rosotti, G. P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 5478

    2022

  65. [73]

    2016, A & A, 592, A49

    Teague, R., Guilloteau, S., Semenov, D., et al. 2016, A & A, 592, A49

    2016

  66. [74]

    Tejero-Cantero, A., Boelts, J., Deistler, M., et al. 2020, J. Open Source Softw., 5, 2505

    2020

  67. [75]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 2015

    Toci, C., Lodato, G., Christiaens, V., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 2015

    2020

  68. [76]

    2019, AJ, 888, L4

    Toci, C., Lodato, G., Fedele, D., Testi, L., & Pinte, C. 2019, AJ, 888, L4

    2019

  69. [77]

    E., van Dishoeck, E

    van Terwisga, S. E., van Dishoeck, E. F., Ansdell, M., et al. 2018, A & A, 616, A88

    2018

  70. [78]

    2020, in European Planetary Science Congress, 2020--398

    Veronesi, B., Ragusa, E., Lodato, G., et al. 2020, in European Planetary Science Congress, 2020--398

    2020

  71. [79]

    2021, A & A, 651, A72

    Vigan, A., Fontanive, C., Meyer, M., et al. 2021, A & A, 651, A72

    2021

  72. [80]

    B., Close, L

    Wagner, K., Follette, K. B., Close, L. M., et al. 2018, ApJL, 863, L8

    2018

  73. [81]

    L., Ruffio , J.-B., Ruane , G., et al

    Wallack , N. L., Ruffio , J.-B., Ruane , G., et al. 2024, , 168, 78

    2024

  74. [82]

    D., & Suto, Y

    Wang, S., Kanagawa, K. D., & Suto, Y. 2021, AJ, 923, 165

    2021

  75. [83]

    2018, AJ, 869, L47

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

    2018

  76. [84]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 4473

    Zhang, S., Zhu, Z., & Kang, M. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 4473

    2022

  77. [85]

    P., Wagner, K

    Zhou, Y., Bowler, B. P., Wagner, K. R., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 244

    2021

  78. [86]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sent...

  79. [87]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

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