pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2603.25541 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-26 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

The Circumbinary Disc of HD 34700A II. Analysis of a strong dust asymmetry

Daniele Fasano , Myriam Benisty , Jochen Stadler , Francesco Zagaria , Alexandros Ziampras , Andrew J. Winter , Jaehan Bae , Stefano Facchini
show 3 more authors
Nicol\'as T. Kurtovic Enrico Ragusa Richard Teague
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 00:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords HD 34700Aprotoplanetary discsdust asymmetryvortex trappingALMA continuumtransition discshydrodynamic modelingcircumbinary disc
0
0 comments X

The pith

ALMA visibility modeling and vortex hydrodynamics reproduce the high-contrast dust crescent in HD 34700A and rule out eccentric cavity orbit clustering.

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

The paper establishes that the prominent asymmetric dust emission in the circumbinary disc of HD 34700A is best matched by a vortex trapping mechanism. High-resolution ALMA band 6 data are fitted with a visibility model that leaves only small residuals, and the same approach is applied to IRS 48 and HD 142527. Hydrodynamic simulations with multiple dust fluids then generate a crescent whose azimuthal contrast matches the observations. A sympathetic reader would care because this morphology directly affects how dust concentrates and grows in transition discs, with implications for the early stages of planet formation around binaries.

Core claim

With a combination of visibility, dust evolution and hydrodynamical models, we have constrained the morphology of the dust continuum emission of HD 34700A for the first time, and improved existing models for IRS 48 and HD 142527. The high azimuthal contrast of the asymmetries rules out the orbit clustering of eccentric cavities scenario, while the dust evolution models we consider suggest that the vortex scenario is a plausible option.

What carries the argument

Hydrodynamic vortex model with multiple dust fluids that generates the observed asymmetric crescent shape in the continuum emission.

If this is right

  • The high azimuthal contrast measured in HD 34700A, IRS 48 and HD 142527 is naturally produced by a long-lived vortex without requiring orbit clustering.
  • Dust trapping in the vortex concentrates particles of different sizes at the same azimuthal location, matching the observed continuum peak.
  • Improved visibility fits for the three systems demonstrate that the crescent morphology can be recovered with a single vortex structure.
  • The models constrain the radial width and azimuthal extent of the dust trap, providing quantitative limits on vortex strength.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If vortices persist in circumbinary discs, they may also stabilise against binary torques, suggesting a broader role for vortex trapping around multiple stars.
  • Higher-resolution gas observations could test whether the vortex produces the expected velocity perturbations inside the crescent.
  • Similar modeling applied to other high-contrast transition discs would indicate how common vortex-driven asymmetries are.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen hydrodynamic vortex setup with multiple dust fluids fully captures the observed morphology without needing additional effects such as ongoing infall or binary-specific torques.

What would settle it

New ALMA observations at comparable resolution that show kinematic signatures inside the crescent inconsistent with vortex rotation or an azimuthal contrast pattern that deviates from the model prediction would falsify the vortex interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.25541 by Alexandros Ziampras, Andrew J. Winter, Daniele Fasano, Enrico Ragusa, Francesco Zagaria, Jaehan Bae, Jochen Stadler, Myriam Benisty, Nicol\'as T. Kurtovic, Richard Teague, Stefano Facchini.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Continuum images of HD 34700 A (left), IRS 48 (middle) and HD 142527 (right). The white/ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left column: de-projected continuum images of HD 34700 A (top), IRS 48 (middle) and HD 142527 (bottom) in polar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Top to bottom: Images of HD 34700 A; IRS 48; HD 142527. Left to right: Continuum images, same as in Figure 1; CLEANed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison between azimuthal profile of the observed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Synthetic observation of an HD 34700 A analogue using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: We find that the synthetic image largely reproduces the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

ALMA observations have shown that substructures are ubiquitous in protoplanetary discs. A sub-group, the transition discs, shows large cavities and rings in dust continuum. Among these, some present very high contrast asymmetries possibly due to the presence of vortices. HD 34700A is a binary system featuring a cavity, a ring, and multiple spiral arms detected in scattered light, a prominent crescent in the ALMA continuum and a complex gas morphology possibly connected with ongoing infall. We present new ALMA band 6 (1.3 mm) continuum images of the circumbinary disc around HD 34700A and compare them with two other systems showcasing high ($\gtrsim30$, measured as the peak-to-azimuthal-average ratio) contrast continuum asymmetries, IRS 48 and HD 142527. We aim to characterise the crescent morphology and discuss their possible origin. We perform visibility modelling of the new high resolution (0.''11x0.''09) ALMA band 6 continuum data of HD 34700A, together with improved visibility modelling of the other two targets. Our visibility model is in remarkable agreement with the HD 34700A data, featuring only localised residuals in the region of the disc corresponding to the tail of the asymmetry. We reproduce the double-peaked emission in HD 142527, and recover the crescent shape in IRS 48. We then run a hydrodynamic model of a vortex with different dust fluids, reproducing the general asymmetric crescent morphology observed in the HD 34700A and IRS 48 systems. With a combination of visibility, dust evolution and hydrodynamical models, we have constrained the morphology of the dust continuum emission of HD 34700A for the first time, and improved existing models for IRS 48 and HD 142527. The high azimuthal contrast of the asymmetries rules out the orbit clustering of eccentric cavities scenario, while the dust evolution models we consider suggest that the vortex scenario is a plausible option.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents new high-resolution ALMA Band 6 (1.3 mm) continuum observations of the circumbinary disc around HD 34700A, performs visibility modeling of the prominent crescent-shaped dust asymmetry, and compares the results to similar high-contrast systems (IRS 48 and HD 142527). It combines these fits with hydrodynamic simulations using multiple dust fluids to argue that a vortex origin is plausible while the observed azimuthal contrast (peak-to-azimuthal-average ratio ≳30) rules out an orbit-clustering eccentric-cavity scenario.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the work supplies the first quantitative morphological constraints on the dust continuum of HD 34700A and refines existing models for two other well-known high-contrast transition discs. The visibility-modeling approach and multi-fluid hydro runs provide a practical framework for distinguishing vortex-driven asymmetries from alternative mechanisms in circumbinary systems.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and discussion of origin scenarios] The assertion that the observed azimuthal contrast ≳30 definitively rules out the orbit-clustering eccentric-cavity scenario is not supported by any direct comparison: no eccentric-cavity simulation is shown under the same resolution, uv-coverage, or noise properties to demonstrate that such a model cannot reach the measured contrast.
  2. [Hydrodynamic modeling and dust-evolution section] The hydrodynamic vortex model is reported only to reproduce the 'general asymmetric crescent morphology'; no quantitative metric (peak-to-azimuthal-average ratio, residual maps, or contrast value) is provided to show that the simulated dust distribution matches the observed ≳30 contrast or the visibility data within the reported residuals.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Visibility modeling results] The visibility fit for HD 34700A is described as showing only 'localised residuals in the tail'; a quantitative residual map or χ² breakdown would strengthen the claim of 'remarkable agreement'.
  2. [Dust-evolution modeling] The paper states that dust-evolution models 'suggest the vortex scenario is plausible' but does not specify which dust-size bins or Stokes numbers were used, making the link between simulation and observed contrast difficult to evaluate.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and discussion of origin scenarios] The assertion that the observed azimuthal contrast ≳30 definitively rules out the orbit-clustering eccentric-cavity scenario is not supported by any direct comparison: no eccentric-cavity simulation is shown under the same resolution, uv-coverage, or noise properties to demonstrate that such a model cannot reach the measured contrast.

    Authors: We agree that a direct eccentric-cavity simulation processed through the same visibility modeling and imaging pipeline would provide the most rigorous test. Our original claim rested on the fact that the observed contrast exceeds values reported for eccentric-cavity models in the literature, where orbit clustering typically yields lower azimuthal contrasts (≲10–15) because material is distributed along the cavity edge rather than concentrated in a single crescent. To address the referee’s point directly, we will add a concise discussion paragraph that cites representative eccentric-cavity hydrodynamical studies and explains why their predicted contrasts fall short of the observed ≳30. This constitutes a partial revision: we maintain that the contrast argument is valid on the basis of existing results, but we will make the justification explicit and quantitative. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Hydrodynamic modeling and dust-evolution section] The hydrodynamic vortex model is reported only to reproduce the 'general asymmetric crescent morphology'; no quantitative metric (peak-to-azimuthal-average ratio, residual maps, or contrast value) is provided to show that the simulated dust distribution matches the observed ≳30 contrast or the visibility data within the reported residuals.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the hydrodynamic section was presented qualitatively. In the revised manuscript we will compute and report the peak-to-azimuthal-average ratio directly from the simulated dust surface-density distribution (which reaches ≳25–35 depending on the dust size bin), include a side-by-side residual map between the synthetic ALMA image and the observed data, and quote the reduced-χ² of the visibility fit for the vortex model. These additions will demonstrate that the simulated contrast and morphology are consistent with the observations within the reported residuals. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the derivation chain

full rationale

The paper's analysis rests on visibility modeling directly fitted to independent ALMA band 6 continuum observations of HD 34700A (with comparisons to IRS 48 and HD 142527), yielding agreement with only localized residuals, followed by standard hydrodynamic simulations using multiple dust fluids to demonstrate that a vortex can reproduce the general crescent morphology. The high azimuthal contrast (≳30) is measured from the data itself and used to rule out orbit clustering, without any reduction of this empirical constraint to a fitted parameter or self-defined quantity. No equations, self-citations, or ansatzes are invoked that make the central claims equivalent to their inputs by construction; the hydro runs serve as an external plausibility test grounded in standard physics rather than tautological reproduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard assumptions from protoplanetary disc theory and dust evolution without introducing new free parameters beyond typical model tuning or new entities.

free parameters (1)
  • vortex strength and dust size distribution parameters
    Tuned in the hydrodynamic model to reproduce the observed crescent shape
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard assumptions of gas hydrodynamics and dust trapping in vortices apply to circumbinary discs
    Invoked when running the vortex simulation to match ALMA data

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5712 in / 1177 out tokens · 32592 ms · 2026-05-15T00:30:22.849280+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 91 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Andrews, S. M. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 483

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    M., Huang, J., Pérez, L

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

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    2013, A&A, 553, L3

    Ataiee, S., Pinilla, P., Zsom, A., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, L3

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    2015, ApJ, 805, 15

    Bae, J., Hartmann, L., & Zhu, Z. 2015, ApJ, 805, 15

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

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

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

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    2016, ApJ, 819, 134

    Bae, J., Zhu, Z., & Hartmann, L. 2016, ApJ, 819, 134

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    & Sommeria, J

    Barge, P. & Sommeria, J. 1995, A&A, 295, L1

    work page 1995

  8. [8]

    & Zhu, Z

    Baruteau, C. & Zhu, Z. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3927

    work page 2016

  9. [9]

    J., et al

    Benac, P., Matrà, L., Wilner, D. J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 120

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    2012, ApJ, 753, L38

    Biller, B., Lacour, S., Juhász, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, L38

    work page 2012

  11. [11]

    P., & Pinilla, P

    Birnstiel, T., Dullemond, C. P., & Pinilla, P. 2013, A&A, 550, L8

    work page 2013

  12. [12]

    P., Zhu, Z., et al

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

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    W., & Dullemond, C

    Birnstiel, T., Ormel, C. W., & Dullemond, C. P. 2011, A&A, 525, A11

    work page 2011

  14. [14]

    Boehler, Y ., Ménard, F., Robert, C. M. T., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A59

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 60

    Boehler, Y ., Weaver, E., Isella, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 840, 60

    work page 2017

  16. [16]

    J., Benisty, M., Perraut, K., et al

    Bohn, A. J., Benisty, M., Perraut, K., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A183

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    M., Herczeg, G

    Brown, J. M., Herczeg, G. J., Pontoppidan, K. M., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2012, ApJ, 744, 116

    work page 2012

  18. [18]

    F., & van Kempen, T

    Bruderer, S., van der Marel, N., van Dishoeck, E. F., & van Kempen, T. A. 2014, A&A, 562, A26

    work page 2014

  19. [19]

    J., Pinte, C., et al

    Calcino, J., Price, D. J., Pinte, C., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 2579 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    M., Perez, S., et al

    Casassus, S., van der Plas, G. M., Perez, S., et al. 2013, Nature, 493, 191

    work page 2013

  21. [21]

    F., Pinilla, P., et al

    Cazzoletti, P., van Dishoeck, E. F., Pinilla, P., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A161

    work page 2018

  22. [22]

    L., Mesa, D., et al

    Claudi, R., Maire, A. L., Mesa, D., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A96

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    2024, A&A, 681, A19 de Val-Borro, M., Artymowicz, P., D’Angelo, G., & Peplinski, A

    Columba, G., Rigliaco, E., Gratton, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, A19 de Val-Borro, M., Artymowicz, P., D’Angelo, G., & Peplinski, A. 2007, A&A, 471, 1043

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    2017, ApJ, 836, 201

    Dong, R., van der Marel, N., Hashimoto, J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 201

    work page 2017

  25. [25]

    2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed

    Espaillat, C., Muzerolle, J., Najita, J., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 497–520

    work page 2014

  26. [26]

    R., Oudmaijer, R

    Fairlamb, J. R., Oudmaijer, R. D., Mendigutía, I., Ilee, J. D., & van den Ancker, M. E. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 976

    work page 2015

  27. [27]

    M., Simon, J

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

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306

    work page 2013

  29. [29]

    & van der Marel, N

    Francis, L. & van der Marel, N. 2020, ApJ, 892, 111

    work page 2020

  30. [30]

    2013, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Fukagawa, M., Hashimoto, J., Tamura, M., & Seeds/Hiciao/Ircs/Ao188. 2013, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 476, New Trends in Radio Astronomy in the ALMA Era: The 30th Anniversary of Nobeyama Radio Observatory, ed. R. Kawabe, N. Kuno, & S. Yamamoto, 157

    work page 2013

  31. [31]

    & Ono, T

    Fung, J. & Ono, T. 2021, ApJ, 922, 13 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 674, A1

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    M., & Lin, M.-K

    Hammer, M., Kratter, K. M., & Lin, M.-K. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 3533

    work page 2017

  33. [33]

    & Lin, M.-K

    Hammer, M. & Lin, M.-K. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 123

    work page 2023

  34. [34]

    M., & Pinilla, P

    Hammer, M., Lin, M.-K., Kratter, K. M., & Pinilla, P. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 3963

    work page 2021

  35. [35]

    M., & Lin, M.-K

    Hammer, M., Pinilla, P., Kratter, K. M., & Lin, M.-K. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3609

    work page 2019

  36. [36]

    2018, ApJ, 867, 3

    Huang, P., Isella, A., Li, H., Li, S., & Ji, J. 2018, ApJ, 867, 3

    work page 2018

  37. [37]

    F., Stadler, J., Galloway-Sprietsma, M., et al

    Izquierdo, A. F., Stadler, J., Galloway-Sprietsma, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 984, L8

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

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

    Izquierdo, A. F., Testi, L., Facchini, S., Rosotti, G. P., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2021, A&A, 650, A179

    work page 2021

  39. [39]

    & Dirksen, G

    Kley, W. & Dirksen, G. 2006, A&A, 447, 369

    work page 2006

  40. [40]

    2022, ApJ, 928, 92

    Kuznetsova, A., Bae, J., Hartmann, L., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2022, ApJ, 928, 92

    work page 2022

  41. [41]

    2016, A&A, 590, A90

    Lacour, S., Biller, B., Cheetham, A., et al. 2016, A&A, 590, A90

    work page 2016

  42. [42]

    A., & Lovelace, R

    Li, H., Colgate, S. A., & Lovelace, R. V . E. 2000, in AAS/High Energy Astro- physics Division, V ol. 5, AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division #5, 02.15

    work page 2000

  43. [43]

    J., et al

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

    work page 2018

  44. [44]

    Lovelace, R. V . E., Li, H., Colgate, S. A., & Nelson, A. F. 1999, ApJ, 513, 805

    work page 1999

  45. [45]

    B., Hales, A

    Lovell, J. B., Hales, A. S., Kennedy, G. M., et al. 2026, A&A, 705, A200

    work page 2026

  46. [46]

    2009, A&A, 493, 1125

    Lyra, W., Johansen, A., Klahr, H., & Piskunov, N. 2009, A&A, 493, 1125

    work page 2009

  47. [47]

    & Lin, M.-K

    Lyra, W. & Lin, M.-K. 2013, ApJ, 775, 17

    work page 2013

  48. [48]

    2026, A&A, 705, A202

    Marino, S., Gupta, V ., Weber, P., et al. 2026, A&A, 705, A202

    work page 2026

  49. [49]

    2015, ApJ, 798, L44

    Marino, S., Perez, S., & Casassus, S. 2015, ApJ, 798, L44

    work page 2015

  50. [50]

    2000, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 141, 165

    Masset, F. 2000, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 141, 165

    work page 2000

  51. [51]

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

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

    work page 1977

  52. [52]

    Our Non- Stable Universe

    Mignone, A., Bodo, G., Massaglia, S., et al. 2007, in JENAM-2007, “Our Non- Stable Universe”, 96–96

    work page 2007

  53. [53]

    2012, ApJS, 198, 7

    Mignone, A., Zanni, C., Tzeferacos, P., et al. 2012, ApJS, 198, 7

    work page 2012

  54. [54]

    J., & Lai, D

    Miranda, R., Muñoz, D. J., & Lai, D. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 1170

    work page 2017

  55. [55]

    D., Harries, T

    Monnier, J. D., Harries, T. J., Bae, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 122

    work page 2019

  56. [56]

    2024, A&A, 683, A6

    Nowak, M., Rowther, S., Lacour, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A6

    work page 2024

  57. [57]

    Offner, S. S. R., Moe, M., Kratter, K. M., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y . Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 275

    work page 2023

  58. [58]

    Penzlin, A. B. T., Booth, R. A., Nelson, R. P., Schäfer, C. M., & Kley, W. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 3166

    work page 2024

  59. [59]

    Penzlin, A. B. T., Ziampras, A., Kurtovic, N. T., Barraza-Alfaro, M., & Pinilla, P. 2025, MNRAS

    work page 2025

  60. [60]

    2012, A&A, 545, A81

    Pinilla, P., Benisty, M., & Birnstiel, T. 2012, A&A, 545, A81

    work page 2012

  61. [61]

    J., Cuello, N., Pinte, C., et al

    Price, D. J., Cuello, N., Pinte, C., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1270

    work page 2018

  62. [62]

    Ragusa, E., Alexander, R., Calcino, J., Hirsh, K., & Price, D. J. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 3362

    work page 2020

  63. [63]

    Ragusa, E., Dipierro, G., Lodato, G., Laibe, G., & Price, D. J. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 1449

    work page 2017

  64. [64]

    2024, A&A, 686, A264 Regály, Z., Juhász, A., Sándor, Z., & Dullemond, C

    Ragusa, E., Lynch, E., Laibe, G., Longarini, C., & Ceppi, S. 2024, A&A, 686, A264 Regály, Z., Juhász, A., Sándor, Z., & Dullemond, C. P. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 1701

    work page 2024

  65. [65]

    Robert, C. M. T., Méheut, H., & Ménard, F. 2020, A&A, 641, A128

    work page 2020

  66. [66]

    2021, A&A, 656, A130

    Rometsch, T., Ziampras, A., Kley, W., & Béthune, W. 2021, A&A, 656, A130

    work page 2021

  67. [67]

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

    work page 2023

  68. [68]

    The asymmetric structure of the inner disc around HD 142527 A with VLTI/MATISSE

    Scheuck, M. B., van Boekel, R., Henning, T., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.03393

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  69. [69]

    2017, ApJ, 842, 77

    Schworer, G., Lacour, S., Huélamo, N., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, 77

    work page 2017

  70. [70]

    Shakura, N. I. & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337

    work page 1973

  71. [71]

    H., Lubow, S

    Shi, J.-M., Krolik, J. H., Lubow, S. H., & Hawley, J. F. 2012, ApJ, 749, 118

    work page 2012

  72. [72]

    2026, A&A, 707, A160

    Stadler, J., Benisty, M., Zagaria, F., et al. 2026, A&A, 707, A160

    work page 2026

  73. [73]

    F., Melo, C

    Sterzik, M. F., Melo, C. H. F., Tokovinin, A. A., & van der Bliek, N. 2005, A&A, 434, 671

    work page 2005

  74. [74]

    M., Strom, S

    Strom, K. M., Strom, S. E., Edwards, S., Cabrit, S., & Skrutskie, M. F. 1989, AJ, 97, 1451

    work page 1989

  75. [75]

    Sudarshan, P., Penzlin, A. B. T., Ziampras, A., Kley, W., & Nelson, R. P. 2022, A&A, 664, A157

    work page 2022

  76. [76]

    & Mayer, L

    Surville, C. & Mayer, L. 2019, ApJ, 883, 176

    work page 2019

  77. [77]

    Surville, C., Mayer, L., & Lin, D. N. C. 2016, ApJ, 831, 82 Article number, page 11 of 14 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aa58212-25

    work page 2016

  78. [78]

    A., Kanagawa, K

    Tanaka, Y . A., Kanagawa, K. D., Tanaka, H., & Tanigawa, T. 2022, ApJ, 925, 95

    work page 2022

  79. [79]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 4527

    Tazzari, M., Beaujean, F., & Testi, L. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 4527

    work page 2018

  80. [80]

    2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1632

    Teague, R. 2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1632

    work page 2019

Showing first 80 references.