Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Grain Size in the Class I Protostellar System TMC-1A Constrained with ALMA and VLA Observations

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read New four-band radio data and a polarization map select ~0.1 mm dust grains in the TMC-1A protostellar disk, not millimeter-sized pebbles.

desk verdict New VLA data and a four-band SED analysis make a plausible case that TMC-1A's grains are ~0.1 mm, but the polarization tie-breaker assumes exactly the uniform-grain-size geometry that the grown-grain branch's own fit rules out. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13044 v1 pith:LG5VVCIY submitted 2024-11-20 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR

Yusuke Aso , Satoshi Ohashi , Hauyu Baobab Liu , Wenrui Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords circumstellardisksprotostarsdustgraingrowthspectralenergydistributionpolarizationself-scatteringgravitationalinstabilityTMC-1A
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 combines new centimeter-wavelength observations with archival millimeter-wavelength data to measure the maximum dust grain size in the disk of TMC-1A, a Class I protostar where planet formation may already be beginning. Fitting the spectral energy distribution at four bands yields two degenerate solutions: a small-grain branch with maximum grain size ~0.12 mm and a grown-grain branch with ~4 mm. The paper then builds polarized radiative-transfer models for both branches and compares them with an existing 1.3 mm polarization detection, finding that only the small-grain branch reproduces the observed ~1% polarization fraction and its orientation. If the small-grain branch is right, TMC-1A's disk has not yet formed millimeter pebbles, and its dust surface density is about an order of magnitude higher than the grown-grain branch would imply, high enough for gravitational instability and consistent with a recently identified spiral-like feature.

What carries the argument

Two mechanisms carry the result. The first is a multi-layer spectral energy distribution model in which each line of sight contributes a surface and a mid-plane dust component, using a standard water-ice-coated dust opacity model, dust self-scattering, and a free beam filling factor (the fraction of the beam filled by the emitting component) for the mid-plane; fitting this model to the four bands produces the small-grain and grown-grain solution branches. The second is self-scattering polarization, the polarized emission produced when thermal radiation scatters off dust grains, which is strongest when the maximum grain size is roughly the observing wavelength divided by $2\pi$. Running the same disk models through radiative transfer at 1.3 mm and convolving to the observed beam predicts different polarization patterns for 0.12 mm and 4 mm grains, and the comparison of those predictions with the observed polarization map is what selects the small-grain branch.

What would settle it

Measure the 1.3 mm polarization fraction in the central ~50 au of TMC-1A with an rms below a few times $10^{-4}$: the small-grain model predicts a ~1% polarization fraction oriented near the disk minor axis, while the grown-grain model predicts less than ~0.05% with no stable orientation, so either a secure detection near 1% or an upper limit well below 0.1% would settle which branch is realized.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Stated on the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the maximum grain size in the TMC-1A disk is most plausibly ~0.12 mm rather than ~4 mm. The four-band spectral energy distribution permits both branches, but the 1.3 mm polarization map breaks the degeneracy: only the small-grain branch reproduces the observed polarization fraction of ~1% and its orientation roughly along the disk minor axis, while the grown-grain branch predicts a polarization fraction below ~0.05% and no stable orientation. In the small-grain branch the implied dust surface density is roughly ten times higher than in the grown-grain branch, pushing the disk toward gravitational instability and linking the result to the spiral-like residual already identified in the same disk. The paper itself notes that distinguishing the branches robustly is difficult with the present data, and that the grown-grain branch's vertical temperature structure may be physically questionable.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the disk structure used for the polarization comparison, with fixed power-law density and temperature profiles, a vertically isothermal temperature, and one spatially uniform grain size, is close enough to the real TMC-1A disk that the predicted polarization difference between the two branches is trustworthy; if the real disk differs in vertical temperature structure or has a spatially varying grain population, the grown-grain branch could produce detectable polarization and the preference would weaken.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the small-grain branch is correct, TMC-1A's maximum grain size is ~0.12 mm, an intermediate value between the tens-of-micron grains inferred for younger Class 0 disks and the millimeter-plus grains inferred for more evolved disks.
  • The small-grain branch implies a dust surface density roughly ten times higher than the grown-grain branch, making the disk massive enough for gravitational instability.
  • That high disk mass connects the small-grain result to the one-armed spiral-like residual previously identified in TMC-1A, whose pitch angle matches gravitational-instability models.
  • Gravitational-instability-driven turbulence would suppress collisional grain growth, so planet formation via pebble accretion may be delayed until the transition from the Class I to the Class II phase.
  • The VLA Q and Ka band emission is dominated by dust rather than free-free jet emission, so the centimeter-wavelength flux densities provide direct long-wavelength constraints on dust opacity and grain size.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Applying this spectral-energy-distribution-plus-polarization comparison to a larger sample of Class 0 and I disks could turn the current handful of grain-size measurements into an evolutionary sequence; the small number of systems measured so far makes the apparent trend from tens of microns to millimeters tentative.
  • If gravitational instability suppresses grain growth, disks with clear gravitational-instability signatures should preferentially host sub-millimeter maximum grain sizes, while quiescent disks should show growth to millimeter sizes; this is a testable correlation across the protostellar population.
  • A cleaner test of the self-scattering interpretation would be multi-wavelength polarimetry: the polarization fraction should peak near the wavelength where $\lambda \approx 2\pi a_{\max}$, so measuring polarization at additional millimeter and centimeter bands would directly locate that peak and constrain the grain size without relying on the adopted fiducial disk structure.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents new VLA Q/Ka continuum images of the Class I protostar TMC-1A and reprocessed ALMA Band 6/7 archival images to constrain the maximum dust grain size in the disk. Visibility profiles and spectral-index maps show compact VLA emission and a central ALMA spectral index near 2, with a steeper index in the outer region. SED fits at seven offset positions using one- or two-component DSHARP dust models reveal a degenerate pair of branches: amax ~ 0.12 mm and amax ~ 4 mm. To break the degeneracy, the authors compute RADMC-3D 1.3 mm polarization models for both grain sizes and compare them with the Aso et al. (2021) polarization map, concluding that the small-grain branch is preferable, which then implies a massive, possibly gravitationally unstable disk.

Significance. If the small-grain preference holds, this is one of the few multi-wavelength constraints on grain size in a Class I protostellar disk, with a direct connection to disk mass, gravitational instability, and the onset of planet formation. The paper has clear strengths: new VLA observations, a careful treatment of ALMA calibration problems including explicit rejection of unreliable epochs, and a transparent admission of the SED degeneracy. The polarization comparison as an independent observable is an interesting approach. However, the central claim currently rests on a polarization model that does not include the two-layer geometry that the SED itself allows, and the known ~30% absolute flux uncertainty at Band 7 is not propagated into the SED branch discrimination. These are load-bearing gaps that need to be closed before the small-grain conclusion is firm.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.4 and §4.3] The polarization comparison is the only evidence that breaks the SED degeneracy explicitly acknowledged in §4.3, but the grown-grain polarization model does not represent the grown-grain SED branch as fitted. Section 4.3 finds that the grown branch requires a warm, low-filling-factor mid-plane component below a cooler surface component (Figure 8, e.g., Tdust(mid) ~ 500–585 K with fbeam = 0.36–1.0 at the central offsets), and the text states that assuming equal amax in both components is 'not necessarily realistic.' Section 4.4 instead adopts a vertically isothermal power-law disk with a single spatially uniform amax for each branch. The resulting <0.05% polarization for amax = 4 mm is therefore a property of that uniform, isothermal model rather than a robust prediction of the grown-grain SED branch. A settled two-layer realization with 4 mm grains in the mid-plane and 0.12 mm grains near the surface is explicitly permitted by §4.3 and would plausibly produce surface-scattered polarization closer to the small-grain model. I request a stratified two-layer RADMC-3D calculation matching the grown-branch SED parameters, or a clear downgrading of the branch-preference claim to model dependence.
  2. [Appendix A.2 and §4.1] The Band 7 (0.9 mm) data are one of only four independent SED anchor points, but the authors report an expected ~30% absolute flux uncertainty and use only the broadband spw0 (Table 1). Since the Band 6–7 spectral index drives the optically thick central-region interpretation and the branch separation in Figures 6 and 8, the SED fits should be repeated with a ±30% flux-scale shift at 0.9 mm, or with a log-normal absolute-flux nuisance parameter in the MCMC. This is a necessary robustness test rather than a request for new data.
  3. [§5.4 and §4.4] The claimed validation of the analytic Xu et al. (2023) disk model in §5.4 is partly circular: the discriminating polarization models in §4.4 adopt that model's density and temperature profiles, so the agreement with the observed polarization should be described as consistency of the combined (small-grain + Xu-structure) model, not as independent validation of the analytic model's physical assumptions. The SED fitting itself remains degenerate between the branches, so the 'consistency' between the small-grain branch and the analytic model is not an independent check.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 6, item 1] The conclusion states that the VLA images show a spectral index of ~3, whereas Section 3.3, the abstract, and the VLA spectral-index map report alpha ~2.5; this should be corrected.
  2. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'comapct', 'polarziation', 'Turus', 'detailes', 'corving', and 'pwerformed'. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  3. [Figure 9 caption] Panel (b) shows polarization directions for polarized intensity above 7.5 microJy/beam, while the observed noise is 25 microJy/beam; the claim that the direction is not the minor-axis direction in this model is based on sub-noise structures and should be stated as such in the text.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Small-grain preference is partly enforced by the adopted Xu et al. (2023) geometry, and the same model is then used for self-validation.

  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Section 4.4, 'Polarization of the two branches']
    "Our model is based on the fiducial model made for TMC-1A by Xu et al. (2023) because our purpose is not to reproduce the observed intensity distribution in detail ... The dust temperature is assumed to be vertically isothermal. ... The grain size is spatially uniform."

    The grown-grain SED branch of Section 4.3 and Figure 8 is a hot, compact mid-plane component (T~500 K, fbeam < 1) beneath a cooler surface; the paper itself states that 'The Tdust and fbeam values for the mid-plane component can be lowered if the grown dust is only present in the disk mid-plane.' The Section 4.4 polarization model instead gives the 4-mm grains the same vertical distribution as the small-grain-compatible Xu et al. (2023) fiducial model: vertically isothermal, no settling, and spatially uniform amax. With uniform 4-mm grains, self-scattering at 1.3 mm is weak by construction because polarization peaks near lambda/(2 pi) ~ 0.2 mm.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 5.4, 'Complementarity of analyses']
    "The consistency between our model-independent SED fitting (the small grain branch) and the analytic disk model of Xu et al. (2023) implies that this assumption is reasonable, in TMC-1A, and validates the physical assumptions of the analytic disk model."

    The SED fits alone are degenerate: Section 4.3 states that 'it is difficult to robustly distinguish the grown and small dust branches.' The preference for the small-grain branch is produced in Section 4.4 using a model built on the Xu et al. (2023) fiducial structure. Section 5.4 then cites agreement with that same Xu et al. model as validation of the model's constant-gas-to-dust-ratio (small-grain) assumption. The validating branch was selected with the model being validated, so the consistency is not independent evidence for the model's assumptions but a restatement of them.

full rationale

The paper's SED analysis is genuinely multi-band and self-consistently resolves a real degeneracy between a small and a grown grain branch, so the non-polarized part is not circular. The observed 1.3 mm polarization map from Aso et al. (2021) is also an independent, non-SED constraint, and the small-grain model reproduces its main features with a standard RADMC-3D calculation. However, the branch preference and the subsequent validation contain two related circularities. First, the grown-grain polarization model is constructed on the Xu et al. (2023) fiducial geometry (power-law density/temperature, vertically isothermal, spatially uniform grain size), which is a small-grain/coupled-dust geometry; the SED-grown branch, by contrast, is a hot, compact mid-plane (fbeam < 1) under a cooler surface. The low polarization found for 4-mm grains is therefore a consequence of the assumed geometry, not of the grown-grain branch itself, and the paper explicitly notes that a settled grown-grain mid-plane with a small-grain surface is allowed. Second, Section 5.4 uses the small-grain branch to validate the Xu et al. (2023) analytic model, but the small-grain branch was preferred by a polarization model based on that same analytic model; the SED fits alone cannot distinguish the branches. This makes the validation circular even though the central observation is independent. Score 6 reflects a partial circularity: the tie-breaker and validation loop reduce, in part, to the adopted self-cited model geometry.

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

All modeling relies on standard dust opacity, grain size distribution, and radiative transfer assumptions. The key load-bearing choices are the two-component geometry, fixed grain size distribution parameters, free-free neglect, and the Xu et al. fiducial profiles used for polarization modeling. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • amax (maximum dust grain size) = small branch ~0.12 mm; grown branch ~4 mm
    Free parameter in SED fits for each dust component; the branch selection is the central claim.
  • Tdust (surface and mid-plane temperatures) = e.g. 500 K / 52 K at center in grown branch; 140 K / 77 K in small branch
    Free parameters in the SED fits; degenerate with fbeam and Sigma_dust.
  • Sigma_dust (surface and mid-plane mass surface density) = e.g. 1.5/0.6 g cm^-2 at center in grown branch; 90/3.5 g cm^-2 in small branch
    Free parameters in the two-component fits; branch differences drive the disk mass discussion.
  • fbeam (beam filling factor of mid-plane component) = 0.0 to 1.0 across offsets
    Free parameter in two-component fits; directly affects flux and branch degeneracy.
  • q (grain size power-law index) = -2.5 or -3.5 (fixed choice)
    Not fitted; two assumed values representing drift-limited and fragmentation-limited growth.
  • amin (minimum grain size) = 10^-4 mm (fixed)
    Adopted nominal lower cutoff in the grain size distribution.
  • Radial power-law profile exponents for polarization model = Sigma_dust propto R^-1.96, Tdust propto R^-1.27
    Adopted from Xu et al. (2023) fiducial model, not fit to TMC-1A data; used in Section 4.4 polarization models.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption DSHARP water-ice-coated dust opacity model including scattering opacities
    Assumed for SED fitting and polarization modeling outside the water snowline (Section 4.1).
  • domain assumption Two-component line-of-sight geometry with surface and mid-plane dust
    Assumes a surface component with fbeam=1 and a mid-plane component with fbeam free, with mutual obscuration (Section 4.1).
  • domain assumption Same q and amax for surface and mid-plane components
    Adopted to limit free parameters; the paper notes this is not necessarily realistic (Section 4.1).
  • domain assumption Power-law grain size distribution n(a) propto a^q with amin=10^-4 mm and q=-2.5 or -3.5
    Assumed in Section 4.1 for all SED fits.
  • domain assumption Free-free emission is negligible in the Ka and Q bands
    Based on C-band non-detection and a luminosity correlation (Section 5.1); if false, the VLA fluxes would not be purely dust.
  • domain assumption Absolute flux calibration of the variable calibrator J0510+1800 is reliable after interpolation
    Absolute flux scales for some ALMA epochs rely on interpolated calibrator fluxes, with up to ~30% uncertainty discussed in Appendix A.
  • domain assumption Disk geometry of P.A.=75 degrees and inclination i=50 degrees
    Assumed for visibility deprojection and image alignment from Aso et al. (2021), Section 3.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Grain Size in the Class I Protostellar System TMC-1A Constrained with ALMA and VLA Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LG5VVCIY

@misc{pith2026241113044,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Grain Size in the Class I Protostellar System TMC-1A Constrained with ALMA and VLA Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LG5VVCIY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13044}
}
read the original abstract

The disk mass and substructure in young stellar objects suggest that planet formation may start at the protostellar stage through the growth of dust grains. To accurately estimate the grain size at the protostellar stage, we have observed the Class I protostar TMC-1A using the Jansky Very Large Array (VLA) at the Q (7 mm) and Ka (9 mm) bands at a resolution of ~0.2" and analyzed archival data of Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) at Band 6 (1.3 mm) and 7 (0.9 mm) that cover the same spatial scale. The VLA images show a compact structure with a size of ~25 au and a spectral index of ~2.5. The ALMA images show compact and extended structures with a spectral index of ~2 at the central ~40 au region and another index of ~3.3 in the outer region. Our SED analysis using the observed fluxes at the four bands suggests one branch with a small grain size of ~0.12 mm and another with a grown grain size of ~4 mm. We also model polarized dust continuum emission adopting the two grain sizes and compare them with an observational result of TMC-1A, suggesting that the small grain size is preferable to the grown grain size. The small grain size implies gravitational instability in the TMC-1A disk, which is consistent with a spiral-like component recently identified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13044 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. shows comparison of 1D visibility profiles among the ALMA Band 6 and 7 data sets used in this paper, while [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Continuum images in the VLA Ka and Q bands made with the robust parameter of 2.0, after the primary beam correction. The contour levels are in 3σ steps, where 1σ is (a) 10 and (b) 14 µJy beam−1 . The ellipse at the bottom left corner of each panel is the VLA synthesized beam. to obtain a synthesized beam size close but smaller than the target resolution 0. ′′24: 0.0 for ALMA Band 6, −0.5 for ALMA Band 7, 2.0 for VLA… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Continuum images in the ALMA Band 6 and 7 made with the same uv range of 20 − 1000 kλ, and the spectral index map made of the two images (panel c). Panels a and b are primary-beam corrected. Contour levels are in the 3σ steps, where 1σ is (a) 0.037 and (b) 0.19 mJy bea…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spectral energy distribution fitting assuming a single DSHARP dust component. The observed intensities are shown by dots that are color-coded by the offset positions. From top to bottom rows, the solid lines show the SED models assuming (1) grown dust branch with q = −…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Derived surface dust temperature profiles (see Section 4.3). Including a mid-plane dust component that is warmer than the surface component and has fbeam < 1 can en￾hance the flux density at 29–48 GHz, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) shows results of the small-grain model in the polarized 1.3-mm continuum emission. The spa￾tial scale and the color range follows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.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. JVLA Measurement of Grain Size in the Compact Dust Ring around Class I Protostar WL 17

    astro-ph.EP 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    New JVLA observations of the Class I protostar WL 17 indicate millimeter-sized dust grains in its ring, with a best-fit maximum grain size of about 4.2 mm.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    """"""""

    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

  4. [4]

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

    Andrews , S. M., Huang , J., P \'e rez , L. M., et al. 2018, , 869, L41, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf741

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf741 2018

  5. [5]

    1998, , 116, 2953, 10.1086/300637

    Anglada , G., Villuendas , E., Estalella , R., et al. 1998, , 116, 2953, 10.1086/300637

    doi:10.1086/300637 1998

  6. [6]

    2021, , 920, 71, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac15f3

    Aso , Y., Kwon , W., Hirano , N., et al. 2021, , 920, 71, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac15f3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac15f3 2021

  7. [7]

    2015, , 812, 27, 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/27

    Aso , Y., Ohashi , N., Saigo , K., et al. 2015, , 812, 27, 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/27

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/812/1/27 2015

  8. [8]

    P., Tollerud , E

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    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

  2. [10]

    M., Padovani , M., et al

    Bacciotti , F., Girart , J. M., Padovani , M., et al. 2018, , 865, L12, 10.3847/2041-8213/aadf87

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    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

  4. [12]

    2012, , 539, A148, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118136

    Birnstiel , T., Klahr , H., & Ercolano , B. 2012, , 539, A148, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118136

    2012 doi

  5. [13]

    P., Zhu , Z., et al

    Birnstiel , T., Dullemond , C. P., Zhu , Z., et al. 2018, , 869, L45, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf743

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    Bjerkeli , P., van der Wiel , M. H. D., Harsono , D., Ramsey , J. P., & J rgensen , J. K. 2016, , 540, 406, 10.1038/nature20600

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    I., & Goldreich , P

    Chiang , E. I., & Goldreich , P. 1997, , 490, 368, 10.1086/304869

    1997 doi

  8. [16]

    B., Jim \'e nez-Serra , I., et al

    Coutens , A., Liu , H. B., Jim \'e nez-Serra , I., et al. 2019, , 631, A58, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935340

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    2001, , 553, 321, 10.1086/320655

    D'Alessio , P., Calvet , N., & Hartmann , L. 2001, , 553, 321, 10.1086/320655

    2001 doi

  10. [18]

    Dent , W. R. F., Pinte , C., Cortes , P. C., et al. 2019, , 482, L29, 10.1093/mnrasl/sly181

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    Draine , B. T. 2006, , 636, 1114, 10.1086/498130

    2006 doi

  12. [20]

    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

  13. [21]

    P., Juhasz , A., Pohl , A., et al

    Dullemond , C. P., Juhasz , A., Pohl , A., et al. 2012, RADMC-3D: A multi-purpose radiative transfer tool , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1202.015. 1202.015

    2012

  14. [22]

    A., Loinard , L., Mioduszewski , A

    Dzib , S. A., Loinard , L., Mioduszewski , A. J., et al. 2013, , 775, 63, 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/63

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    A., Loinard , L., Rodr \' guez , L

    Dzib , S. A., Loinard , L., Rodr \' guez , L. F., et al. 2015, , 801, 91, 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/91

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, 10.21105/joss.00024

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, 10.21105/joss.00024

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

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

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306, 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    Y., Bohn , A

    Haffert , S. Y., Bohn , A. J., de Boer , J., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 749, 10.1038/s41550-019-0780-5

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    2023, , 956, 9, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf853

    Han , I., Kwon , W., Aso , Y., Bae , J., & Sheehan , P. 2023, , 956, 9, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf853

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    Harsono , D., Bjerkeli , P., van der Wiel , M. H. D., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 646, 10.1038/s41550-018-0497-x

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    Harsono , D., van der Wiel , M. H. D., Bjerkeli , P., et al. 2021, , 646, A72, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038697

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    Hildebrand , R. H. 1983, , 24, 267

    1983

  23. [31]

    2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed

    Johansen , A., Blum , J., Tanaka , H., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther , R. S. Klessen , C. P. Dullemond , & T. Henning , 547--570, 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch024

    2014 doi

  24. [32]

    Kataoka , A., Muto , T., Momose , M., Tsukagoshi , T., & Dullemond , C. P. 2016, , 820, 54, 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/54

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    2017, , 844, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7e33

    Kataoka , A., Tsukagoshi , T., Pohl , A., et al. 2017, , 844, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7e33

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    2018, , 617, A44, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832957

    Keppler , M., Benisty , M., M \"u ller , A., et al. 2018, , 617, A44, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832957

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    M., Kraus , A

    Krolikowski , D. M., Kraus , A. L., & Rizzuto , A. C. 2021, , 162, 110, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac0632

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    Lee , C.-F., Li , Z.-Y., & Turner , N. J. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 142, 10.1038/s41550-019-0905-x

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    2021, , 910, 75, 10.3847/1538-4357/abe53a

    Lee , C.-F., Li , Z.-Y., Yang , H., et al. 2021, , 910, 75, 10.3847/1538-4357/abe53a

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    D., Li , Z.-Y., Yang , H., et al

    Lin , Z.-Y. D., Li , Z.-Y., Yang , H., et al. 2020, , 496, 169, 10.1093/mnras/staa1499

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    2022, , 512, 3922, 10.1093/mnras/stac753

    ---. 2022, , 512, 3922, 10.1093/mnras/stac753

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 164, 10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/164

    Liu , B., & Ji , J. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 164, 10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/164

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    Liu , H. B. 2019, , 877, L22, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1f8e

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    2021, , 914, 25, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf8b6

    ---. 2021, , 914, 25, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf8b6

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    B., Galv \'a n-Madrid , R., Forbrich , J., et al

    Liu , H. B., Galv \'a n-Madrid , R., Forbrich , J., et al. 2014, , 780, 155, 10.1088/0004-637X/780/2/155

    2014 doi

  36. [44]

    B., M \'e rand , A., Green , J

    Liu , H. B., M \'e rand , A., Green , J. D., et al. 2019, , 884, 97, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab391c

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    B., Tsai , A.-L., Chen , W

    Liu , H. B., Tsai , A.-L., Chen , W. P., et al. 2021, , 923, 270, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac31b9

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    B., Muto , T., Konishi , M., et al

    Liu , H. B., Muto , T., Konishi , M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.02900, 10.48550/arXiv.2402.02900

    2024 doi arXiv

  39. [47]

    J., et al

    Long , F., Pinilla , P., Herczeg , G. J., et al. 2020, , 898, 36, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9a54

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    J., Pineda , J

    Maureira , M. J., Pineda , J. E., Liu , H. B., et al. 2024, , 689, L5, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451166

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    P., Waters , B., Schiebel , D., Young , W., & Golap , K

    McMullin , J. P., Waters , B., Schiebel , D., Young , W., & Golap , K. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw , F. Hill , & D. J. Bell , 127

    2007

  42. [50]

    1993, , 106, 20, 10.1006/icar.1993.1156

    Miyake , K., & Nakagawa , Y. 1993, , 106, 20, 10.1006/icar.1993.1156

    1993

  43. [51]

    2019, , 883, 16, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3575

    Mori , T., Kataoka , A., Ohashi , S., et al. 2019, , 883, 16, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3575

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    B., Ohashi , S., et al

    Nakatani , R., Liu , H. B., Ohashi , S., et al. 2020, , 895, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8eaa

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    J., J rgensen , J

    Ohashi , N., Tobin , J. J., J rgensen , J. K., et al. 2023 a , , 951, 8, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd384

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    2019, , 886, 103, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5107

    Ohashi , S., & Kataoka , A. 2019, , 886, 103, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5107

    2019 doi

  47. [55]

    2018, , 864, 81, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad632

    Ohashi , S., Kataoka , A., Nagai , H., et al. 2018, , 864, 81, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad632

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

    2023 b , , 954, 110, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace9b9

    Ohashi , S., Momose , M., Kataoka , A., et al. 2023 b , , 954, 110, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace9b9

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

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

    Paardekooper , S., Dong , R., Duffell , P., 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 , 685, 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09595

    2023 doi arXiv

  50. [58]

    2019, , 486, 3907, 10.1093/mnras/stz1046

    Pavlyuchenkov , Y., Akimkin , V., Wiebe , D., & Vorobyov , E. 2019, , 486, 3907, 10.1093/mnras/stz1046

    2019 doi

  51. [59]

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

    Pollack , J. B., Hollenbach , D., Beckwith , S., et al. 1994, , 421, 615, 10.1086/173677

    1994 doi

  52. [60]

    I., Stephens , I

    Sadavoy , S. I., Stephens , I. W., Myers , P. C., et al. 2019, , 245, 2, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab4257

    2019 doi

  53. [61]

    M., Schmiedeke , A., Pineda , J

    Segura-Cox , D. M., Schmiedeke , A., Pineda , J. E., et al. 2020, , 586, 228, 10.1038/s41586-020-2779-6

    2020 doi

  54. [62]

    D., & Eisner , J

    Sheehan , P. D., & Eisner , J. A. 2017, , 840, L12, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6df8

    2017 doi

  55. [63]

    2018, , 857, 18, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaae65

    ---. 2018, , 857, 18, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaae65

    2018 doi

  56. [64]

    D., Tobin , J

    Sheehan , P. D., Tobin , J. J., Federman , S., Megeath , S. T., & Looney , L. W. 2020, , 902, 141, 10.3847/1538-4357/abbad5

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.08722, 10.48550/arXiv.2401.08722

    Takakuwa , S., Saigo , K., Kido , M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.08722, 10.48550/arXiv.2401.08722

    2024 doi arXiv

  58. [66]

    M., et al

    Tang , Y.-W., Dutrey , A., Koch , P. M., et al. 2023, , 947, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/acc45b

    2023 doi

  59. [67]

    2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed

    Testi , L., Birnstiel , T., Ricci , L., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther , R. S. Klessen , C. P. Dullemond , & T. Henning , 339--361, 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch015

    2014 doi

  60. [68]

    J., Karska , A., et al

    Tychoniec , ., Tobin , J. J., Karska , A., et al. 2018 a , , 852, 18, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9980

    2018 doi

  61. [69]

    2018 b , , 238, 19, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaceae

    ---. 2018 b , , 238, 19, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaceae

    2018 doi

  62. [70]

    C., & Varoquaux , G

    van der Walt , S., Colbert , S. C., & Varoquaux , G. 2011, Computing in Science and Engineering, 13, 22, 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37

    2011 doi

  63. [71]

    J., & Welch , W

    Wilner , D. J., & Welch , W. J. 1994, , 427, 898, 10.1086/174195

    1994 doi

  64. [72]

    2022, , 934, 156, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7b94

    Xu , W. 2022, , 934, 156, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7b94

    2022 doi

  65. [73]

    Xu , W., & Armitage , P. J. 2023, , 946, 94, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb7e5

    2023 doi

  66. [74]

    Xu , W., Ohashi , S., Aso , Y., & Liu , H. B. 2023, , 954, 190, 10.3847/1538-4357/aced4c

    2023 doi

  67. [75]

    J., Liu , H

    Zamponi , J., Maureira , M. J., Liu , H. B., et al. 2024, , 682, A56, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244628

    2024 doi

  68. [76]

    J., Zhao , B., et al

    Zamponi , J., Maureira , M. J., Zhao , B., et al. 2021, , 508, 2583, 10.1093/mnras/stab2657

    2021 doi

  69. [77]

    2023, , 953, 96, 10.3847/1538-4357/acdb4e

    Zhang , S., Zhu , Z., Ueda , T., et al. 2023, , 953, 96, 10.3847/1538-4357/acdb4e

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.