Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 102 references

Disk Evolution Study Through Imaging of Nearby Young Stars (DESTINYS): Evidence of planet-disk interaction in the 2MASSJ16120668-3010270 system

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The disk around 2MASSJ1612 shows two spiral arms, a gap, and a ring that the paper attributes to an embedded gas giant of roughly 0.1–5 Jupiter masses.

desk verdict Useful first scattered-light detection of a structured disk around a low-mass star, but the quoted 0.1–5 MJup planet mass range mixes incompatible model outputs and should be revised. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05892 v1 pith:TT2EOEI7 submitted 2025-06-06 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

C. Ginski , P. Pinilla , M. Benisty , C. Pinte , R. Claes , E. Mamajek , M. Kenworthy , M. Murphy
show 23 more authors
C. Manara J. Bae T. Birnstiel J. Byrne C. Dominik S. Facchini A. Garufi R. Gratton M. Hogerheijde R. van Holstein J. Huang M. Langlois C. Lawlor J. Ma D. McLachlan F. Menard R. Rigliaco A. Ribas T. Schmidt A. Sierra R. Tazaki J. Williams A. Zurlo
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords protoplanetarydisksplanet-diskinteractionscatteredlightSPHEREtransitionspiralarmscircumplanetarydisk2MASSJ16120668-3010270
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

2MASSJ16120668-3010270 is a low-mass (M0.5, ~0.6 $M_\odot$) young star in Upper Sco whose disk is resolved here in near-infrared scattered light for the first time. The paper claims that the observed architecture — an inner disk out to ~40 au with two spiral arms, a gap, and an outer ring reaching ~115 au — is the dynamical fingerprint of an embedded gas giant, with mass estimates between 0.1 and 5 $M_{\rm Jup}$ depending on the model. That claim matters because it would place an actively forming giant planet around a star near the low-mass end of the planet-hosting population, and because the morphology is one of only a few cases where spirals sit inside a scattered-light gap and ring. A tentative near-infrared point source near a compact ALMA continuum detection in the gap, if real, would supply direct evidence of the putative planet.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the disk's measured geometry converted into planet mass through four independent scaling relations plus simulation. The load-bearing measurements are the scattering-surface height of $13.3 \pm 1.2$ au at radius 77 au (aspect ratio 0.17), a gap width of ~46 au, spiral pitch angles of ~17° and ~21°, and the ratio of near-infrared to millimeter gap sizes; each is fed into a published planet-disk interaction scaling (Kanagawa et al. 2016; Zhang et al. 2018; Dong et al. 2015; de Juan Ovelar et al. 2013). The same geometry is also used to compute the Toomre $Q$ stability parameter, which stays above 15 and rules out gravitational instability as the spiral driver. Dedicated PHANTOM hydrodynamic simulations post-processed with MCFOST radiative transfer provide the direct morphology comparison.

What would settle it

Measure the actual vertical gas scale height at ~77 au with optically thin molecular-line emission such as C$^{18}$O; if the gas aspect ratio is close to the measured 0.17 rather than roughly 0.04, the Kanagawa and Zhang gap-width formulas would yield planet masses below 0.1 $M_{\rm Jup}$, and the claimed embedded giant would no longer be needed to explain the gap. In parallel, JWST NIRCam imaging reaching ~1 $M_{\rm Jup}$ sensitivity in the gap would either recover the predicted protoplanet or rule it out at the low end of the claimed range.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that 2MASSJ1612 joins the short list of disks whose scattered-light substructures are most consistently explained by planet–disk interaction rather than by stellar companions, gravitational instability, or magnetohydrodynamic activity. The VLT/SPHERE images show an inner disk out to ~40 au with two spiral arms launching about 90 degrees apart, a gap whose outer edge lies near 0.5 arcsec (~65 au), and a bright outer ring at ~77 au extending to ~115 au. Dedicated hydrodynamic simulations with planet masses of ~1–10 $M_{\rm Jup}$ reproduce the gap and spiral opening angles only for perturbers above about 5 $M_{\rm Jup}$, while four independent literature scaling relations based on gap width, spiral-arm contrast and pitch angle, and near-infrared-to-millimeter cavity-size ratio converge on a mass between 0.1 and 5 $M_{\rm Jup}$. The K-band data place a 5 $M_{\rm Jup}$ upper limit inside the gap, consistent with non-detection of the planet's thermal emission. Two tentative point-source candidates in the H and K bands lie close to an ALMA compact continuum source in the gap, but they are not co-located between epochs, so the paper leaves open whether either is the planet or a processing artifact.

Load-bearing premise

The whole mass estimate hinges on assuming that the visible dust layer, whose measured aspect ratio is 0.17 at 77 au, sits about four times higher than the gas layer that sets the disk thickness; if the visible layer is inflated by fluffy dust or by dust–gas decoupling rather than by gas pressure, the inferred gas scale height — and with it the planet mass — would be much lower.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A confirmed giant planet in 2MASSJ1612 would make it a benchmark for planet formation around low-mass stars, complementing PDS 70 around a more massive star.
  • The SPHERE non-detection brackets the planet mass between 0.1 and 5 $M_{\rm Jup}$, a range accessible to JWST coronagraphy or deep adaptive-optics imaging; either detection or a deeper null would discriminate among the models.
  • If the tentative K-band point source and the ALMA compact continuum source trace the same body, the system would contain circumplanetary material at a projected separation of roughly 22 au, strengthening the planet interpretation.
  • The system's bluish scattered-light color suggests small or fluffy grains at the scattering surface, which bears on how the measured height is translated into gas scale height.
  • The spiral-inside-gap morphology, rare among the 33 known spiral-hosting disks, may indicate a higher-viscosity disk than PDS 70, changing how gap-carving masses are inferred.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If fluffy dust rather than gas pressure sets the scattering-surface height, the factor-of-four reduction to gas scale height is too large and the gap-width planet masses could be systematically overestimated; a direct gas vertical-structure measurement would settle this.
  • The two point-source candidates being non-co-located suggests at least one is an artifact; if deeper imaging fails to recover a source at the ALMA compact emission, the circumplanetary-disk interpretation of that continuum needs revisiting.
  • The close proximity of the candidates to the inner disk means a single low-mass planet may not carve the full 46 au gap; multi-planet configurations or an additional unseen outer planet could be tested by the same hydrodynamic models.
  • As a testable extension, searching for similar spiral-inside-ring morphologies around other M-type transitional disks would show whether 2MASSJ1612 represents a rare viscosity regime or a common outcome.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. 2MASSJ16120668-3010270 (2MASSJ1612) is an M0.5 young star in Upper Sco with a transition disk previously resolved by ALMA. This paper presents the first VLT/SPHERE scattered-light images of the disk, revealing an inner disk (inside ~40 au) with two spiral arms, a gap, and an outer ring extending to ~115 au. From XSHOOTER spectroscopy the authors derive M* = 0.60 ± 0.05 M_sun, age 5.5 ± 1 Myr, and log Mdot_acc = -9.21. They measure the disk scattering-surface height (z/r ~ 0.17 at 77 au), spiral pitch angles (17–21 deg), a blue H–K disk color, and K-band point-source detection limits. They compare the morphology to dedicated PHANTOM/MCFOST models and to empirical scalings from Kanagawa et al. (2016), Zhang et al. (2018), Dong et al. (2015), and de Juan Ovelar et al. (2013), and conclude that the structures are best explained by an embedded gas giant with a mass range of 0.1–5 M_Jup. They also report two non-co-located tentative point-source candidates in H and K, near an ALMA compact continuum source, and note that the non-detection in K band is consistent with the predicted mass range.

Significance. The observational discovery is significant: 2MASSJ1612 is one of the few low-mass stars showing the combination of inner spirals, a gap, and an outer ring in scattered light, and it becomes a natural JWST target if a planet is present. The strengths of the paper are the careful data reduction with IRDAP, the Monte Carlo ellipse fitting with 10^6 iterations, the explicit 5-sigma detection limits computed with both ADI and iRDI, and the use of several independent literature relations alongside new PHANTOM/MCFOST models. The main weakness is that the different methods do not actually converge on a single mass: the hydrodynamic models require >5 M_Jup while the Kanagawa-based estimate gives 0.1–4.1 M_Jup, and the low-mass branch rests on a gas-scale-height conversion that the authors themselves flag as potentially unreliable. This makes the headline 0.1–5 M_Jup range overstate the constraint, although the qualitative planet-disk interaction claim remains plausible.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6.1, Abstract, Section 7] The quoted 0.1–5 M_Jup mass range is internally inconsistent. The PHANTOM/MCFOST models (Section 6.1, Figure 7) reproduce the observed gap and spiral opening angles only for final planet masses above ~5 M_Jup, while the Kanagawa et al. (2016)-based estimate presented immediately below yields 0.1–4.1 M_Jup. These two constraints exclude each other for a single planet, and the disagreement is not a small overlap: the hydrodynamic lower limit rejects the entire 0.1–4 M_Jup portion of the quoted range. Moreover, the two calculations are not directly comparable because the PHANTOM models adopt H/R = 0.1 at 50 au (Appendix C), whereas the Kanagawa estimate uses h/r ~ 0.04–0.05 obtained by scaling the measured scattering surface by 1/3–1/4. Presenting the union of these model outputs as a single 'consistent picture' (end of Section 6.1) and repeating it in the Abstract and Section 7 overstates the quantitative constraint.
  2. [Section 5.1 and Section 6.1 (footnote 5)] The lower-mass branch of the planet-mass estimate depends on a conversion from the measured scattering-surface aspect ratio (0.17 at 77 au) to the gas scale height via an ad hoc division by a factor of 3–4 following Chiang et al. (2001). The authors themselves note in Section 5.1 that the high aspect ratio and blue H–K color can be explained by large fluffy dust aggregates that are aerodynamically well supported, in which case the scattering surface would not trace the gas pressure scale height. Because the Kanagawa et al. (2016) and Zhang et al. (2018) mass estimates scale steeply with h/r, the 0.1–4 M_Jup values are not robust unless this conversion is validated for this disk. I recommend reporting the mass estimate as a function of the assumed height ratio, or obtaining an independent gas-scale-height constraint (e.g., from CO isotopologue emission).
  3. [Section 7 and Section 5.2] The Summary first states that the hydrodynamic models suggest a lower mass limit of ~5 M_Jup to open the observed gap, then concludes 'broadly similar mass range between 0.1 M_Jup and 5 M_Jup.' A lower limit of ~5 M_Jup is not broadly similar to a range starting at 0.1 M_Jup. In addition, the K-band detection limit in the gap is ~5 M_Jup (Section 5.2, Figure 5), so the non-detection is trivially consistent with most of the quoted range and cannot be used as evidence that the model families agree. The consistency argument based on the non-detection should be removed or reframed.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract and Section 5.2] The Abstract refers to 'a tentative candidate point source within the disk gap,' but Section 5.2 reports two candidate signals that are not co-located between epochs and that the authors themselves consider likely artifacts; please rephrase the Abstract to reflect this ambiguity.
  2. [Section 6.1, Eq. (2)] In Eq. (2), the fitting parameter K' is introduced as K' = A Δ^B without defining A and B; please define these constants explicitly or cite the corresponding equation number in Zhang et al. (2018).
  3. [Section 6.1] The text uses both 'a factor of four' and 'a factor of three' for the scattering-surface-to-gas-scale-height correction in the same paragraph; please state the adopted value explicitly and justify it.
  4. [Sections 4 and 5.2] The stellar age used for the planet-mass contrast conversion is 5 Myr, but the XSHOOTER fit gives 5.5 ± 1 Myr and the Upper Sco literature age is ~10–11 Myr; the text notes that a 10 Myr age raises the candidate mass to ~5 M_Jup but should also state how the detection-limit masses would change.
  5. [Figure 7 caption / Section 6.1] The comparison in Figure 7 is morphological (polarized-light observation versus total-intensity model images that include planet thermal emission); please state explicitly in the text that the model planet flux is not being compared with the observed point-source limits.
  6. [Section 6.2.2] In the Toomre Q calculation, the assumption that the disk mass is uniformly distributed out to 185 au is stated, but the sense of the resulting bias in the outer disk should be made explicit; a uniform distribution likely overestimates the outer surface density, which strengthens the conclusion that the disk is stable.
  7. [References] The reference for Claes et al. (2024) contains the placeholder 'A&A, 999, AXXX'; this needs to be updated before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the planet-mass inference comes from forward hydrodynamic simulations and external empirical gap-width relations; self-citations are pipeline references and are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim that the 2MASSJ1612 disk morphology is best explained by an embedded gas giant rests on dedicated PHANTOM/MCFOST forward simulations in which the planet mass is an input parameter and only the mass is varied, and on literature gap-width and spiral relations (Kanagawa et al. 2016, Zhang et al. 2018, Dong et al. 2015, de Juan Ovelar et al. 2013) applied to measured observables such as the 46 au gap width, the ~17-21 degree pitch angles, and the 13.3 au scattering-surface height at 77 au. None of these steps defines the target planet mass in terms of itself, nor does the paper fit a parameter to a quantity that it later presents as a prediction. The quoted 0.1-5 Mjup range is explicitly described as model-dependent, and Section 6.1 acknowledges the tension between the >5 Mjup PHANTOM result and the lower Kanagawa-based masses: 'This is slightly higher than the upper end of the mass range derived from the Kanagawa et al. (2016) simulations.' The Appendix C models adopt H/R=0.1 at 50 au, whereas the Kanagawa estimate uses a gas scale height obtained by dividing the measured scattering-surface aspect ratio by four following Chiang et al. (2001); this is an internal-consistency and robustness weakness, not a circular reduction. The paper also flags its own limitations, including the need for tailored models to confirm fluffy dust aggregates (Section 5.1) and the caveat that non-detection mass limits do not account for possible planet embedding (Section 5.2). Self-citations (Ginski et al. 2021, 2023, 2024; Stapper & Ginski 2022) appear only in data-reduction recipes and color-calibration contexts and are not load-bearing for the morphology-to-planet inference. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against external model grids and forward simulations, so no circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends on several hand-chosen disk parameters: viscosity, scale-height correction factor, flaring index, age, and gas-to-dust ratio, plus the model choice of a single planet at 50 au. The scale-height correction factor and viscosity dominate the planet mass estimate and are not independently constrained for this source. The embedded planet is a postulated entity with a clear falsifiable follow-up prediction.

free parameters (6)
  • Disk viscosity alpha (Shakura-Sunyaev) = 1e-3 nominal; varied 1e-5 to 1e-2; PHANTOM models use 5e-3
    Input to the Kanagawa et al. gap-width planet mass relation; varying alpha shifts the derived planet mass from 0.1 to 3.4 M_Jup.
  • Gas scale height correction factor = 4 (factor of 3 alternative)
    Converts the measured scattering-surface aspect ratio (0.17) into a gas scale height for mass estimates and the Toomre Q calculation. Changing the factor from 4 to 3 raises the Kanagawa mass from 1.1 to 1.7 M_Jup.
  • Flaring index beta = 1.22 (from Avenhaus et al. 2018)
    Used for disk de-projection and pitch angle measurement and for the Toomre Q calculation; assumed as an average for T Tauri disks rather than measured for this source.
  • System age for planet luminosity modeling = 5 Myr (alternative 10 Myr)
    AMES-DUSTY models convert K-band contrast to planet mass: about 4 M_Jup at 5 Myr and about 5 M_Jup at 10 Myr.
  • Gas-to-dust ratio and total disk mass = 100; 850 M_Earth from ALMA dust mass
    Used in the Toomre Q stability estimate; a factor of 10 higher disk mass would bring Q into the instability regime only beyond about 165 au.
  • Planet initial mass and orbital radius in simulations = 1, 2, 5, 10 M_Jup at 50 au, migrating to 47-49 au
    Chosen by hand for the PHANTOM model grid; the simulated gap and spiral morphology depend on these choices.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The scattered-light ring offset along the minor axis measures the height of the scattering surface under the assumption that the ring is circular and not eccentric.
    Section 5.1 and Appendix A: the disk is assumed to be non-eccentric to derive an aspect ratio of 0.17 at 77 au.
  • domain assumption The inner and outer disk share the same inclination and position angle with no significant misalignment.
    Appendix B de-projection assumes coplanarity to measure the spiral pitch angles.
  • domain assumption A single embedded planet is responsible for the gap and spiral arms; multiple lower-mass planets are not modeled.
    Section 6.1 notes the gap could in principle be opened by multiple lower-mass planets, but the models assume a single perturber.
  • ad hoc to paper The ALMA compact continuum source and the SPHERE candidate point sources are related to the same embedded planet.
    Sections 5.2 and 5.3: this association is tentative and unproven, yet it is used to strengthen the planet interpretation.
  • domain assumption The disk viscosity in 2MASSJ1612 is comparable to the alpha values assumed in the mass formulas.
    Alpha is not measured; the Kanagawa estimate assumes 1e-3 while the PHANTOM models use 5e-3, and the resulting planet mass changes by an order of magnitude.
invented entities (1)
  • Embedded gas giant planet in the disk gap of 2MASSJ1612 independent evidence
    purpose: Explains the observed gap, inner spiral arms, and potential point-source signals.
    Postulated based on morphology matching and tentative photometric candidates. The paper provides a falsifiable handle: the inferred mass range and angular separation make it a JWST target (Section 7), but no direct detection is achieved and the two point-source candidates are not co-located between epochs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Disk Evolution Study Through Imaging of Nearby Young Stars (DESTINYS): Evidence of planet-disk interaction in the 2MASSJ16120668-3010270 system." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TT2EOEI7

@misc{pith2026250605892,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Disk Evolution Study Through Imaging of Nearby Young Stars (DESTINYS): Evidence of planet-disk interaction in the 2MASSJ16120668-3010270 system},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TT2EOEI7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05892}
}
read the original abstract

The architectures of exoplanet systems are likely set during the initial planet-formation phase in the circumstellar disk. To understand this process, we have to study the earliest phases of planet formation. Complex sub-structures, believed to be driven by embedded planets, have been detected in a significant portion of disks observed at high angular resolution. We aim to extend the sample of such disks to low stellar masses and to connect the disk morphology to the expected proto-planet properties. We resolve the disk in the 2MASSJ16120668-3010270 system for the first time in scattered near-infrared light on scales of 10 au using VLT/SPHERE and reveal an exceptionally structured disk. We find an inner disk (inside 40 au) with two spiral arms, separated by a gap from an outer ring. By comparison with hydrodynamic models, we find that these structures are consistent with the presence of an embedded gas giant with a mass range between 0.1 and 5 MJup depending on the employed model. Our SPHERE observations find a tentative candidate point source within the disk gap, which may be consistent with this mass range if it indeed traces thermal emission by an embedded planet. This interpretation is somewhat strengthened by the proximity of this signal to compact mm continuum emission in the disk gap, which may trace circumplanetary material. It is, however, unclear if this tentative companion candidate could be responsible for the observed disk gap size, given its close proximity to the inner disk. The 2MASSJ16120668-3010270 system is one of only a few systems that shows this exceptional morphology of spiral arms located inside a scattered light gap and ring. We speculate that this may have to do with a higher disk viscosity compared with other systems such as PDS 70.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05892 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Best fit of the X-Shooter spectrum of 2MASSJ1612. The ob￾served spectrum is shown in red, the best-fit photospheric template in yellow, and the slab model in cyan. The best fit is shown in light blue and reproduces the observed spectrum from ∼320 nm to ∼ 1µm. In the following, we describe the SPHERE view and compare it to recently obtained ALMA submillimeter observations (Sierra et al. 2024). 5.1. The SPHERE scatter… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. SPHERE observations of 2MASSJ1612 system in H band (1.6µm) and in K band (2.2µm). The two left-most images show polarized light after polarization-differential imaging, while the two right images show the total intensity after classical angular-differential imaging (cADI) and iterative reference-differential imaging. Note that the polarized light observations give a faithful image of the disk morphology, while proce… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. SPHERE H-band Qϕ image of 2MASSJ1612 with the main scat￾tered light features annotated. However, Rayleigh scattering would be expected to produce an equal amount of forward and back scattering and thus cannot ac￾count for the observed forward scattering in the system. A strong forward scattering with a bluish color is naturally explained if we consider large fluffy dust aggregates made of sub-micron-sized monomers (… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Total-intensity images of 2MASS1612 system; same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: SPHERE K-band detection limits as function of radial separa￾tion from the central star. We indicate the approximate position of the radial gap in the disk by the gray shaded area. The solid black line gives the detection limit via fake planet injection for the ADI redu…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: SPHERE total-intensity reduction of the H- and K-band data sets (with ADI and iRDI as in the previous figure). Total intensity ob￾servations are sensitive to thermal emission of embedded planets. We show the ALMA continuum data from Sierra et al. (2024) as the contour …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: SPHERE observations of 2MASSJ1612 system in H band (1.6µm) and radiative-transfer-model images created from hydrodynamic simu￾lations. The only parameter varying between the models is the mass of the injected planet indicated in the upper left of each panel. Note that …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Estimated (dimensionless) Toomre Q parameter for disk stability plotted against a range of disk radii using the measured disk aspect ratio and the ALMA disk mass from Sierra et al. (2024) as input. The disk appears stable against gravitational collapse, as Q always rem…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 370, 2765

    Allard, F., Homeier, D., & Freytag, B. 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 370, 2765

    2012

  2. [2]

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

    2020

  3. [3]

    2021, A&A, 652, A101

    Asensio-Torres, R., Henning, T., Cantalloube, F., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A101

    2021

  4. [4]

    P., Garufi, A., et al

    Avenhaus, H., Quanz, S. P., Garufi, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 44

    2018

  5. [5]

    2023, in PPVII, V ol

    Bae, J., Isella, A., Zhu, Z., et al. 2023, in PPVII, V ol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, 423

    2023

  6. [6]

    2019, ApJ, 884, L41

    Bae, J., Zhu, Z., Baruteau, C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, L41

    2019

  7. [7]

    2016, ApJ, 819, 134

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

    2016

  8. [8]

    & Zhu, Z

    Baehr, H. & Zhu, Z. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 135

    2021

Show all 102 references
  1. [9]

    2015, A&A, 577, A42

    Baraffe, I., Homeier, D., Allard, F., & Chabrier, G. 2015, A&A, 577, A42

    2015

  2. [10]

    J., et al

    Baruteau, C., Crida, A., Paardekooper, S. J., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 667–689

    2014

  3. [11]

    2021, ApJ, 916, L2

    Benisty, M., Bae, J., Facchini, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 916, L2

    2021

  4. [12]

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

    Benisty, M., Dominik, C., Follette, K., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. In- utsuka, Y . Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 605

    2023

  5. [13]

    L., Vigan, A., Mouillet, D., et al

    Beuzit, J. L., Vigan, A., Mouillet, D., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A155

    2019

  6. [14]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 5969

    Binkert, F., Szulágyi, J., & Birnstiel, T. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 5969

    2021

  7. [15]

    J., Pinte, C., et al

    Calcino, J., Price, D. J., Pinte, C., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 5763

    2023

  8. [16]

    F., Benisty, M., et al

    Campbell-White, J., Manara, C. F., Benisty, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 25

    2023

  9. [17]

    I., Joung, M

    Chiang, E. I., Joung, M. K., Creech-Eakman, M. J., et al. 2001, ApJ, 547, 1077

    2001

  10. [18]

    2023, The Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 4774

    Christiaens, V ., Gonzalez, C., Farkas, R., et al. 2023, The Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 4774

    2023

  11. [19]

    2024, A&A, 685, L1

    Christiaens, V ., Samland, M., Henning, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, L1

    2024

  12. [20]

    Claes, R., Campbell-White, J., & Manara, C. F. e. a. 2024, A&A, 999, AXXX

    2024

  13. [21]

    Cossins, P., Lodato, G., & Clarke, C. J. 2009, MNRAS, 393, 1157

    2009

  14. [22]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 751

    Currie, T., Lawson, K., Schneider, G., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 751

    2022

  15. [23]

    Cutri, R. M. & et al. 2012, VizieR Online Data Catalog: WISE All-Sky Data Release (Cutri+2012), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/311. Originally pub- lished in: 2012wise.rept....1C

    2012

  16. [24]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, 2MASS All Sky Catalog of point sources

    2003

  17. [25]

    2019, A&A, 623, A112 de Boer, J., Langlois, M., van Holstein, R

    Damiani, F., Prisinzano, L., Pillitteri, I., Micela, G., & Sciortino, S. 2019, A&A, 623, A112 de Boer, J., Langlois, M., van Holstein, R. G., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A63 de Boer, J., Salter, G., Benisty, M., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A114 de Juan Ovelar, M., Min, M., Dominik, C., ...

    2019

  18. [26]

    2008, in Society of Photo-Optical In- strumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Dohlen, K., Langlois, M., Saisse, M., et al. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical In- strumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 7014, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II, ed. I. S. McLean & M. M. Casali, 70143L

    2008

  19. [27]

    2016, ApJ, 826, 75

    Dong, R., Fung, J., & Chiang, E. 2016, ApJ, 826, 75

    2016

  20. [28]

    Dong, R., V orobyov, E., Pavlyuchenkov, Y ., Chiang, E., & Liu, H. B. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, 141

    2016

  21. [29]

    R., & Stone, J

    Dong, R., Zhu, Z., Rafikov, R. R., & Stone, J. M. 2015, ApJ, 809, L5

    2015

  22. [30]

    H., Boss, A

    Durisen, R. H., Boss, A. P., Mayer, L., et al. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V , ed. B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, & K. Keil, 607

    2007

  23. [31]

    2023, ApJ, 945, 112

    Fang, M., Pascucci, I., Edwards, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 112

    2023

  24. [32]

    M., & Kraus, A

    Fitton, S., Tofflemire, B. M., & Kraus, A. L. 2022, Research Notes of the Amer- ican Astronomical Society, 6, 18

    2022

  25. [33]

    J., & Henning, T

    Flock, M., Dzyurkevich, N., Klahr, H., Turner, N. J., & Henning, T. 2011, ApJ, 735, 122

    2011

  26. [34]

    P., Dzyurkevich, N., et al

    Flock, M., Ruge, J. P., Dzyurkevich, N., et al. 2015, A&A, 574, A68

    2015

  27. [35]

    M., et al

    Freudling, W., Romaniello, M., Bramich, D. M., et al. 2013, A&A, 559, A96 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari,...

    2013

  28. [36]

    Galli, P. A. B., Joncour, I., & Moraux, E. 2018, MNRAS, 477, L50

    2018

  29. [37]

    2018, A&A, 620, A94

    Garufi, A., Benisty, M., Pinilla, P., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A94

    2018

  30. [38]

    2022, A&A, 658, A137

    Garufi, A., Dominik, C., Ginski, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A137

    2022

  31. [39]

    G., et al

    Garufi, A., Ginski, C., van Holstein, R. G., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A53

    2024

  32. [40]

    2021, ApJ, 908, L25

    Ginski, C., Facchini, S., Huang, J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, L25

    2021

  33. [41]

    2024, A&A, 685, A52

    Ginski, C., Garufi, A., Benisty, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A52

    2024

  34. [42]

    2022, A&A, 662, A74

    Ginski, C., Gratton, R., Bohn, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A74

    2022

  35. [43]

    2020, A&A, 642, A119

    Ginski, C., Ménard, F., Rab, C., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A119

    2020

  36. [44]

    2016, A&A, 595, A112

    Ginski, C., Stolker, T., Pinilla, P., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A112

    2016

  37. [45]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 92

    Ginski, C., Tazaki, R., Dominik, C., & Stolker, T. 2023, ApJ, 953, 92

    2023

  38. [46]

    & Tremaine, S

    Goldreich, P. & Tremaine, S. 1979, ApJ, 233, 857 Gomez Gonzalez, C. A., Wertz, O., Absil, O., et al. 2017, Astronomical Journal, 154, 7

    1979

  39. [47]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 3837

    Gonzalez, J.-F., van der Plas, G., Pinte, C., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 3837

    2020

  40. [48]

    2019, A&A, 623, A140

    Gratton, R., Ligi, R., Sissa, E., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A140

    2019

  41. [49]

    Y ., Bohn, A

    Haffert, S. Y ., Bohn, A. J., de Boer, J., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 749 Halíˇr, R. & Flusser, J. 1998, in NUMERICALLY STABLE DIRECT LEAST SQUARES FITTING OF ELLIPSES

    2019

  42. [50]

    J., et al

    Hammond, I., Christiaens, V ., Price, D. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, L51 Article number, page 11 of 14 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aa51647-24corr

    2023

  43. [51]

    & Papaloizou, J

    Heinemann, T. & Papaloizou, J. C. B. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 64

    2009

  44. [52]

    A., Levine, S

    Henden, A. A., Levine, S. E., Terrell, D., Smith, T. C., & Welch, D. 2012, JAA VSO, 40, 430

    2012

  45. [53]

    2022, A&A, 668, A125

    Juillard, S., Christiaens, V ., & Absil, O. 2022, A&A, 668, A125

    2022

  46. [54]

    D., Muto, T., Tanaka, H., et al

    Kanagawa, K. D., Muto, T., Tanaka, H., et al. 2016, PASJ, 68, 43

    2016

  47. [55]

    2018, A&A, 617, A44

    Keppler, M., Benisty, M., Müller, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A44

    2018

  48. [56]

    2020, A&A, 639, A62

    Keppler, M., Penzlin, A., Benisty, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, A62

    2020

  49. [57]

    Kerr, R. M. P., Rizzuto, A. C., Kraus, A. L., & Offner, S. S. R. 2021, ApJ, 917, 23

    2021

  50. [58]

    R., Potter, D., & Parise, B

    Kuhn, J. R., Potter, D., & Parise, B. 2001, ApJ, 553, L189

    2001

  51. [59]

    L., Ireland, M., Rizzuto, A., Bento, J., & Federrath, C

    Kuruwita, R. L., Ireland, M., Rizzuto, A., Bento, J., & Federrath, C. 2018, MN- RAS, 480, 5099

    2018

  52. [60]

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

    Lesur, G., Flock, M., Ercolano, B., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 534, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Con- ference Series, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y . Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 465

    2023

  53. [61]

    Luhman, K. L. & Esplin, T. L. 2020, AJ, 160, 44

    2020

  54. [62]

    L., Herrmann, K

    Luhman, K. L., Herrmann, K. A., Mamajek, E. E., Esplin, T. L., & Pecaut, M. J. 2018, AJ, 156, 76

    2018

  55. [63]

    MacConnell, D. J. 1981, A&AS, 44, 387

    1981

  56. [64]

    F., Beccari, G., Da Rio, N., et al

    Manara, C. F., Beccari, G., Da Rio, N., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A114

    2013

  57. [65]

    F., Frasca, A., Venuti, L., et al

    Manara, C. F., Frasca, A., Venuti, L., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A196

    2021

  58. [66]

    2006, ApJ, 641, 556

    Marois, C., Lafrenière, D., Doyon, R., Macintosh, B., & Nadeau, D. 2006, ApJ, 641, 556

    2006

  59. [67]

    M., et al

    Milli, J., Mouillet, D., Lagrange, A. M., et al. 2012, A&A, 545, A111

    2012

  60. [68]

    2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Modigliani, A., Goldoni, P., Royer, F., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 7737, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems III, ed. D. R. Silva, A. B. Peck, & B. T. Soifer, 773728

    2010

  61. [69]

    A., Ginski, C., Dominik, C., et al

    Muro-Arena, G. A., Ginski, C., Dominik, C., et al. 2020, A&A, 636, L4

    2020

  62. [70]

    Pecaut, M. J. & Mamajek, E. E. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 794

    2016

  63. [71]

    J., Mamajek, E

    Pecaut, M. J., Mamajek, E. E., & Bubar, E. J. 2012, ApJ, 746, 154

    2012

  64. [72]

    & Youdin, A

    Pinilla, P. & Youdin, A. 2017, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol. 445, Formation, Evolution, and Dynamics of Young Solar Systems, ed. M. Pessah & O. Gressel, 91

    2017

  65. [73]

    J., Min, M., et al

    Pinte, C., Harries, T. J., Min, M., et al. 2009, A&A, 498, 967

    2009

  66. [74]

    2006, A&A, 459, 797

    Pinte, C., Ménard, F., Duchêne, G., & Bastien, P. 2006, A&A, 459, 797

    2006

  67. [75]

    & Mamajek, E

    Preibisch, T. & Mamajek, E. 2008, in Handbook of Star Forming Regions, V ol- ume II, ed. B. Reipurth, V ol. 5, 235

    2008

  68. [76]

    B., Pueyo, L., et al

    Rameau, J., Follette, K. B., Pueyo, L., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 244

    2017

  69. [77]

    B., Benisty, M., Ginski, C., et al

    Ren, B. B., Benisty, M., Ginski, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 680, A114

    2023

  70. [78]

    A., Monnier, J

    Rich, E. A., Monnier, J. D., Aarnio, A., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 109

    2022

  71. [79]

    C., Ireland, M

    Rizzuto, A. C., Ireland, M. J., & Kraus, A. L. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 2737

    2015

  72. [80]

    P., Benisty, M., Juhász, A., et al

    Rosotti, G. P., Benisty, M., Juhász, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1335

    2020

  73. [81]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 3440

    Sanchis, E., Picogna, G., Ercolano, B., Testi, L., & Rosotti, G. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 3440

    2020

  74. [82]

    Shakura, N. I. & Sunyaev, R. A. 1976, MNRAS, 175, 613

    1976

  75. [83]

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

    Sierra, A., Pérez, L. M., Agurto-Gangas, C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.16651

    2024 arXiv

  76. [84]

    M., Zhang, K., et al

    Sierra, A., Pérez, L. M., Zhang, K., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 14

    2021

  77. [85]

    2000, A&A, 358, 593

    Siess, L., Dufour, E., & Forestini, M. 2000, A&A, 358, 593

    2000

  78. [86]

    2015, A&A, 576, A77

    Smette, A., Sana, H., Noll, S., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, A77

    2015

  79. [87]

    Soderblom, D. R. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 581

    2010

  80. [88]

    M., Dr˛ a˙ zkowska, J., Birnstiel, T., et al

    Stammler, S. M., Dr˛ a˙ zkowska, J., Birnstiel, T., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, L5

    2019

  81. [89]

    Stapper, L. M. & Ginski, C. 2022, A&A, 668, A50

    2022

  82. [90]

    D., Cugno, G., et al

    Stolker, T., Marleau, G. D., Cugno, G., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A13

    2020

  83. [91]

    2023, ApJ, 944, L43

    Tazaki, R., Ginski, C., & Dominik, C. 2023, ApJ, 944, L43

    2023

  84. [92]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 4951

    Tazaki, R., Tanaka, H., Muto, T., Kataoka, A., & Okuzumi, S. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4951

    2019

  85. [93]

    & Briceño, C

    Tokovinin, A. & Briceño, C. 2020, AJ, 159, 15 Valegård, P. G., Ginski, C., Derkink, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A54 Valegård, P. G., Ginski, C., Dominik, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A25 van Holstein, R. G., Girard, J. H., de Boer, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A64

    2020

  86. [94]

    2011, A&A, 536, A105

    Vernet, J., Dekker, H., D’Odorico, S., et al. 2011, A&A, 536, A105

    2011

  87. [95]

    2021, A&A, 648, A26

    Wahhaj, Z., Milli, J., Romero, C., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A26

    2021

  88. [96]

    J., Vigan, A., Lacour, S., et al

    Wang, J. J., Vigan, A., Lacour, S., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 148

    2021

  89. [97]

    Weingartner, J. C. & Draine, B. T. 2001, ApJ, 548, 296

    2001

  90. [98]

    T., Girard, T

    Zacharias, N., Finch, C. T., Girard, T. M., et al. 2013, AJ, 145, 44

    2013

  91. [99]

    J., Booth, R

    Zagaria, F., Clarke, C. J., Booth, R. A., Facchini, S., & Rosotti, G. P. 2023, ApJ, 959, L15

    2023

  92. [100]

    2018, ApJ, 869, L47

    Zhang, S., Zhu, Z., Huang, J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, L47

    2018

  93. [101]

    2023, A&A, 672, A145 1 School of Natural Sciences, Center for Astronomy, University of

    Zhang, Y ., Ginski, C., Huang, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A145 1 School of Natural Sciences, Center for Astronomy, University of

    2023

  94. [102]

    Ejército Libertador 441, Santiago, Chile 23 Millennium Nucleus on Young Exoplanets and their Moons (YEMS), Chile Article number, page 12 of 14 C

    Lyon, UMR 5574, F-69230, Saint-Genis-Laval, France 19 Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HA, UK 20 Hamburger Sternwarte, Gojenbergsweg 112, 21029, Hamburg, Ger- many 21 Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Honolu...

    2024

Pith tools

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