Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 66 references

Dust production in the debris disk around HR 4796 A

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read New SPHERE/ZIMPOL polarized-light images of the debris disk around HR 4796 A show that its one-sided brightness is best explained by small dust grains being released preferentially near the pericenter of a narrow, eccentric planetesimal…

desk verdict Strong new ZIMPOL-based case that HR 4796 A's brightness asymmetry is caused by dust released near pericenter, but the conclusion leans on an untested flat-disk assumption that deserves explicit scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10378 v1 pith:V2URTTA4 submitted 2019-08-27 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

J. Olofsson , J. Milli , P. Thébault , Q. Kral , F. Ménard , M. Janson , J.-C. Augereau , A. Bayo
show 16 more authors
J. C. Beamín Th. Henning D. Iglesias G. M. Kennedy M. Montesinos N. Pawellek M. R. Schreiber C. Zamora M. Carbillet P. Feautrier T. Fusco F. Madec P. Rabou A. Sevin J. Szulágyi A. Zurlo
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EP
keywords debrisdisksHR4796Aradiationpressurepolarizedscatteredlightdustproductioncollisionalcascadeeccentricringplanetformation
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

This paper analyzes new polarized-light images of the bright debris ring around the young star HR 4796 A and argues that the ring's north-east side is brighter than its south-west side because small dust grains are released preferentially near the ring's pericenter, not because dust simply piles up where planetesimals linger. Using a model that tracks how radiation pressure reshapes the orbits of released grains, the authors find a narrow, slightly eccentric parent belt at 76.4 au with width about 3.6 au and eccentricity 0.076. The same model reproduces previously published mid-infrared and ALMA images, so the inferred geometry is not tuned to one dataset. If the claim is right, the lopsided brightness of a debris ring can directly reveal where destructive collisions happen in a planetesimal belt, a collision-rate diagnostic rather than a sign of unseen planets shepherding the ring.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a Monte Carlo model of an eccentric planetesimal belt with grain-size-dependent radiation pressure. The dimensionless ratio $\beta(s)=F_{\rm rad}/F_{\rm grav}$ is computed from Mie scattering for each grain size; after a dust grain is released at a true anomaly drawn from a chosen collision prior (uniform, or Gaussian centered at pericenter with width $\delta\omega$), an analytic prescription updates the grain's semi-major axis, eccentricity, and argument of pericenter. Each bound grain's orbit is then populated with test particles and weighted by an enhancement factor that accounts for high-$\beta$ grains spending most of their orbit outside the birth ring. The model computes polarized scattering images with a Henyey-Greenstein phase function, and the parameters are fit to radial cuts by Markov chain Monte Carlo. The key controlling parameter is the width $\delta\omega$ of the release prior: only a normal prior centered at pericenter with a broad $\delta\omega\approx64^\circ$ reproduces the observed brightness difference between the two sides.

What would settle it

Measure the vertical structure of the ring with high-resolution imaging or model a warped disk to see whether the NE and SW sides are viewed at measurably different scattering angles; if a realistic polarized phase function plus a warp reproduces the observed NE/SW asymmetry with uniform dust release, the pericenter-concentrated collisions are not required.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that small grains in the HR 4796 A debris disk are preferentially released close to the pericenter of the eccentric parent belt, and that this asymmetric release, not pericenter glow and not an outer shepherding planet, produces the observed NE/SW brightness asymmetry. The best-fit model places the parent planetesimal ring at reference radius $76.4\pm0.4$ au, with eccentricity $e=0.076_{-0.010}^{+0.016}$, width $\delta r=3.6^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ au, and pericenter on the front side of the disk on the sky. The azimuthal concentration parameter $\delta\omega$ of the release prior is about $64^\circ$, meaning collisions that produce small dust happen preferentially in a wide sector around pericenter even though the parent bodies themselves spend more time near apocenter. With radiation pressure and this release geometry, the model matches the ZIMPOL radial cuts, reproduces mid-IR and ALMA images, and explains the sharp outer edge without invoking planet sculpting.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes the disk is flat enough that both ends of the semi-major axis are viewed at the same scattering angle, so any brightness difference must come from dust density rather than from how dust scatters light.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The parent planetesimal belt is narrow, about 3.6 au wide, and slightly eccentric, so dust production in HR 4796 A is confined to a thin torus rather than a broad disk.
  • Small dust is created at a higher rate near pericenter, so the azimuthal brightness of a debris ring can be read as a map of collision frequency, not just orbital density.
  • The sharp outer edge needs no outer shepherding planet; radiation pressure on grains launched from an eccentric belt produces it.
  • The same best-fit model simultaneously matches optical ZIMPOL radial profiles, mid-IR 18.1 and 24.5 micron images, and the ALMA 880 micron ring, so the inferred release geometry is consistent across grain sizes.
  • The model predicts that the mid-IR brightness asymmetry should be stronger at 18.1 microns than at 24.5 microns, matching the visual trend in earlier observations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the flat-disk assumption is relaxed, a warped or vertically thick ring could produce the same NE/SW contrast through slightly different scattering angles on the two sides; a vertical-structure measurement would tell whether the fitted $\delta\omega\approx64^\circ$ overstates the collision asymmetry.
  • The pericenter-concentrated release is consistent with a recent giant collision between large eccentric planetesimals; if so, the NE/SW brightness contrast should fade over orbital timescales, and monitoring over years could check whether the system is in a transient post-impact state.
  • Applying the same release-prior fitting to other eccentric debris rings would test whether asymmetric dust release near the pericenter is a general feature of collisionally active belts.
  • A high signal-to-noise ALMA map of the large grains should show a nearly uniform azimuthal distribution, because large grains feel little radiation pressure; if the millimetre ring shows the same strong asymmetry as the optical light, the release-prior explanation would be challenged.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents VLT/SPHERE-ZIMPOL polarimetric observations of the debris disk around HR 4796 A and fits radial intensity profiles along and near the projected major axis with a parametric model that includes radiation pressure on dust grains. The free parameters are the reference radius, parent-belt width, eccentricity, argument of pericenter, position angle, and a parameter δω describing the width of a normal distribution of the mean anomaly at which dust grains are released. An MCMC exploration yields a best fit with r0 = 76.4 au, δr = 3.6 au, e = 0.076, ω = −254°, and δω = 63.9°, with the pericenter on the north/front side. The authors conclude that small dust grains must be preferentially released near the pericenter, implying more frequent collisions there, and that no outer shepherding planet is needed to truncate the disk. The best-fit model is compared visually with ALMA 880 µm and mid-IR images, and two speculative scenarios are proposed for the extended HST halo.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the study provides one of the first direct constraints on the azimuthal distribution of dust production in a debris disk, with implications for collision models and planet-disk interactions. The modeling strategy is computationally light and the fit to the ZIMPOL radial profiles is compelling; the use of previously published ALMA and mid-IR data as independent cross-checks is a strength, as is the explicit exploration of the uniform-release counter-model in Fig. A.2. The paper is careful to separate the main fit from the speculative HST halo discussion. However, the central claim rests on the flat-disk/phase-function-cancellation assumption of Sec. 3.4 and on neglecting post-release grain-grain collisions, so the causal conclusion about collision rates is not uniquely established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.4] The central conclusion that small dust grains must be preferentially released near the pericenter rests on the assumption that the disk is flat enough for the NE and SW ansae to be observed at the same scattering angle, so that S12 cancels in the comparison. Because the model's only azimuthal degree of freedom is the release-prior width δω (Sec. 3.1), the fitted value δω = 63.9° becomes the sole mechanism for the brightness asymmetry; a warp, a vertical thickness gradient, or an asymmetric vertical profile could mimic the asymmetry without any pericenter-concentrated release. The paper provides no independent constraint on the flatness at the required level, nor a robustness test of this degeneracy. Please add a quantitative test (e.g., allowing a vertical offset or warp and checking whether a uniform release can reproduce the observed AN/AS profiles) or explicitly bound the allowed warp using the ZIMPOL data.
  2. [Sec. 3.1 and Sec. 5] The model interprets the fitted release distribution as the collisional release distribution, but grain-grain collisions after release are not included; the enhancement factor of Strubbe & Chiang (2006) is a steady-state lifetime correction, not a destruction term. For a disk with fractional luminosity ~5e-3, small grains may be destroyed on timescales comparable to or shorter than their orbital period, which would modify the azimuthal distribution that is compared to the data. The paper acknowledges this limitation and cites Löhne et al. (2017), but it does not quantify the effect on δω or on the statement that collisions happen more frequently near the pericenter. A quantitative estimate of the collisional lifetime versus orbital time, or a comparison with a model including collisions, is needed to support the causal claim.
  3. [Sec. 4.1 and Figs. 5-6] The agreement with ALMA 880 µm and mid-IR images is asserted on the basis of visual inspection only; no residuals, signal-to-noise metrics, or quantitative azimuthal comparisons are provided. Since these data were not used in the fit, they are legitimate independent cross-checks, but the abstract's claim of agreement with previously published datasets from near-IR to sub-mm wavelengths is stronger than the evidence presented. Please either add quantitative comparisons or soften the claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Table 1] δr = 3.6 au is the standard deviation of a normal distribution, not the 'width' of the ring; using 'standard deviation' or converting to FWHM would avoid confusion.
  2. [Sec. 4.4.2] The adopted ISM density nH = 125 cm^-3 is outside the range 5-100 cm^-3 quoted in the same paragraph; the statement that this is 'on the higher end of the range' is inaccurate and should be corrected.
  3. [Sec. 3.4] The sentence 'since then it has been shown that this is not compatible with several studies...' lacks a citation and a clear subject; please rephrase and cite the relevant works.
  4. [Fig. 2 and Sec. 3.5] The model under-predicts the BN/CN profiles beyond 1 arcsec and the BS/CS peak positions are offset; a short discussion of these residuals would help the reader assess the fit quality.
  5. [Appendix A.2] The uniform-release comparison is shown only for the major-axis profiles; stating whether the off-axis cuts are similarly affected would strengthen the demonstration that δω is required.
  6. [Throughout] The text contains inconsistent spellings (e.g., 'different' vs 'different', 'Thebault' vs 'Thébault'); a careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the pericenter-release conclusion is a fitted model parameter with a uniform-release control and independent multi-wavelength cross-checks, not a prediction-by-construction.

full rationale

The central chain is: ZIMPOL radial profiles are fitted with an MCMC over r0, δr, ω, δω, e, and φ, where δω is the width of the assumed normal 'collisional distribution' (Sec. 3.1: 'To decide where the collision releasing a dust grain takes place, we use a prior distribution on the mean anomaly... The standard deviation when using the normal distribution is noted δω'). The best-fit δω = 63.9° is then reported as 'small dust grains must be preferentially released near the pericenter to explain the observed brightness asymmetry.' This is a parameter estimate with a physical interpretation, not a hidden second quantity predicted from the fit: the asymmetry is used to constrain δω, and the uniform-release model (Fig. A.2) is an explicit control showing that, within the adopted geometry, δω ≠ 0 is needed. The paper does not stop at the fit: it compares the best-fit model to previously published ALMA 880 μm and mid-IR 18.1/24.5 μm images as independent cross-checks, stating at Sec. 4.1 'we did not aim at fitting those observations.' No load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation: the phase-function discussion defers to Milli et al. (2019) but is explicitly declared not relevant for the major-axis comparison since both sides are observed at the same scattering angle, and the radiation-pressure treatment comes from external work (Lee & Chiang 2016; Wyatt et al. 1999). The flat-disk/same-scattering-angle assumption in Sec. 3.4 is a physical modeling assumption that affects robustness and scope, but it is not a circular reduction of the conclusion to its inputs. Therefore the derivation is self-contained and no circularity is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central model rests on standard collisional-cascade, Mie theory, and radiation-pressure parametrizations from prior literature, plus fixed stellar parameters and inclination. The six fitted ring parameters and four per-cut scaling factors are the free parameters; no new physical entities are introduced. The speculative halo scenarios add hand-chosen parameters (e.g., ISM density nH = 125 cm^-3, precession rate) but these do not enter the central claim.

free parameters (7)
  • r0 (reference radius) = 76.4 au (+0.4/-0.3)
    Fitted to ZIMPOL radial profiles along and near the major axis; sets the location of the parent planetesimal belt.
  • δr (parent belt width) = 3.6 au (+0.2/-0.2)
    Fitted; central conclusion is that the parent belt is narrow, of order the vertical scale height.
  • ω (argument of periapsis) = -254.3 deg (+1.8/-1.6)
    Fitted; places pericenter on the front side (north) of the disk.
  • δω (collision release concentration) = 63.9 deg (+14.4/-11.3)
    Fitted standard deviation of the normal release prior centered at pericenter; this parameter is the quantitative basis for the claim that dust is released preferentially near pericenter.
  • e (eccentricity) = 0.076 (+0.016/-0.010)
    Fitted; eccentricity of the parent planetesimal ring.
  • φ (position angle) = -152.1 deg (+0.1/-0.1)
    Fitted; orientation of the major axis on the sky.
  • Per-profile scaling factors (BN, BS, CN, CS) = not tabulated
    Independent scaling for the four off-major-axis radial cuts; fitted to absorb uncertainty in the polarized phase function at different scattering angles.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Dohnanyi (1969) collisional cascade size distribution, dn(s) ∝ s^-3.5 ds
    Assumed for the grain size distribution released by the parent bodies (Sec. 3.1, Eq. 1); standard in debris disk modeling.
  • domain assumption Mie theory for radiation pressure and scattering efficiencies
    Qpr, Qsca, and gsca are computed via Mie theory (Sec. 3.1, Eq. 2), assuming spherical astrosilicate grains with density 3.5 g/cm^3 (Draine 2003).
  • domain assumption Radiation-pressure orbital update equations (Eq. 3) from Wyatt et al. (1999), Wyatt (2006), and Lee & Chiang (2016)
    The mapping from parent-body orbital elements to dust-grain orbital elements under radiation pressure is taken from prior work and not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Lifetime enhancement factor for high-beta grains (Sec. 3.1)
    The simplified correction factor (1-β)^α / [1 - e^2 - 2β(1 + e cosν)]^α with α = 3/2 is adopted from Strubbe & Chiang (2006), Thébault & Wu (2008), and Lee & Chiang (2016); it affects the radial surface brightness profile.
  • domain assumption Thin-disk vertical dispersion with h/r = 0.04
    The vertical distribution is a Gaussian with standard deviation h/r = 0.04 (Sec. 3.1), following Thébault (2009); this underlies the same-scattering-angle assumption for the major-axis cuts.
  • domain assumption Henyey-Greenstein polarized phase function with g = 0.3
    The analytical S12 phase function (Eq. 5) is used to reduce free parameters; the authors argue the g value is not critical for the major-axis comparison because each side probes the same scattering angle.
  • domain assumption Stellar parameters L* = 25.75 L_sun, M* = 1.31 M_sun, distance = 71.9 pc
    Derived from photometry, a Kurucz model, and the log(g) relation (Sec. 3.2); adopted as inputs to the model.
  • domain assumption Inclination fixed at 76.6 degrees
    Taken from Milli et al. (2017) and Kennedy et al. (2018) (Sec. 3.3); the radial cuts near the major axis are the worst geometry for constraining inclination independently.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dust production in the debris disk around HR 4796 A." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V2URTTA4

@misc{pith2026190810378,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dust production in the debris disk around HR 4796 A},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V2URTTA4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10378}
}
abstract

Debris disks are the natural by-products of the planet formation process. Scattered or polarized light observations are mostly sensitive to small dust grains that are released from the grinding down of bigger planetesimals. High angular resolution observations at optical wavelengths can provide key constraints on the radial and azimuthal distribution of the small dust grains. These constraints can help us better understand where most of the dust grains are released upon collisions. We present SPHERE/ZIMPOL observations of the debris disk around HR 4796 A, and model the radial profiles along several azimuthal angles of the disk with a code that accounts for the effect of stellar radiation pressure. This enables us to derive an appropriate description for the radial and azimuthal distribution of the small dust grains. Even though we only model the radial profiles along (or close to) the semi-major axis of the disk, our best-fit model is not only in good agreement with our observations but also with previously published datasets (from near-IR to sub-mm wavelengths). We find that the reference radius is located at $76.4\pm0.4$ au, and the disk has an eccentricity of $0.076_{-0.010}^{+0.016}$, with the pericenter located on the front side of the disk (north of the star). We find that small dust grains must be preferentially released near the pericenter to explain the observed brightness asymmetry. Even though parent bodies spend more time near the apocenter, the brightness asymmetry implies that collisions happen more frequently near the pericenter of the disk. Our model can successfully reproduce the shape of the outer edge of the disk, without having to invoke an outer planet shepherding the debris disk. With a simple treatment of the effect of the radiation pressure, we conclude that the parent planetesimals are located in a narrow ring of about $3.6$ au in width.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10378 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Reduced ZIMPOL image of HR 4796 A. The super-imposed lines A to C show the locations where we measure the radial profiles (the width of the lines does not correspond to the width of the slits used to measure the radial profiles). 3.4. Modeling strategy Choosing the adequate scattering theory to compute the full (po￾larization and scattering) phase function when modeling debris disks observations still remains a chal… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Radial profiles of the disk along the three cuts highlighted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Observations and best-fit model to the SPHERE/ZIMPOL observations of HR 4796 A, with the same linear stretch (left and right, respec￾tively). For the model, the blue circle marks the location of the pericenter. servations. While we did not aim at fitting those observations, visual inspection suggests that we are obtaining very compara￾ble results, the brightness asymmetry being more pronounced at 18.1 µm than at 24.… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Projected probability density distributions along with the determined uncertainties for the different parameters in the modeling as well as density plots. The contours correspond to the [0.12, 0.39, 0.68, 0.86] density percentiles. bound grains with the highest β value…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: ALMA 880 µm Briggs-weighted image of HR 4796 A. Right: best fit model at the same wavelength, convolved with a similar beam (displayed in the bottom left corner of both images). No noise was added to the model. 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 [ 00] 2.0 1.5 1.…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mock observations with the Michelle instrument (18.1 µm, left panel) and T-ReCS (24.5 µm, right panel). found a similar estimate for the amount of ≤ 1m bodies). As a consequence, the catastrophic breakup scenario requires the breakup of planetary object, probably at le…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: HST observations, as published in Schneider et al. (2018) (left panel), and mock HST observations calculated from the N-body simulations of small, bound, dust grains around HR 4796 A, when considering interactions with the local ISM (clockwise and counter-clockwise rot…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mock HST observations calculated from the N-body simulations of small, bound, dust grains around HR 4796 A, when considering that the pericenter is precessing over time. The image is in log-scale. 4.4.3. Precession of the pericenter The second scenario we investigate t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Weinberger, A

    Arnold, J. A., Weinberger, A. J., Videen, G., & Zubko, E. S. 2019, AJ, 157, 157 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    C., Lagrange, A

    Augereau, J. C., Lagrange, A. M., Mouillet, D., Papaloizou, J. C. B., & Grorod, P. A. 1999, A&A, 348, 557

    1999

  3. [3]

    P., Schmid, H

    Avenhaus, H., Quanz, S. P., Schmid, H. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 781, 87

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    2008, A&A, 492, 277

    Bayo, A., Rodrigo, C., Barrado Y Navascués, D., et al. 2008, A&A, 492, 277

    2008

  5. [5]

    2015, A&A, 578, L6

    Benisty, M., Juhasz, A., Boccaletti, A., et al. 2015, A&A, 578, L6

    2015

  6. [6]

    2019, ArXiv e-prints [arXiv:1902.04080]

    Beuzit, J., Vigan, A., Mouillet, D., et al. 2019, ArXiv e-prints [arXiv:1902.04080]

    arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    A., Lamy, P

    Burns, J. A., Lamy, P. L., & Soter, S. 1979, Icarus, 40, 1

    1979

  8. [8]

    2015, A&A, 582, L7

    Canovas, H., Ménard, F., de Boer, J., et al. 2015, A&A, 582, L7

    work page 2015

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    V ., Min, M., & Keller, C

    Canovas, H., Rodenhuis, M., Jeffers, S. V ., Min, M., & Keller, C. U. 2011, A&A, 531, A102

    2011

  2. [10]

    G., & Kurucz, R

    Castelli, F., Gratton, R. G., & Kurucz, R. L. 1997, A&A, 318, 841

    1997

  3. [11]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 4114

    Cuello, N., Dipierro, G., Mentiplay, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4114

    2019

  4. [12]

    Dent, W. R. F., Wyatt, M. C., Roberge, A., et al. 2014, Science, 343, 1490

    2014

  5. [13]

    Dohnanyi, J. S. 1969, J. Geophys. Res., 74, 2531

    1969

  6. [14]

    Draine, B. T. 2003, ApJ, 598, 1026

    2003

  7. [15]

    Dullemond, C. P. & Dominik, C. 2008, A&A, 487, 205

    2008

  8. [16]

    P., Mora, A., et al

    Eiroa, C., Marshall, J. P., Mora, A., et al. 2013, A&A, 555, A11

    2013

  9. [17]

    M., Thalmann, C., et al

    Engler, N., Schmid, H. M., Thalmann, C., et al. 2017, A&A, 607, A90

    2017

  10. [18]

    M., Fitzgerald, M

    Esposito, T. M., Fitzgerald, M. P., Graham, J. R., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 85

    2016

  11. [19]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 24

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 24

    2016

  12. [20]

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

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

    2013

  13. [21]

    2006, in Proc

    Fusco, T., Petit, C., Rousset, G., et al. 2006, in Proc. SPIE, V ol. 6272, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 62720K Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1

    2006

  14. [22]

    & Rubin, D

    Gelman, A. & Rubin, D. B. 1992, Statist. Sci., 7, 457

    1992

  15. [23]

    2016, A&A, 595, A112 Hernández, J., Hartmann, L., Megeath, T., et al

    Ginski, C., Stolker, T., Pinilla, P., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A112 Hernández, J., Hartmann, L., Megeath, T., et al. 2007, ApJ, 662, 1067

    2016

  16. [24]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 488

    Iglesias, D., Bayo, A., Olofsson, J., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 488

    2018

  17. [25]

    P., Wyatt, M

    Jackson, A. P., Wyatt, M. C., Bonsor, A., & Veras, D. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 3757

    2014

  18. [26]

    1998, ApJ, 503, L79

    Jayawardhana, R., Fisher, S., Hartmann, L., et al. 1998, ApJ, 503, L79

    1998

  19. [27]

    E., & Smith, R

    Jura, M., Zuckerman, B., Becklin, E. E., & Smith, R. C. 1993, ApJ, 418, L37

    1993

  20. [28]

    M., Marino, S., Matrà, L., et al

    Kennedy, G. M., Marino, S., Matrà, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 4924

    2018

  21. [29]

    Kennedy, G. M. & Piette, A. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2304

    2015

  22. [30]

    Kenyon, S. J. & Bromley, B. C. 2005, AJ, 130, 269

    2005

  23. [31]

    2015, A&A, 573, A39

    Kral, Q., Thébault, P., Augereau, J.-C., Boccaletti, A., & Charnoz, S. 2015, A&A, 573, A39

    2015

  24. [32]

    2013, A&A, 558, A121

    Kral, Q., Thébault, P., & Charnoz, S. 2013, A&A, 558, A121

    2013

  25. [33]

    2012, A&A, 546, A38

    Lagrange, A.-M., Milli, J., Boccaletti, A., et al. 2012, A&A, 546, A38

    2012

  26. [34]

    F., et al

    Lebreton, J., Augereau, J.-C., Thi, W. F., et al. 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 539, A17

    2012

  27. [35]

    Lee, E. J. & Chiang, E. 2016, ApJ, 827, 125 Löhne, T., Krivov, A. V ., Kirchschlager, F., Sende, J. A., & Wolf, S. 2017, A&A, 605, A7

    2016

  28. [36]

    & Thébault, P

    Marzari, F. & Thébault, P. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 1890

    2011

  29. [37]

    2019, ArXiv e-prints [arXiv:1905.03603]

    Milli, J., Engler, N., Schmid, H., et al. 2019, ArXiv e-prints [arXiv:1905.03603]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [38]

    2015, A&A, 577, A57

    Milli, J., Mawet, D., Pinte, C., et al. 2015, A&A, 577, A57

    2015

  31. [39]

    2017, A&A, 599, A108

    Milli, J., Vigan, A., Mouillet, D., et al. 2017, A&A, 599, A108

    2017

  32. [40]

    M., Churcher, L

    Moerchen, M. M., Churcher, L. J., Telesco, C. M., et al. 2011, A&A, 526, A34 Moór, A., Ábrahám, P., Derekas, A., et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, 525

    2011

  33. [41]

    D., Min, M., Dominik, C., Debes, J

    Mulders, G. D., Min, M., Dominik, C., Debes, J. H., & Schneider, G. 2013, A&A, 549, A112

    2013

  34. [42]

    R., Lee, M.-Y ., et al

    Nguyen, H., Dawson, J. R., Lee, M.-Y ., et al. 2019, ApJ, 880, 141

    2019

  35. [43]

    2016, A&A, 591, A108

    Olofsson, J., Samland, M., Avenhaus, H., et al. 2016, A&A, 591, A108

    2016

  36. [44]

    R., & Kuchner, M

    Pan, M., Nesvold, E. R., & Kuchner, M. J. 2016, ApJ, 832, 81 Pástor, P. 2017, A&A, 604, A61

    2016

  37. [45]

    Pearce, T. D. & Wyatt, M. C. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 2541

    2014

  38. [46]

    Pearce, T. D. & Wyatt, M. C. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 3329

    2015

  39. [47]

    2019, ArXiv e-prints [arXiv:1902.05143]

    Perez, S., Casassus, S., Baruteau, C., et al. 2019, ArXiv e-prints [arXiv:1902.05143]

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    D., Duchene, G., Millar-Blanchaer, M., et al

    Perrin, M. D., Duchene, G., Millar-Blanchaer, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 182

    2015

  41. [49]

    Purcell, E. M. & Pennypacker, C. R. 1973, ApJ, 186, 705

    1973

  42. [50]

    J., Malhotra, R., & Hinz, P

    Rodigas, T. J., Malhotra, R., & Hinz, P. M. 2014, ApJ, 780, 65

    2014

  43. [51]

    J., Stark, C

    Rodigas, T. J., Stark, C. C., Weinberger, A., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 798, 96

    2015

  44. [52]

    M., Bazzon, A., Roelfsema, R., et al

    Schmid, H. M., Bazzon, A., Roelfsema, R., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A9

    2018

  45. [53]

    2012, in Proc

    Schmid, H.-M., Downing, M., Roelfsema, R., et al. 2012, in Proc. SPIE, V ol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV , 84468Y

    2012

  46. [54]

    H., Grady, C

    Schneider, G., Debes, J. H., Grady, C. A., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 77

    2018

  47. [55]

    J., Becklin, E

    Schneider, G., Weinberger, A. J., Becklin, E. E., Debes, J. H., & Smith, B. A. 2009, AJ, 137, 53 Stauffer, J. R., Hartmann, L. W., & Barrado y Navascues, D. 1995, ApJ, 454, 910

    2009

  48. [56]

    Strubbe, L. E. & Chiang, E. I. 2006, ApJ, 648, 652

    2006

  49. [57]

    Taylor, M. B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Se- ries, V ol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV , ed. P. Shopbell, M. Britton, & R. Ebert, 29

    2005

  50. [58]

    M., Fisher, R

    Telesco, C. M., Fisher, R. S., Piña, R. K., et al. 2000, ApJ, 530, 329

    2000

  51. [59]

    2011, ApJ, 743, L6 Thébault, P

    Thalmann, C., Janson, M., Buenzli, E., et al. 2011, ApJ, 743, L6 Thébault, P. 2009, A&A, 505, 1269 Thébault, P. 2012, A&A, 537, A65

    2011

  52. [60]

    2012, A&A, 547, A92 Thébault, P., Marzari, F., & Augereau, J.-C

    Thebault, P., Kral, Q., & Ertel, S. 2012, A&A, 547, A92 Thébault, P., Marzari, F., & Augereau, J.-C. 2010, A&A, 524, A13 Thébault, P. & Wu, Y . 2008, A&A, 481, 713

    2012

  53. [61]

    W., Backman, D

    Wahhaj, Z., Koerner, D. W., Backman, D. E., et al. 2005, ApJ, 618, 385

    2005

  54. [62]

    & Hillenbrand, L

    Wolf, S. & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2005, Computer Physics Communications, 171, 208

    2005

  55. [63]

    Wyatt, M. C. 2005, A&A, 433, 1007

    2005

  56. [64]

    Wyatt, M. C. 2006, ApJ, 639, 1153

    2006

  57. [65]

    C., Dermott, S

    Wyatt, M. C., Dermott, S. F., Telesco, C. M., et al. 1999, ApJ, 527, 918

    1999

  58. [66]

    C., Smith, R., Su, K

    Wyatt, M. C., Smith, R., Su, K. Y . L., et al. 2007, ApJ, 663, 365 Article number, page 13 of 14 A&A proofs: manuscript no. HR4796 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.00.51.01.5 [′′] 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 [′′] Front side Back side Fig. A.1. Top view of the weighted cross section of the best fi...

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.