Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The ALMA Survey of Gas Evolution of PROtoplanetary Disks (AGE-PRO): XI. Beam-corrected gas disk sizes from fitting 12CO moment zero maps

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Contrary to pebble-drift models, gas-to-dust size ratios do not grow with disk age; younger Lupus disks match or exceed older Upper Sco disks.

desk verdict A useful and honest measurements paper whose claimed reversal of the expected gas-to-dust size ratio trend is not actually supported by the data. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10750 v1 pith:CGZIP7IS submitted 2025-06-12 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Leon Trapman , Miguel Vioque , Nicolás T. Kurtovic , Ke Zhang , Giovanni P. Rosotti , Paola Pinilla , John Carpenter , Lucas A. Cieza
show 11 more authors
Ilaria Pascucci Rossella Anania Carolina Agurto-Gangas Dingshan Deng James Miley Laura M. Pérez Anibal Sierra Benoît Tabone Dary A. Ruíz-Rodríguez Camilo González-Ruilova Estephani TorresVillanueva
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords protoplanetarydisksgas-to-dustsizeratiopebbledriftdustevolutionALMA12COemissionNukerprofileLupus
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 tries to establish whether the gas-to-dust size ratio of protoplanetary disks grows as disks age, as pebble-drift models predict. To answer, it fits beam-convolved two-dimensional profiles to 12CO moment zero maps of twenty disks from the AGE-PRO ALMA survey, ten young Lupus disks (about 1-3 million years old) and ten older Upper Sco disks (about 2-6 million years old), then measures deconvolved gas disk radii that enclose 90 percent of the CO flux. Combined with continuum-derived dust radii, the ratios scatter between roughly 1 and 5.5. The central claim is that the younger Lupus disks have a median ratio (3.02) similar to or larger than the older Upper Sco disks (2.46), opposite to the predicted increase. The paper proposes halted pebble drift in dust traps plus external photoevaporation in Upper Sco as explanations, while also noting that survivorship bias could play a role.

What carries the argument

A two-dimensional Nuker profile, an axisymmetric double power law meeting at a break radius, convolved with the clean beam and fitted pixel-wise to 12CO J=2-1 moment zero maps using astropy's Levenberg-Marquardt fitter, with a Sersic profile used for two cloud-contaminated sources. The work it does is to deconvolve the beam from the emission so that the radius enclosing 90 percent of the unconvolved model flux, $R_{\rm CO,90\%}$, is an unbiased gas disk size; the gas-to-dust ratio then compares that radius with the 90-percent-flux dust radius from continuum visibility fits.

What would settle it

Measure $R_{\rm CO,90\%}$ for the eight disks with significant residuals (including Lupus 1, Lupus 10, Upper Sco 7, and Upper Sco 8) using a model that includes an elevated emitting surface or an azimuthal asymmetry, or exclude these disks and recompute the two regional medians; if the Lupus-Upper Sco gap disappears or reverses, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Beam-corrected CO sizes yield gas-to-dust size ratios that do not increase with disk age. From the unconvolved best-fit models, the median ratio for Lupus is $3.02^{+0.33}_{-0.33}$ while for Upper Sco it is $2.46^{+0.53}_{-0.38}$; within the propagated uncertainties the two regions are statistically consistent, and if anything the trend runs opposite to dust-evolution models. The result implies either that pebble drift stalls early in dust traps that fix the dust radius, that external photoevaporation in Upper Sco shrinks the gas disk, or that survivorship bias hides the predicted evolution.

Load-bearing premise

A single smooth, axisymmetric intensity profile, after deconvolution from the telescope beam, recovers each disk's true 12CO radial brightness well enough that the 90-percent-flux radius is unbiased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Observed gas disk sizes in compact sources can be overestimated by about one beam major axis, roughly 0.3 arcseconds, when measured directly from images; model fitting corrects this.
  • For the AGE-PRO sample the median gas-to-dust size ratio is 2.78, consistent with earlier surveys of other regions.
  • Because the ratio does not rise from about 1-3 million years to about 2-6 million years, simple viscous-plus-drift evolution is not enough to describe these disks; dust traps or external photoevaporation must be invoked.
  • Larger gas disks (about 100 au and above) are the ones that show detected dust substructures, which may partly be a resolution effect.
  • The best-fit profiles of the larger disks show a shallow inner power law and a steep outer drop, matching the expected optically thick CO intensity shape.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the flat ratio trend is real and general, inward pebble drift over the 1-6 million year window is far less efficient than standard models assume, which would lengthen the timescales for pebble-fed planet formation in the outer disk.
  • A natural test is to repeat the median ratio excluding the eight disks with significant model residuals; if the Lupus-Upper Sco gap closes, the apparent anti-trend is an artifact of profile mismatch rather than a physical age effect.
  • The photoevaporation explanation predicts that Upper Sco disks should show sharper outer CO cutoffs relative to their dust edges; comparing outer profile slopes between regions would test it.
  • Higher-resolution continuum imaging of Lupus could reveal the unresolved dust traps that the model requires, since the current roughly 22 au resolution may hide them.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents image-plane fitting of beam-convolved 2D Nuker and Sérsic profiles to 12CO J=2-1 moment-zero maps for ten Lupus and ten Upper Sco disks from the AGE-PRO ALMA Large Program. From the unconvolved best-fit models the authors measure gas disk sizes R_CO,90%, which they combine with FRANK dust sizes from Vioque et al. (2025) to compute gas-to-dust size ratios. They report a full-sample median ratio near 2.8, with Lupus (younger) at 3.02 and Upper Sco (older) at 2.46, and interpret the absence of an increasing ratio with age as evidence that pebble drift is halted in dust traps and/or that external photoevaporation truncates the Upper Sco gas disks. The paper also releases a public astropy-based implementation of the fitting method.

Significance. The AGE-PRO sample and the beam-correction method are valuable: the paper provides deconvolved gas sizes for 20 disks, makes the code available, and explicitly examines residuals and cloud-contamination effects. If the central result were robust, it would challenge the simple pebble-drift expectation that gas-to-dust size ratios increase with disk age and would strengthen the case for dust traps and external photoevaporation. However, the headline claim is not firmly established: the Lupus and Upper Sco median ratios overlap at the quoted 16th-84th percentiles, and the axisymmetric thin-disk fitting leaves significant residuals for 8 of 20 sources, so the apparent reversal could be a fitting artifact. The physical discussion is reasonable but is presented as an explanation of a trend whose statistical and systematic status is not yet secured.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §3.2/§5] The central claim is not supported by the quoted statistics. Section 3.2 states that "within these uncertainties the size ratios of the two regions are the same," and the 16th-84th ranges (3.02+0.33/-0.33 for Lupus versus 2.46+0.53/-0.38 for Upper Sco) overlap substantially. Yet the abstract and Section 5 present the comparison as "contrary to models of dust evolution" and as a finding that Lupus has "similar (or even larger)" ratios. No significance test (e.g., a bootstrap p-value for the difference of the medians) is provided. The manuscript should either reframe the conclusion to state that no significant evolution is detected, or add a quantitative test that justifies the stronger claim.
  2. [§2.1, §4.2, Table 1] The beam-corrected gas sizes rest on an axisymmetric thin-disk model, but Section 4.2 documents multiple ≥5σ residual features for 8 of 20 disks, including elevated emitting layers (Lupus 10, Upper Sco 8), East-West asymmetries (Lupus 1, Upper Sco 7), and possible companions or cloud contamination (Lupus 6, Upper Sco 5). For Upper Sco 8, Table 1 gives a fitted gas inclination of 16.2° while the continuum inclination is 56.2° (Section 4.2), which indicates that the model is compensating for a flared surface with an incorrect geometry. This can directly bias the deprojected R_CO,90%. The paper does not quantify how these residuals propagate into R_CO,90% or demonstrate that the bias is region-independent. Because the central result is a comparison between regions, an injection-recovery test with flared or asymmetric synthetic disks, or a cross-check against a complementary modeling approach, is needed before the reversal can be considered physical rather than an artifact of the fitting procedure.
  3. [§3.2, §2.1] The handling of upper limits in the median-ratio calculation is not specified. Section 3.2 notes that four Lupus and three Upper Sco sources have R_FRANK_dust,90% upper limits, and Table 1 lists Lupus 9 as having a gas-size upper limit of <0.09 arcsec. The Monte Carlo procedure described in Section 2.1 draws from "its uncertainty," but no prescription is given for how a censored value is treated. If upper limits are replaced by point estimates or included as if they were Gaussian measurements, the region medians could shift systematically. This is load-bearing for the Lupus-versus-Upper Sco comparison and should be described explicitly, with a sensitivity test showing the effect of censoring versus replacement.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.2 and §5] There are internal numeric inconsistencies: Section 3.2 gives the full-sample median as 2.78+0.37/-0.32 and the Upper Sco median as 2.78+0.53/-0.38, while Section 5 gives 2.87+0.38/-0.36 and 2.46+0.53/-0.38, respectively; the abstract also quotes 2.46 for Upper Sco. These must be reconciled.
  2. [§4.2] In the first paragraph of Section 4.2, the sentence "For Lupus 2 that is reason to include it from the analysis here" appears to mean "exclude it from the analysis"; please clarify.
  3. [Figure 5 and Section 3.2] The right panel of Figure 5 marks substructure status, but the text does not state how the categories "yes," "maybe," and "no" are assigned beyond a reference to Vioque et al. (2025). A one-sentence definition would help the reader interpret the panel.
  4. [Throughout] The source labeling is inconsistent between "Upper Sco" in the text and "UppSco" in several figure panels and appendix figures; please standardize.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: gas and dust sizes come from independent fits; the region ratio is a direct quotient, and companion-paper citations only support post hoc interpretation.

full rationale

The paper's central result is an observational ratio formed from two independently estimated radii: R_model_CO,90% fitted in Sect. 2.1 from 12CO moment zero maps, and R_FRANK_dust,90% taken from Vioque et al. (2025) continuum visibility fits. Neither quantity is defined in terms of the other, and the theoretical expectation of an increasing ratio with age comes from external dust evolution models, not from a parameter fitted in this paper. The pipeline does not 'predict' the ratio; it measures it after deconvolution, and the paper is transparent that R_model_CO,90% is read from the unconvolved best-fit model. The many in-press AGE-PRO citations (Vioque, Deng, Agurto-Gangas, Kurtovic, Anania, Tabone) are used for data products, ages, and possible explanations; none of them is the source of the central ratio, so they are not load-bearing in a circular sense. The residual and model-mismatch concerns raised in Sect. 4.2 (e.g., the Upper Sco 8 inclination discrepancy) are validity and correctness risks, not circularity: a biased model would produce wrong sizes, but not sizes that are equivalent to the model by construction. The internal inconsistency between the Section 3.2 median (2.78) and the abstract/conclusions median (2.46 or 2.87) is a reporting inconsistency, not a circular step. Overall, no derivation step reduces to its own input; the score reflects only minor non-load-bearing self/companion citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on fitted model parameters (Nuker or Sersic amplitudes, radii, slopes, and geometry), on hand-chosen Keplerian mask parameters, and on domain assumptions about CO optical depth, model adequacy, noise independence, comparability of visibility-based and image-based sizes, and age as the dominant difference between the two regions.

free parameters (3)
  • Nuker profile parameters (per disk, 18 disks) = see Table 1 (A, x0, y0, Rb, gamma, beta, alpha, PA, inc)
    Fitted to each 12CO moment zero map; the unconvolved best-fit model defines R_CO,90%.
  • Sersic profile parameters (Lupus 2 and Lupus 6) = see Table 1 (Ie, x0, y0, re, n, ellip, theta)
    Used for two disks where the Nuker profile is a poor description; the unconvolved model defines R_CO,90%.
  • Keplerian mask parameters (per disk, 20 disks) = see Table 2 (M*, distance, vlsr, PA, inc, z0, Rmax, nbeams)
    Hand-chosen mask inputs that define which pixels enter the moment zero map and the fit; they affect the measured sizes.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption 12CO J=2-1 emission is optically thick and traces the gas disk out to low densities, so the 90% flux radius of CO measures the gas disk size.
    Stated in the introduction and used throughout; if the CO emission is truncated by optical depth or excitation effects, R_CO,90% does not track the physical gas extent.
  • domain assumption The axisymmetric Nuker or Sersic profile, after beam convolution, can adequately represent the observed 12CO moment zero maps.
    Central to Section 2.2 and 3.1; eight of twenty disks show significant residuals, indicating this assumption is imperfect for a large fraction of the sample.
  • domain assumption The noise in the moment zero maps is independent between pixels after weighting by 1/sqrt(N_pixel_per_beam).
    Section 2.1 step 4; the paper calls this an approximate correction for correlated noise.
  • domain assumption Dust disk radii from FRANK visibility fits (Vioque et al. 2025) are directly comparable to gas disk radii measured from unconvolved image-plane model fits.
    Section 3.2 combines the two measurements; different tracers, fitting domains (uv vs image), and optical depth effects can introduce systematic offsets.
  • domain assumption The Lupus and Upper Sco samples differ primarily in age, and age differences dominate the comparison.
    Section 1 and 4.1; the regions also differ in environment (external irradiation), and the paper notes survivorship bias and selection effects.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The ALMA Survey of Gas Evolution of PROtoplanetary Disks (AGE-PRO): XI. Beam-corrected gas disk sizes from fitting 12CO moment zero maps." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CGZIP7IS

@misc{pith2026250610750,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The ALMA Survey of Gas Evolution of PROtoplanetary Disks (AGE-PRO): XI. Beam-corrected gas disk sizes from fitting 12CO moment zero maps},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CGZIP7IS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10750}
}
read the original abstract

The inward drift of mm-cm sized pebbles in protoplanetary disks has become an important part of our current theories of planet formation and, more recently, planet composition as well. The gas-to-dust size ratio of protoplanetary disks can provide an important constraint on how pebbles have drifted inward provided that observational effects, especially resolution, can be accounted for. Here we present a method for fitting beam-convolved models to integrated intensity maps of line emission using the astropy python package and use it to fit 12 CO moment zero maps of ten Lupus and ten Upper Scorpius protoplanetary disks from the AGE-PRO ALMA Large Program, a sample of disks around M3-K6 stars that cover the ~1 to 6 Myr of gas disk evolution. From the unconvolved best fit models we measure the gas disk size (RCO,90%[model]), which we combine with the dust disk size (Rdust,90%[FRANK]) from continuum visibility fits from Vioque et al. (2025, in press.) to compute beam-corrected gas-to-dust size ratios. In our sample we find gas-to-dust size ratios between ~1 and ~5.5, with a median value of 2.78(+0.37,-0.32). Contrary to models of dust evolution that predict an increasing size ratio with time, we find that the younger disks in Lupus have similar (or even larger) median ratios (3.02(+0.33,-0.33)) than the older disks in Upper Sco (2.46(+0.53,-0.38)). A possible explanation to this discrepancy is that pebble drift is halted in dust traps combined with truncation of the gas disk by external photo-evaporation in Upper Sco, although survivorship bias could also play a role.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10750 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison between the observed 12CO 2-1 radial inten￾sity profile (in black) of HD 163296 (Law et al. 2021) and the three model intensity profiles discussed in this work: Gaussian (orange), Sersic (blue), and Nuker (green). Bottom panel shows the fractional ´ difference between the observed and model intensities. Note that the focus here is on fitting the outer disk as it produces most of the total flux and therefo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of the observed (R obs CO, 90%) and model (R model CO, 90%) gas disk size. Lupus and Upper Sco disks are shown as yellow circles and teal diamonds, respectively, with the numbers corresponding to the source IDs in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distributions of the median gas disk size for the complete bootstrapped population of disks in Lupus (yellow) and Upper Sco (green). Circles above the distribution show the median of the distribution and the vertical lines stretches from its 16th to its 84th quantile. Note here that the uncertainty on the median only includes the propagated observational uncertainties and not the effect of our limited sample size. O… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Gas disk size (top) and gas-to-dust size ratio (bottom) of the Lupus and Upper Sco disks versus isochronal ages of individual sources (Deng et al. 2025, in press.; Agurto-Gangas et al. 2025, in press.). The top right panel shows histograms of the gas disk size, with th…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the gas disk size (R model CO, 90%), obtained from the unconvolved model, and the dust disk size (R FRANK dust, 90%), obtained from fitting in the continuum visibilities using FRANK (see Vioque et al. 2025, in press. for details). Lupus and Upper Sco disk…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Best fit (Nuker), peak-normalized, intensity profiles of the twenty sources examined in this work (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Residuals after subtracting best fit Nuker/Sersic profile for Lupus 1, 6, and 10 and Upper Sco 1, 5, 7, and 8. All residual maps ´ use the same colormap and range. Black solid and dashed contours show 5σ and 3σ, respectively. The black shaded regions in the images for …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Moment one maps of Lupus 6 and Upper Sco 5. Black solid and dashed contours show the 5σ and 3σ contours from the moment zero fit. The green circle shows the observed RCO, 90% (i.e. not from the best model). The emission inside the black contours shows tentative signs o…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of the R model CO, 90% for the best fit Nuker and Sersic intensity profile. Right panel shows the ratio of the two, with the gray region showing differences up to 20% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Results of fitting a 2D Nuker profile to the 12CO 2-1 moment zero maps of the 20 AGE-PRO sources in Lupus and Upper Sco. From left to right the panels show the observations in Jy/beam km/s, the best fit Nuker profile convolved with the clean beam Jy/beam km/s, the unc…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The Influence of Dust Composition on Accretion Outbursts

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

    Using 1D simulations with dust evaporation and condensation, the paper shows that dead-zone accretion outbursts vaporize dust out to about 0.5 au and that higher dust sublimation temperatures produce stronger but less...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    -s6 (,'_L!â- H

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  2. [2]

    Agurto-Gangas , C., Pérez , L., Sierra , A., & Miley , J. M. 2025 2025, in press., AAS, 10.3847/15384357/adc7ab

    doi:10.3847/15384357/adc7ab 2025

  3. [3]

    2025 2025, in press., AAS, 10.3847/15384357/adb587

    Anania , R., Rosotti , G., G \'a rate , M., et al. 2025 2025, in press., AAS, 10.3847/15384357/adb587

    doi:10.3847/15384357/adb587 2025

  4. [5]

    2018 b , , 865, 157, 10.3847/1538-4357/aadd9f

    ---. 2018 b , , 865, 157, 10.3847/1538-4357/aadd9f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadd9f 2018

  5. [6]

    M., Wilner, D., Hughes, A., Qi, C., & Dullemond, C

    Andrews, S. M., Wilner, D., Hughes, A., Qi, C., & Dullemond, C. 2009, , 700, 1502

    2009

  6. [7]

    M., Wilner , D

    Andrews , S. M., Wilner , D. J., Espaillat , C., et al. 2011, , 732, 42, 10.1088/0004-637X/732/1/42

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/732/1/42 2011

  7. [8]

    M., Wilner, D

    Andrews, S. M., Wilner, D. J., Zhu, Z., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 820, L40

    2016

  8. [9]

    P., Trapman , L., et al

    Ansdell , M., Williams , J. P., Trapman , L., et al. 2018, , 859, 21, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab890

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab890 2018

Show all 104 references
  1. [10]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    2013 doi

  2. [11]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  3. [12]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    2022 doi

  4. [13]

    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, 10.48550/arXiv.2210.13314

    2023 doi arXiv

  5. [14]

    2020, , 634, A109, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937209

    Baes , M. 2020, , 634, A109, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937209

    2020 doi

  6. [15]

    M., Carr , J

    Banzatti , A., Pontoppidan , K. M., Carr , J. S., et al. 2023, , 957, L22, 10.3847/2041-8213/acf5ec

    2023 doi

  7. [16]

    A., Carpenter, J

    Barenfeld, S. A., Carpenter, J. M., Ricci, L., & Isella, A. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 827, 142

    2016

  8. [17]

    2023, , 522, 1288, 10.1093/mnras/stad608

    Brice \ n o-Morales , G., & Chanam \'e , J. 2023, , 522, 1288, 10.1093/mnras/stad608

    2023 doi

  9. [18]

    E., et al

    Carmona , A., van der Plas , G., van den Ancker , M. E., et al. 2011, , 533, A39, 10.1051/0004-6361/201116561

    2011 doi

  10. [19]

    M., Esplin , T

    Carpenter , J. M., Esplin , T. L., Luhman , K. L., Mamajek , E. E., & Andrews , S. M. 2025, , 978, 117, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8ebc

    2025 doi

  11. [20]

    2022, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 134, 114501, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    CASA-Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 134, 114501, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    2022 doi

  12. [21]

    I., & Goldreich , P

    Chiang , E. I., & Goldreich , P. 1997, , 490, 368

    1997

  13. [22]

    I., \"O berg , K

    Cleeves , L. I., \"O berg , K. I., Wilner , D. J., et al. 2016, , 832, 110, 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/110

    2016 doi

  14. [23]

    2008, Handbook of star forming regions, 2, 295

    Comer \'o n, F. 2008, Handbook of star forming regions, 2, 295

    2008

  15. [24]

    1998, , 500, 411, 10.1086/305702

    D'Alessio , P., Cant \"o , J., Calvet , N., & Lizano , S. 1998, , 500, 411, 10.1086/305702

    1998 doi

  16. [25]

    A., Bureau , M., Onishi , K., et al

    Davis , T. A., Bureau , M., Onishi , K., et al. 2017, , 468, 4675, 10.1093/mnras/stw3217

    2017 doi

  17. [26]

    2013, , 557, A133, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321603

    de Gregorio-Monsalvo , I., M \'e nard , F., Dent , W., et al. 2013, , 557, A133, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321603

    2013 doi

  18. [27]

    2025 2025, in press., AAS, 10.3847/15384357/add43a

    Deng , D., Pascucci , I., & Vioque , M. 2025 2025, in press., AAS, 10.3847/15384357/add43a

    2025 doi

  19. [28]

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

    Dr a \.z kowska , J., Bitsch , B., Lambrechts , M., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 717, 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09759

    2023 doi arXiv

  20. [29]

    1998, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 338, L63

    Dutrey, A., Guilloteau, S., Prato, L., et al. 1998, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 338, L63

    1998

  21. [30]

    2017, , 607, A130, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730645

    Dutrey , A., Guilloteau , S., Pi \'e tu , V., et al. 2017, , 607, A130, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730645

    2017 doi

  22. [31]

    M., J rgensen , J

    Evans , Neal J., I., Dunham , M. M., J rgensen , J. K., et al. 2009, , 181, 321, 10.1088/0067-0049/181/2/321

    2009 doi

  23. [32]

    Facchini , S., Birnstiel , T., Bruderer , S., & van Dishoeck , E. F. 2017, , 605, A16, 10.1051/0004-6361/201630329

    2017 doi

  24. [33]

    P., Dzyurkevich , N., et al

    Flock , M., Ruge , J. P., Dzyurkevich , N., et al. 2015, , 574, A68, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424693

    2015 doi

  25. [34]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023, , 674, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2023 doi

  26. [35]

    Galli , P. A. B., Bouy , H., Olivares , J., et al. 2020, , 643, A148, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038717

    2020 doi

  27. [36]

    N., Stadler , J., et al

    G \'a rate , M., Delage , T. N., Stadler , J., et al. 2021, , 655, A18, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141444

    2021 doi

  28. [37]

    2023, , 679, A15, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244436

    G \'a rate , M., Birnstiel , T., Pinilla , P., et al. 2023, , 679, A15, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244436

    2023 doi

  29. [38]

    F., Grant , S

    Gasman , D., van Dishoeck , E. F., Grant , S. L., et al. 2023, , 679, A117, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347005

    2023 doi

  30. [39]

    W., & Driver , S

    Graham , A. W., & Driver , S. P. 2005, , 22, 118, 10.1071/AS05001

    2005 doi

  31. [40]

    1998, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 339, 467

    Guilloteau, S., & Dutrey, A. 1998, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 339, 467

    1998

  32. [41]

    2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 529, A105

    Guilloteau, S., Dutrey, A., Pi \'e tu, V., & Boehler, Y. 2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 529, A105

    2011

  33. [42]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020 doi

  34. [43]

    2020, , 895, 126, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab70ba

    Hendler , N., Pascucci , I., Pinilla , P., et al. 2020, , 895, 126, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab70ba

    2020 doi

  35. [44]

    2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 678, 1119

    Hughes, A., Wilner, D., Qi, C., & Hogerheijde, M. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 678, 1119

    2008

  36. [45]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in science & engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  37. [46]

    D., Walsh , C., Jennings , J., et al

    Ilee , J. D., Walsh , C., Jennings , J., et al. 2022, , 515, L23, 10.1093/mnrasl/slac048

    2022 doi

  38. [47]

    F., Testi , L., Facchini , S., Rosotti , G

    Izquierdo , A. F., Testi , L., Facchini , S., Rosotti , G. P., & van Dishoeck , E. F. 2021, , 650, A179, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140779

    2021 doi

  39. [48]

    A., Tazzari , M., Rosotti , G

    Jennings , J., Booth , R. A., Tazzari , M., Rosotti , G. P., & Clarke , C. J. 2020, , 495, 3209, 10.1093/mnras/staa1365

    2020 doi

  40. [49]

    T., Garate , M., & Pinilla , P

    Kurtovic , N. T., Garate , M., & Pinilla , P. 2025 2025, in press., AAS, 10.3847/15384357/add1d0

    2025 doi

  41. [50]

    T., & Pinilla , P

    Kurtovic , N. T., & Pinilla , P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.07349, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.07349

    2024 doi arXiv

  42. [51]

    T., Pinilla , P., Long , F., et al

    Kurtovic , N. T., Pinilla , P., Long , F., et al. 2021, , 645, A139, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038983

    2021 doi

  43. [52]

    R., Ajhar , E

    Lauer , T. R., Ajhar , E. A., Byun , Y. I., et al. 1995, , 110, 2622, 10.1086/117719

    1995 doi

  44. [53]

    J., Teague , R., Loomis , R

    Law , C. J., Teague , R., Loomis , R. A., et al. 2021, , 257, 4, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1439

    2021 doi

  45. [54]

    J., Crystian , S., Teague , R., et al

    Law , C. J., Crystian , S., Teague , R., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2205.01776. 2205.01776

    2022 arXiv

  46. [55]

    J., Batalha , N

    Lissauer , J. J., Batalha , N. M., & Borucki , W. J. 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 , 839, 10.48550/arXiv.2311.04981

    2023 doi arXiv

  47. [56]

    M., Rosotti , G., et al

    Long , F., Andrews , S. M., Rosotti , G., et al. 2022, , 931, 6, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac634e

    2022 doi

  48. [57]

    Lynden-Bell , D., & Pringle , J. E. 1974, , 168, 603

    1974

  49. [58]

    M., Pérez , L., Agurto-Ganges , C., et al

    Miley , J. M., Pérez , L., Agurto-Ganges , C., et al. 2025 2025, in press., AAS, 10.3847/15384357/add25c

    2025 doi

  50. [59]

    M., Carpenter , J., Booth , R., et al

    Miley , J. M., Carpenter , J., Booth , R., et al. 2024, , 682, A55, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347135

    2024 doi

  51. [60]

    2021, , 651, A48, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140550

    Miotello , A., Rosotti , G., Ansdell , M., et al. 2021, , 651, A48, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140550

    2021 doi

  52. [61]

    Mor \'e , J. J. 2006, in Numerical analysis: proceedings of the biennial Conference held at Dundee, June 28--July 1, 1977, Springer, 105--116

    2006

  53. [62]

    F., et al

    Paneque-Carre \ n o , T., Miotello , A., van Dishoeck , E. F., et al. 2023, , 669, A126, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244428

    2023 doi

  54. [63]

    R., Wilner , D., & Qi , C

    Pani \'c , O., Hogerheijde , M. R., Wilner , D., & Qi , C. 2008, , 491, 219, 10.1051/0004-6361:20079261

    2008 doi

  55. [64]

    J., Mamajek , E

    Pecaut , M. J., Mamajek , E. E., & Bubar , E. J. 2012, , 746, 154, 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/154

    2012 doi

  56. [65]

    2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 467, 163

    Pi \'e tu, V., Dutrey, A., & Guilloteau, S. 2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 467, 163

    2007

  57. [66]

    2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 564, A95

    Pi \'e tu, V., Guilloteau, S., Di Folco, E., Dutrey, A., & Boehler, Y. 2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 564, A95

    2014

  58. [67]

    2012, , 545, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219315

    Pinilla , P., Benisty , M., & Birnstiel , T. 2012, , 545, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219315

    2012 doi

  59. [68]

    2013, , 554, A95, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220875

    Pinilla , P., Birnstiel , T., Benisty , M., et al. 2013, , 554, A95, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220875

    2013 doi

  60. [69]

    Pinilla , P., Flock , M., Ovelar , M. d. J., & Birnstiel , T. 2016, , 596, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628441

    2016 doi

  61. [70]

    2022, , 662, L8, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243637

    Pinilla , P., Garufi , A., & G \'a rate , M. 2022, , 662, L8, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243637

    2022 doi

  62. [71]

    2020, , 635, A105, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937003

    Pinilla , P., Pascucci , I., & Marino , S. 2020, , 635, A105, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937003

    2020 doi

  63. [72]

    2018, , 609, A47, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731377

    Pinte , C., M \'e nard , F., Duch \^e ne , G., et al. 2018, , 609, A47, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731377

    2018 doi

  64. [73]

    Pringle , J. E. 1981, , 19, 137, 10.1146/annurev.aa.19.090181.001033

    1981

  65. [74]

    E., Alves , J., et al

    Ratzenb \"o ck , S., Gro schedl , J. E., Alves , J., et al. 2023, , 678, A71, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346901

    2023 doi

  66. [75]

    P., Tazzari , M., Booth , R

    Rosotti , G. P., Tazzari , M., Booth , R. A., et al. 2019, , 486, 4829, 10.1093/mnras/stz1190

    2019 doi

  67. [76]

    A., González , C

    Ruiz-Rodriguez , D. A., González , C. I., & Cieza , L. A. 2025 2025, in press., AAS, 10.3847/15384357/add2ec

    2025 doi

  68. [77]

    2021, , 649, A19, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039733

    Sanchis , E., Testi , L., Natta , A., et al. 2021, , 649, A19, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039733

    2021 doi

  69. [78]

    S \'e rsic , J. L. 1963, Boletin de la Asociacion Argentina de Astronomia La Plata Argentina, 6, 41

    1963

  70. [79]

    M., Zhang , K., et al

    Sierra , A., P \'e rez , L. M., Zhang , K., et al. 2021, , 257, 14, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1431

    2021 doi

  71. [80]

    M., Agurto-Gangas , C., et al

    Sierra , A., P \'e rez , L. M., Agurto-Gangas , C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.16651, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.16651

    2024 doi arXiv

  72. [81]

    R., & Pinilla , P

    Tabone , B., Rosotti , G. R., & Pinilla , P. 2025 2025, in press., AAS, 10.3847/15384357/adc7b1

    2025 doi

  73. [82]

    J., Testi , L., et al

    Tazzari , M., Clarke , C. J., Testi , L., et al. 2021, , 506, 2804, 10.1093/mnras/stab1808

    2021 doi

  74. [83]

    2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 606, A88

    Tazzari, M., Testi, L., Natta, A., et al. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 606, A88

    2017

  75. [84]

    2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1632, 10.21105/joss.01632

    Teague, R. 2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1632, 10.21105/joss.01632

    2019 doi

  76. [85]

    2019, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 3, 74, 10.3847/2515-5172/ab2125

    Teague , R. 2019, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 3, 74, 10.3847/2515-5172/ab2125

    2019 doi

  77. [86]

    2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 173, 10.3847/2515-5172/aae265

    Teague , R., & Foreman-Mackey , D. 2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 173, 10.3847/2515-5172/aae265

    2018 doi

  78. [87]

    F., van Dishoeck , E

    Thi , W. F., van Dishoeck , E. F., Blake , G. A., et al. 2001, , 561, 1074, 10.1086/323361

    2001 doi

  79. [88]

    2021, , 507, 818, 10.1093/mnras/stab2112

    Toci , C., Rosotti , G., Lodato , G., Testi , L., & Trapman , L. 2021, , 507, 818, 10.1093/mnras/stab2112

    2021 doi

  80. [89]

    R., et al

    Trapman , L., Ansdell , M., Hogerheijde , M. R., et al. 2020 a , , 638, A38, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834537

    2020 doi

  81. [90]

    R., van Dishoeck , E

    Trapman , L., Facchini , S., Hogerheijde , M. R., van Dishoeck , E. F., & Bruderer , S. 2019, , 629, A79, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834723

    2019 doi

  82. [91]

    D., Hogerheijde , M

    Trapman , L., Rosotti , G., Bosman , A. D., Hogerheijde , M. R., & van Dishoeck , E. F. 2020 b , , 640, A5, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037673

    2020 doi

  83. [92]

    2023, , 954, 41, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace7d1

    Trapman , L., Rosotti , G., Zhang , K., & Tabone , B. 2023, , 954, 41, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace7d1

    2023 doi

  84. [93]

    2025 2025, in press., AAS, 10.3847/15384357/adcd6e

    Trapman , L., Zhang , K., Rosotti , G., et al. 2025 2025, in press., AAS, 10.3847/15384357/adcd6e

    2025 doi

  85. [94]

    M., Birnstiel , T., & Wilner , D

    Tripathi , A., Andrews , S. M., Birnstiel , T., & Wilner , D. J. 2017, , 845, 44, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7c62

    2017 doi

  86. [95]

    van der Marel , N., & Mulders , G. D. 2021, , 162, 28, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac0255

    2021 doi

  87. [96]

    F., Bruderer , S., et al

    van der Marel , N., van Dishoeck , E. F., Bruderer , S., et al. 2016, , 585, A58, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526988

    2016 doi

  88. [97]

    F., Bruderer , S., P \'e rez , L., & Isella , A

    van der Marel , N., van Dishoeck , E. F., Bruderer , S., P \'e rez , L., & Isella , A. 2015, , 579, A106, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525658

    2015 doi

  89. [98]

    P., Picogna , G., et al

    van der Marel , N., Williams , J. P., Picogna , G., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2204.08225, 10.48550/arXiv.2204.08225

    2022 doi

  90. [99]

    T., Trapman , L., et al

    Vioque , M., Kurtovic , N. T., Trapman , L., et al. 2025 2025, in press., AAS, 10.3847/15384357/adc7b0

    2025 doi

  91. [100]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  92. [101]

    M., Millholland , S

    Weiss , L. M., Millholland , S. C., Petigura , E. A., 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 , 863

    2023

  93. [102]

    2023, , 959, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0ed9

    Xie , C., Pascucci , I., Long , F., et al. 2023, , 959, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0ed9

    2023 doi

  94. [103]

    D., & Bergin , E

    Zhang , K., Bosman , A. D., & Bergin , E. A. 2020, , 891, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab77ca

    2020 doi

  95. [104]

    2025 2025, in press., AAS

    Zhang , K., Pérez , L., Pascucci , I., et al. 2025 2025, in press., AAS

    2025

  96. [105]

    P., & Andrews , S

    Zormpas , A., Birnstiel , T., Rosotti , G. P., & Andrews , S. M. 2022, , 661, A66, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142046

    2022 doi

Pith tools

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