Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Predictions of Dust Continuum Emission from a Potential Circumplanetary Disk: A Case Study of the Planet Candidate AB Aurigae b

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper predicts that AB Aur b's circumplanetary disk should be undetectable at 1.3 mm unless dust inflow is tiny, while extinction-corrected accretion would make it visible at Band 7.

desk verdict Useful CPD dust modeling case study with a robust fiducial non-detection, but the headline inference about dust supply rests on an unvalidated extinction prescription. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03923 v1 pith:HX4KKUI7 submitted 2024-12-05 astro-ph.EP

Yuhito Shibaike , Jun Hashimoto , Ruobing Dong , Christoph Mordasini , Misato Fukagawa , Takayuki Muto This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords circumplanetarydisksdustevolutionplanetformationABAurigaebALMAcontinuumobservationsmillimeterastronomyextinctiongasaccretion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks why AB Aurigae b, a candidate gas-accreting planet, shows near-infrared and H$\alpha$ emission yet emits no detectable (sub)millimeter dust continuum. Using a model of dust growth, radial drift, and fragmentation in a gas-starved circumplanetary disk, it finds that the predicted 1.3 mm flux stays below the $3\sigma = 99\,\mu$Jy ALMA limit across wide ranges of turbulence strength and dust-to-gas inflow ratio, so the non-detection is consistent with the planet interpretation. A different picture emerges when extinction by small grains is folded in: the corrected planet mass and accretion rate become larger, and the same model predicts flux above the $3\sigma$ limit at the typical inflow dust-to-gas ratio $x = 0.001$. The authors conclude that, if AB Aur b is a true planet with a circumplanetary disk, dust delivery to its vicinity must be unusually small, and they predict that ALMA Band 7 (855 $\mu$m) observations should detect flux comparable to or stronger than the PDS 70 c disk.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a one-dimensional, steady-state viscous 'gas-starved' circumplanetary disk model in which gas and dust enter at radii $r \le r_{\rm inf}$, dust grows by collisions and drifts inward, and fragmentation shuts off growth above a monomer-dependent critical velocity. The dust surface density and peak size set the optical depth via a size-dependent absorption opacity, and the total flux is the radial integral of the Planck function over the optically thin disk. Two additions matter for AB Aur b: a Toomre-$Q$ cap on the gas surface density for gravitationally unstable outer regions, and fragmentation thresholds that weaken with large monomers and CO$_2$ mantles, which change the $\alpha$ dependence of the predicted flux.

What would settle it

An ALMA Band 7 (855 $\mu$m) continuum observation of AB Aur b reaching a $3\sigma$ noise level below about $30\,\mu$Jy: the extinction-corrected model predicts fluxes comparable to or stronger than PDS 70 c's $86\pm16\,\mu$Jy for typical parameters, so a clean non-detection at that sensitivity would falsify the claim that corrected accretion powers detectable CPD dust emission.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the millimeter non-detection of AB Aur b can be explained naturally by dust depletion inside the circumplanetary disk, and that the alternative explanation—an actively accreting planet—faces a tension once extinction is accounted for. In the fiducial case ($M_p = 9\,M_J$, $\dot{M}_g = 1.1\times10^{-6}\,M_J\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$), the model's predicted Band 6 flux is below the $3\sigma = 99\,\mu$Jy level of the previous ALMA observation for all tested turbulence strengths, because dust drifts inward so effectively that the outer disk is optically thin. With the extinction correction ($\tau_H = 1.3$, H$\alpha$ extinction twice the H-band value, and a brown-dwarf evolutionary mass–luminosity conversion), the planet becomes $20\,M_J$ with $\dot{M}_g = 2.2\times10^{-6}$ or $8.9\times10^{-6}\,M_J\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$; the predicted flux then exceeds the $3\sigma$ limit for typical $x = 0.001$ over a broad $\alpha$ range. The paper therefore concludes that the non-detection requires $x < 0.001$ if a circumplanetary disk exists, and that future Band 7 observations are the decisive test, with predicted fluxes comparable to or brighter than the $86\pm 16\,\mu$Jy CPD of PDS 70 c.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the extinction correction: assuming an H-band optical depth of $\tau_H = 1.3$, an H$\alpha$ extinction exactly twice that, and a mass–luminosity relation that turns the corrected magnitude into $20\,M_J$; if the true extinction is smaller or the grain size distribution differs, the corrected mass and accretion rate—and with them the predicted millimeter flux—fall substantially.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If AB Aur b is a gas-accreting planet with a circumplanetary disk, its dust-to-gas inflow ratio must be below the typical $x = 0.001$ once extinction is accounted for; otherwise the predicted 1.3 mm flux would have been detected.
  • The Band 6 non-detection is not evidence against a planet: across $\alpha = 10^{-6}$–$10^{-2}$ the fiducial predicted flux remains below $99\,\mu$Jy.
  • Making dust more fragile (1.5 $\mu$m monomers, CO$_2$ mantles) raises the predicted flux and weakens its dependence on turbulence, but still keeps the fiducial prediction below the $3\sigma$ limit.
  • ALMA Band 7 should separate the scenarios: the model predicts fluxes comparable to or stronger than the PDS 70 c disk ($86\pm16\,\mu$Jy) in the extinction-corrected case, so a deep Band 7 non-detection would point away from an accreting planet with a typical CPD.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The extinction branch of the argument could be tested independently with hydrogen recombination lines of different optical depths, such as Pa$\beta$: if the inferred H$\alpha$ extinction is not confirmed, the $20\,M_J$ correction and its bright millimeter prediction would drop.
  • A $20\,M_J$ companion is a brown dwarf, so the paper's 'recently formed, gap not yet opened' explanation implies a specific, testable disk morphology: deep spirals but a shallow or absent gap near the planet's orbit.
  • The same dust-evolution machinery should be re-run on other accreting-planet candidates whose near-infrared fluxes may be extincted; if extinction is widespread, current mass and accretion estimates—and therefore CPD brightness predictions—may be systematically underestimated.
  • The requirement $x<0.001$ can be read as a demand on dust filtration at the planetary gap edge; this makes the non-detection a probe of gap-edge dust dynamics rather than only a statement about AB Aur b.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper applies an updated version of the SM24 circumplanetary-disk dust evolution and emission model to the AB Aurigae b planet candidate. With the C22 planet mass and accretion rate (9 MJ, 1.1e-6 MJ/yr), the predicted 1.3 mm flux is below the 99 microJy 3-sigma limit of Tang et al. (2017) for the typical inflow dust-to-gas ratio x=0.001, explaining the non-detection in the fiducial case. When extinction by small grains is invoked to correct the observed H-band and H-alpha fluxes (tau_H=1.3, A_Halpha=2 A_H), the planet mass and accretion rate rise to 20 MJ and up to 8.9e-6 MJ/yr; the predicted Band 6 flux then exceeds the 3-sigma limit for x=0.001 over a broad alpha range, leading to the conclusion that x<0.001 if AB Aur b is a planet with a CPD. The paper also predicts Band 7 fluxes comparable to or stronger than PDS 70 c and recommends Band 7 observations.

Significance. If the inference holds, the paper provides a useful framework for interpreting non-detections of CPDs around embedded accreting planets and highlights extinction as a critical systematic in deriving planet masses and accretion rates from H-alpha and near-infrared photometry. The forward model is transparent, with a broad parameter study and an explicit comparison against the ALMA upper limit, and the paper honestly flags its own assumption of Z_Sigma,est in Appendix B. The main caveat is that the extinction-corrected scenario is the sole driver of the x<0.001 conclusion, and that scenario rests on a representative extinction value and an assumed grain-size distribution. Because the paper makes testable Band 7 predictions and identifies the key systematics, it merits publication after the sensitivity issues below are addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1, Eq. (10), Fig. 6] The Extinction scenario carries the central astrophysical conclusion, but the two factors entering A_Halpha are not directly measured. tau_H=1.3 is a representative value drawn from C22's range 0.25-2, and the factor 2 (A_Halpha=2 A_H) assumes a single dN/da proportional to a^-3.5 grain-size distribution. If tau_H=0.25 with the same distribution, A_Halpha falls from 2.82 to 0.54 and the predicted Band 6 flux for x=0.001 drops by roughly a factor of 8, placing it below the 99 microJy threshold for all alpha in Fig. 6. The paper should therefore show F_d,lambda as a function of tau_H over the full C22 range (e.g., tau_H=0.25, 1.3, 2) and over a plausible range of A_Halpha/A_H (e.g., 1.5-3), and state which parts of the x<0.001 inference survive. Without this sensitivity, the central claim that non-detection implies a small dust supply is not established.
  2. [Section 4.2, first possibility] The paper acknowledges that the extinction scenario requires small grains near the planet, while its preferred resolution of the non-detection is a dust-poor inflow (x<0.001). These two statements are in tension and are not reconciled. If the obscuring grains reside in the PPD along the line of sight rather than in the CPD accretion flow, the corrections to M_p and M_dot would still apply, but they would carry no information about x in the CPD inflow. Please state explicitly where the absorbing grains are located and test whether a single dust population can both produce the extinction and keep the CPD inflow at x<0.001; otherwise the x<0.001 conclusion is not unique.
  3. [Section 4.1] The conversion of the extinction-corrected H-band magnitude to M_p=20 MJ via Chabrier et al. (2000) evolutionary models is adopted without a discussion of its uncertainty. Because the predicted flux is roughly proportional to M_p M_dot, as the paper itself notes, some of this uncertainty may cancel in the product, but the paper should state the expected systematic range in M_p and M_dot separately and confirm that plausible factor-of-two changes in these quantities do not alter the Fig. 6 conclusions. This matters because the 20 MJ value is also the basis for the recently-formed gap-opening argument in the same section.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.1] The sentence 'the actual absolute magnitude of the planet is 1.3 times higher than the observed value' is inconsistent with Eq. (10): for tau_H=1.3, A_H=1.41 mag, so the planet is brighter by 1.41 mag (or its flux is higher by a factor e^1.3). Please correct the wording.
  2. [Abstract and Section 3.3] The phrase 'with broad ranges of parameters' overstates the robust conclusion: the non-detection is robust for the typical inflow ratio x=0.001 in the Fiducial case, but Fig. 4 shows that x=0.01 or the large-monomer/CO2-mantle cases can approach or exceed the 3-sigma level. Please qualify the statement accordingly.
  3. [Figures 4, 6, 7] The repeated note that 'some results with alpha sqrt(x) greater than about 1e-4 are not presented because of numerical reasons' deserves a sentence in the main text explaining the numerical limitation and whether the missing region could affect any quoted conclusion, especially in the Extinction panels.
  4. [Footnote 2] The footnote appears to drop a factor of 10^-5 when writing L_Halpha = 2.2 +/- 0.7 L_sun; the following expression uses 10^5 notation. Please correct the typo so the units and normalization are clear.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues: 'compere' in Section 1, 'rear-infrared' in Sections 1 and 4.1, 'emmision' in the axis labels of Figures 2 and 3, and 'T ang+2017' in Figure 4 labels. Please proofread.
  6. [Section 2.1] The sentence 'we correct the gas surface density of the CPD by Sigma_g = c_s Omega / (pi G) when it becomes larger than unity' is ambiguous; the condition is that the Toomre Q parameter becomes smaller than unity. Please rephrase.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dust-flux predictions are forward calculations from a prior CPD model, tested against the independent ALMA non-detection, and the x < 0.001 inference is a transparent inversion of the model rather than a fitted input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is forward and self-contained. Given Mp, Mdot, alpha, and x, the gas disk model (Section 2.1) and dust evolution/emission model (Section 2.2, Eqs. 6-9) produce Fd by integration (Eq. 8). The Section 3 predictions (Fig. 4) are compared with the external ALMA 1.3 mm non-detection (Tang et al. 2017, Appendix A: 3σ = 99 µJy), and the finding that Fiducial fluxes fall below 3σ is a genuine prediction, not a fit. The Extinction scenario (Section 4.1) re-derives Mp and Mdot from observed H-band and Hα magnitudes using tau_H = 1.3 from C22's range and A_Halpha = 2 A_H from an assumed grain size distribution (Eq. 10); none of these inputs is defined in terms of the 1.3 mm flux or the non-detection, so the resulting Fd excess is a conditional forward prediction. The concluding constraint x < 0.001 (Section 4.2) is the inverse of this forward calculation: since Fd(x=0.001) exceeds 3σ in the Extinction case, the non-detection implies a smaller inflow dust-to-gas ratio. That is a legitimate model-based upper limit, not a self-fulfilling construction. The SM24 model is cited from prior work by overlapping authors, but it is an externally testable model (it reproduces the PDS 70 c detection and PDS 70 b non-detection) and is applied here with stated parameters; the paper does not invoke a uniqueness theorem or smuggle in an ansatz via citation. Uncertainties in tau_H and the A_Halpha factor are assumption fragility, which affects robustness of the astrophysical interpretation, but they do not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The central predictions rest on a chain of prior model prescriptions (gas-starved disk, dust growth and fragmentation, opacity) and on observational inputs (planet mass, accretion rate, extinction) that carry significant uncertainty. The free parameters alpha, x, a_mon, and Z_Sigma,est are all swept over ranges or set to representative values, not measured here.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha (turbulence strength in CPD) = 10^-6 to 10^-2
    Varied over a wide range because the turbulence mechanism in CPDs is unknown; it strongly affects gas surface density, dust drift, and the resulting flux.
  • x (dust-to-gas mass ratio in inflow) = 0.0001 to 0.01
    The central parameter controlling dust supply; the conclusion that x < 0.001 for consistency with the non-detection is derived by requiring the model to match the observation.
  • a_mon (monomer radius) = 0.1 or 1.5 micron
    Monomer size controls the fragmentation threshold and therefore the dust size distribution and emission; chosen as two representative values.
  • Z_Sigma,est (dust-to-gas surface density ratio used for disk temperature) = 10^-4 (r <= r_inf), 10^-6 (r > r_inf)
    Fixed for the temperature calculation rather than computed self-consistently; the authors check sensitivity and find a factor of two effect on flux.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The CPD is a steady-state viscous accretion disk with continuous gas infall (gas-starved disk model of Canup & Ward 2002).
    Invoked in Section 2.1 as the basis for the gas surface density and temperature profiles.
  • domain assumption Dust particles grow by collisions, drift radially, and fragment above a critical velocity that depends on monomer size (Eqs. 6 and 7).
    This is the core dust evolution prescription taken from SM24 and Wada et al. (2009, 2013), Gundlach & Blum (2015).
  • domain assumption The opacity model of Kataoka et al. (2014) and Birnstiel et al. (2018) describes the absorption opacity of grains at 1.3 mm and 0.855 mm.
    Used in Eq. 8 and 9 for the flux calculation; different opacity prescriptions would change the predicted flux.
  • domain assumption The planet properties Mp = 9 MJ and Mdot_g = 1.1e-6 MJ/yr from Currie et al. (2022) are adopted as the fiducial case.
    These are observational estimates from SED fitting; the paper takes them as inputs in Section 3.
  • domain assumption The extinction correction uses tau_H = 1.3, AHalpha = 2.82, and the Chabrier et al. (2000) mass-luminosity relation to revise Mp to 20 MJ.
    This is the Extinction scenario in Section 4.1; the factor of two for Halpha extinction and the tau_H representative value are both uncertain.
  • domain assumption The LHalpha-Lacc relations of Aoyama et al. (2021) for planets and Alcala et al. (2017) for stars convert corrected Halpha luminosity to gas accretion rate.
    Used in Section 4.1 to derive Mdot_g = 8.9e-6 and 2.2e-6 MJ/yr; these relations have their own scatter and model dependence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Predictions of Dust Continuum Emission from a Potential Circumplanetary Disk: A Case Study of the Planet Candidate AB Aurigae b." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HX4KKUI7

@misc{pith2026241203923,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Predictions of Dust Continuum Emission from a Potential Circumplanetary Disk: A Case Study of the Planet Candidate AB Aurigae b},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HX4KKUI7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03923}
}
read the original abstract

Gas accreting planets embedded in protoplanetary disks are expected to show dust thermal emission from their circumplanetary disks (CPDs). However, a recently reported gas accreting planet candidate, AB Aurigae b, has not been detected in (sub)millimeter continuum observations. We calculate the evolution of dust in the potential CPD of AB Aurigae b and predict its thermal emission at 1.3 mm wavelength as a case study, where the obtained features may also be applied to other gas accreting planets. We find that the expected flux density from the CPD is lower than the 3-sigma level of the previous continuum observation by ALMA with broad ranges of parameters, consistent with the non-detection. However, the expected planet mass and gas accretion rate are higher if the reduction of the observed near-infrared continuum and H-alpha line emission due to the extinction by small grains is considered, resulting in higher flux density of the dust emission from the CPD at (sub)millimeter wavelength. We find that the corrected predictions of the dust emission are stronger than the 3-sigma level of the previous observation with the typical dust-to-gas mass ratio of the inflow to the CPD. This result suggests that the dust supply to the vicinity of AB Aurigae b is small if the planet candidate is not the scattered light of the star but is a planet and has a CPD. Future continuum observations at shorter wavelength are preferable to obtain more robust clues to the question whether the candidate is a planet or not.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03923 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Radial distribution of the gas surface density, temper￾ature, and Toomre Q parameter of the CPD of AB Aur B. The red, blue, and green curves represent the profiles with α = 10−3 , 10−4 , and 10−5 , respectively. The vertical lines are the H2O snow lines. The black horizontal line in the bottom panel is QToomre = 1. Shaded gray regions represent the planetary surface (atmosphere), r ≤ 2.75 RJ (C22). pare the predicti… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Radial distribution of the dust properties in the CPD of AB Aur B. The top left, middle left, bottom left, top right, middle right, and bottom right panels represent the dust particle radius, Stokes number, dust surface density, optical depth, intensity, and cumulative dust emission (flux density), respectively. The assumed wavelength in the right three panels is λ = 1.3 mm. The orange curves and vertical dotted lin… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Expected flux density of the dust continuum emission from the CPD of AB Aur b at ALMA Band 6 (λ = 1.3 mm). The color of the circles represent the dust-to-gas mass ratio x in the gas inflow onto the CPD, and the white curves are the cases where x = 0.001. The green soli…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Expected Hα luminosity with variable gas accretion rate. The solid and dashed curves represent the cases with the LHα − Lacc relationships for planets (Eq. (11)) and stars (Eq. (12)), respectively. The red and blue curves represent the profiles with Mp = 9 and 20 MJ , …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as the Fiducial and Large monomer + CO2 mantles cases of Figs. 4 and 6 but at Band 7 (λ = 855 µm). The left and right lower panels represent the Extinction cases with Large monomer + CO2 mantles using the LHα − Lacc relationships for planets (Eq. (11)) and for sta…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: shows the Band 6 (1.3 mm) continuum emission (contour) and the moment 0 map of CO (color scale), cited from Tang et al. (2017). Inside the red circle, the location of AB Aur b (Currie et al. 2022), there is no detection of dust continuum emission. The noise level of th…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Expected flux density of the dust continuum emission from the CPD of AB Aur b at ALMA Band 6 (λ = 1.3 mm) with x = 0.001. The solid, dashed, and dotted curves represent the cases with ZΣ,est = 10−4 , 10−6 , and 10−2 , respectively. The red and blue curves are the Fidu…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Radial distribution of ZΣ (solid color curves) and ZΣ,est (black lines) with the various parameter sets. The top, middle, bottom panels show the profiles with the Fiducial cases, the cases considering the effects of the monomer conditions, and the Extinction cases with…

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. OpenAlex reports about 3 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Interpreting ALMA Multiwavelength Continuum Observations of PDS 70 c: An Optically Thick Dust Ring in the Circumplanetary Disk

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

    An optically thick dust ring in the CPD of PDS 70 c reproduces the observed near-flat spectral index under reasonable parameters, while a ring-less drift model requires implausibly high dust inflow.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 39 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]

    dead zone

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 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 Each re...

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    A., & Cugno, G

    Alarc \'o n, F., Bergin, E. A., & Cugno, G. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 225

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    M., Manara , C

    Alcal \'a , J. M., Manara , C. F., Natta , A., et al. 2017, , 600, A20, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629929

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629929 2017

  6. [6]

    M., Elder, W., Zhang, S., et al

    Andrews, S. M., Elder, W., Zhang, S., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 916, 51

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 917, L30

    Aoyama, Y., Marleau, G.-D., Ikoma, M., & Mordasini, C. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 917, L30

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    A., & Bate, M

    Ayliffe, B. A., & Bate, M. R. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 393, 49

    work page 2009

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    M., et al

    Bae, J., Teague, R., Andrews, S. M., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 934, L20

    2022

  2. [10]

    J., Gail , H

    Bauer , I., Finocchi , F., Duschl , W. J., Gail , H. P., & Schloeder , J. P. 1997, , 317, 273

    1997

  3. [11]

    2021, , 916, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f83

    Benisty , M., Bae , J., Facchini , S., et al. 2021, , 916, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f83

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    I., Bowler, B

    Biddle, L. I., Bowler, B. P., Zhou, Y., Franson, K., & Zhang, Z. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 167, 172

    2024

  5. [13]

    P., Zhu, Z., et al

    Birnstiel, T., Dullemond, C. P., Zhu, Z., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 869, L45

    2018

  6. [14]

    M., & Ward, W

    Canup, R. M., & Ward, W. R. 2002, The Astronomical Journal, 124, 3404

    2002

  7. [15]

    2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 542, 464

    Chabrier, G., Baraffe, I., Allard, F., & Hauschildt, P. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 542, 464

    2000

  8. [16]

    2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.10057

    Choksi, N., & Chiang, E. 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.10057

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    2024, Research Notes of the AAS, 8, 146

    Currie, T. 2024, Research Notes of the AAS, 8, 146

    2024

  10. [18]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 10.1038/s41550-022-01634-x

    Currie , T., Lawson , K., Schneider , G., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 10.1038/s41550-022-01634-x

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, 11

    Doi, K., & Kataoka, A. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, 11

    2023

  12. [20]

    P., Dominik , C., & Natta , A

    Dullemond , C. P., Dominik , C., & Natta , A. 2001, , 560, 957, 10.1086/323057

    2001 doi

  13. [21]

    I., Okuzumi, S., Tanigawa, T., & Inutsuka, S

    Fujii, Y. I., Okuzumi, S., Tanigawa, T., & Inutsuka, S. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 785, 101

    2014

  14. [22]

    2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 605, L53

    Fukagawa, M., Hayashi, M., Tamura, M., et al. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 605, L53

    2004

  15. [23]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 152

    Fung, J., Zhu, Z., & Chiang, E. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 152

    2019

  16. [24]

    L., van Dishoeck, E

    Grant, S. L., van Dishoeck, E. F., Tabone, B., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical journal letters, 947, L6

    2023

  17. [25]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 798, 34

    Gundlach, B., & Blum, J. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 798, 34

    2015

  18. [26]

    2021, , 650, A182, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039519

    Guzm \'a n-D \' az , J., Mendigut \' a , I., Montesinos , B., et al. 2021, , 650, A182, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039519

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    Y., Bohn , A

    Haffert , S. Y., Bohn , A. J., de Boer , J., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 329, 10.1038/s41550-019-0780-5

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    J., et al

    Hammond, I., Christiaens, V., Price, D. J., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 522, L51

    2023

  21. [29]

    2020, , 159, 222, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab811e

    Hashimoto , J., Aoyama , Y., Konishi , M., et al. 2020, , 159, 222, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab811e

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 729, L17

    Hashimoto, J., Tamura, M., Muto, T., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 729, L17

    2011

  23. [31]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 903, 98

    Homma, T., Ohtsuki, K., Maeda, N., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 903, 98

    2020

  24. [32]

    M., Cleeves , L

    Huang , J., Andrews , S. M., Cleeves , L. I., et al. 2018, , 852, 122, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa1e7

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    2019, , 879, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2a12

    Isella , A., Benisty , M., Teague , R., et al. 2019, , 879, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2a12

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 568, A42

    Kataoka, A., Okuzumi, S., Tanaka, H., & Nomura, H. 2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 568, A42

    2014

  27. [35]

    M., Youdin , A

    Krapp , L., Kratter , K. M., Youdin , A. N., et al. 2024, , 973, 153, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad644a

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    Lin , D. N. C., & Papaloizou , J. 1986, , 307, 395, 10.1086/164426

    1986 doi

  29. [37]

    G., Natta, A., Testi, L., & Habart, E

    Lopez, R. G., Natta, A., Testi, L., & Habart, E. 2006, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 459, 837

    2006

  30. [38]

    H., Seibert , M., & Artymowicz , P

    Lubow , S. H., Seibert , M., & Artymowicz , P. 1999, , 526, 1001, 10.1086/308045

    1999 doi

  31. [39]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 968, 62

    Maeda, N., Ohtsuki, K., Suetsugu, R., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 968, 62

    2024

  32. [40]

    D., Aoyama , Y., Kuiper , R., et al

    Marleau , G. D., Aoyama , Y., Kuiper , R., et al. 2022, , 657, A38, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037494

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    2016 a , The Astrophysical Journal, 818, 16

    Musiolik, G., Teiser, J., Jankowski, T., & Wurm, G. 2016 a , The Astrophysical Journal, 818, 16

    2016

  34. [42]

    2016 b , The Astrophysical Journal, 827, 63

    ---. 2016 b , The Astrophysical Journal, 827, 63

    2016

  35. [43]

    2016, , 821, 82, 10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/82

    Okuzumi , S., Momose , M., Sirono , S.-i., Kobayashi , H., & Tanaka , H. 2016, , 821, 82, 10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/82

    2016 doi

  36. [44]

    M., Salyk, C., BLAkE, G

    Pontoppidan, K. M., Salyk, C., BLAkE, G. A., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 720, 887

    2010

  37. [45]

    Rice , W. K. M., Lodato , G., Pringle , J. E., Armitage , P. J., & Bonnell , I. A. 2006, , 372, L9, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00215.x

    2006

  38. [46]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 642, A32

    Riviere-Marichalar, P., Fuente, A., Le Gal, R., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 642, A32

    2020

  39. [47]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 665, A61

    Rivi \`e re-Marichalar, P., Fuente, A., Esplugues, G., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 665, A61

    2022

  40. [48]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 687, A166, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449522

    Shibaike, Y., & Mordasini, C. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 687, A166, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449522

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    S., & Burrows , A

    Spiegel , D. S., & Burrows , A. 2012, , 745, 174, 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/174

    2012 doi

  42. [50]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 924, 1

    Szul \'a gyi, J., Binkert, F., & Surville, C. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 924, 1

    2022

  43. [51]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 460, 2853, 10.1093/mnras/stw1160

    Szul \'a gyi, J., Masset, F., Lega, E., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 460, 2853, 10.1093/mnras/stw1160

    2016 doi

  44. [52]

    Z., Tsukamoto, Y., & Inutsuka, S

    Takahashi, S. Z., Tsukamoto, Y., & Inutsuka, S. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 458, 3597

    2016

  45. [53]

    2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 547, A84

    Tang, Y.-W., Guilloteau, S., Pietu, V., et al. 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 547, A84

    2012

  46. [54]

    2017, , 840, 32, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6af7

    Tang , Y.-W., Guilloteau , S., Dutrey , A., et al. 2017, , 840, 32, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6af7

    2017 doi

  47. [55]

    1964, , 139, 1217, 10.1086/147861

    Toomre , A. 1964, , 139, 1217, 10.1086/147861

    1964 doi

  48. [56]

    J., Lee, M

    Turner, N. J., Lee, M. H., & Sano, T. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 783, 14. http://stacks.iop.org/0004-637X/783/i=1/a=14

    2014

  49. [57]

    2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 559, A62, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322259

    Wada, K., Tanaka, H., Okuzumi, S., et al. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 559, A62, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322259

    2013 doi

  50. [58]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 702, 1490, 10.1088/0004-637X/702/2/1490

    Wada, K., Tanaka, H., Suyama, T., Kimura, H., & Yamamoto, T. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 702, 1490, 10.1088/0004-637X/702/2/1490

    2009 doi

  51. [59]

    B., Close , L

    Wagner , K., Follete , K. B., Close , L. M., et al. 2018, , 863, L8, 10.3847/2041-8213/aad695

    2018 doi

  52. [60]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1208

    Wagner, K., Stone, J., Skemer, A., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1208

    2023

  53. [61]

    R., & Canup, R

    Ward, W. R., & Canup, R. M. 2010, The Astronomical Journal, 140, 1168

    2010

  54. [62]

    1983, , 122, 171

    Yamamoto , T., Nakagawa , N., & Fukui , Y. 1983, , 122, 171

    1983

  55. [63]

    P., Wagner , K

    Zhou , Y., Bowler , B. P., Wagner , K. R., et al. 2021, , 161, 244, 10.3847/1538-3881/abeb7a

    2021 doi

  56. [64]

    P., et al

    Zhou, Y., Sanghi, A., Bowler, B. P., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 934, L13

    2022

  57. [65]

    P., Yang, H., et al

    Zhou, Y., Bowler, B. P., Yang, H., et al. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 166, 220

    2023

  58. [66]

    2015, , 799, 16, 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/16

    Zhu , Z. 2015, , 799, 16, 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/16

    2015 doi

  59. [67]

    Zhu, Z., Ju, W., & Stone, J. M. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 832, 193

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.