Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 56 references

Planet-induced Gas and Dust Substructure Feedbacks on Disk Thermal Structure

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Planet-carved gaps heat protoplanetary disk midplanes by tens of Kelvin, shifting and multiplying volatile icelines while the heating feeds back to make the gaps shallower.

desk verdict A careful multi-dust extension of C23 that makes the disk thermal-structure feedback richer; the headline 10 K gap-temperature shift is plausible but hinges on an acknowledged, unquantified T_gas = T_dust assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01336 v2 pith:KZ44I2SA submitted 2025-07-02 astro-ph.EP

Kan Chen , Paola Pinilla , Mihkel Kama This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords protoplanetarydiscsplanet-discinteractionsradiativetransferhydrodynamicsdusttrappingicelinesvolatiledistributiondisktemperature
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 argues that a protoplanetary disk carved by a giant planet is not thermally smooth: the planet's gap heats the midplane by tens of Kelvin, dust rings cool by several Kelvin, and the radii at which water, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide freeze out shift and multiply. To show this, the authors iterate between hydrodynamical simulations with four dust grain sizes and Monte Carlo radiative transfer, letting the temperature change the disk scale height and feed back on the gap depth. They find that including multiple dust species makes gas gaps about 1.5 times shallower and gap temperatures about 10 K (~25%) higher than in gas-only models, because millimeter grains trap cooling radiation. If correct, the disk's thermal structure is coupled to its substructure in a way that smooth-disk models miss, with consequences for where volatiles freeze out and for how molecular emission from gaps is interpreted.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is an iteration loop between the FARGO3D hydrodynamics code and the RADMC-3D Monte Carlo radiative transfer code, run to 2000 planetary orbits with temperature feedback every 100 orbits. The central identity is Eq. (2): the gas temperature fed into the next hydrodynamics step is the dust surface-area-averaged temperature over the four grain sizes, computed from the dust temperatures and number densities in each cell. This identity is what couples the thermal structure to the grain-size-dependent opacity and dust distribution: in the gap, sparse dust lets stellar photons penetrate and heat the midplane, raising the aspect ratio and shallowing the gap; at the dust ring, millimeter grains raise the optical depth and cool the midplane, lowering the sublimation temperature of volatiles.

What would settle it

A resolved measurement of gas temperature inside a planet-carved gap — for example from CO rotational line ratios or HD emission — that shows $T_{\rm gas}$ below $T_{\rm dust}$ in the gap midplane, or a hydrodynamics run that couples gas and dust temperatures separately and produces gaps deeper rather than shallower than a gas-only model, would refute the central feedback claim. The paper itself notes that Facchini et al. (2018) already found $T_{\rm gas}/T_{\rm dust} < 1$ in gap midplanes, so this test is the natural next step.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that planet-induced substructures and disk temperature must be computed self-consistently: a giant planet's gap heats the surrounding gas and dust significantly, and that heating raises the disk aspect ratio, which in turn limits how deep the gap can grow. In the authors' simulations, a 3 Jupiter-mass planet at 30 au raises the midplane temperature in the gap from about 30 K to about 60 K, while a 100 Earth-mass planet at 10 au raises it by about 10 K; dust rings at the outer gap edge, formed by pressure-bump trapping of millimeter grains, cool the midplane by several Kelvin and act as volatile freeze-out regions. Including multiple dust species (0.1 μm to 1 mm) rather than a single well-mixed grain size yields gas gaps roughly 1.5 times shallower and gap temperatures about 10 K (25%) higher than the gas-only model, because the larger grains make the disk marginally optically thick at long wavelengths and slow the escape of cooling radiation. The overall midplane ice distribution of H2O, CO2, and CO is similar in both models, but the hot-gap/cold-ring configuration creates a volatile sublimation and re-freeze-out cycle.

Load-bearing premise

The entire feedback loop rests on treating the surface-area-averaged dust temperature as equal to the gas temperature in every cell; if the gas in a deep gap is actually cooler than the dust, the gap would deepen instead of shallowing, reversing the paper's headline result about shallower gaps in the multi-dust model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Volatile icelines in a planet-structured disk are not single, smoothly located radii: the CO iceline can multiply and shift outward, so comparing observed ring positions to iceline predictions from smooth temperature profiles is unreliable.
  • A deep H$_2$ gap located beyond the smooth-disk CO iceline can appear as a bright CO molecular ring rather than an emission gap in ALMA observations, complicating the interpretation of molecular emission gaps.
  • Dust rings at pressure bumps cool the midplane by a few Kelvin and act as volatile freeze-out zones, while the adjacent hot gap sublimates the same volatiles, creating a cycle that can concentrate solids for planetesimal growth.
  • Disk viscosity affects midplane temperature through turbulent dust mixing, but gap opening counteracts this, so iceline locations and the number of ice regions do not vary monotonically with $\alpha$.
  • The predicted temperature changes and outward CO iceline shift in a gap-hosting disk are testable with ALMA CO intensity maps or spectral lines at roughly 30 au resolution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A consequence not explored in the paper: because the feedback strength depends on the grain size distribution, disks with ongoing dust growth or fragmentation may oscillate between shallow and deep gap states as grain sizes evolve, testable with multi-epoch observations of the same disk.
  • The shallow-gap result in the multi-dust model hinges on the gas-dust temperature equality; if the two thermally decouple in deep gaps, the gap-depth comparison between Model G and Model D could reverse, so the quantitative claim should be re-checked with a two-temperature coupling.
  • The proposed ALMA test — comparing CO iceline extent in a gap-hosting disk against a smooth-disk counterpart — could be applied to existing disk surveys, since the predicted outward shift of the CO iceline is a large, resolvable effect.
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

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an iterative hydrodynamics + Monte Carlo radiative transfer framework (extending C23) in which gas and multiple dust species evolve, and the resulting dust temperature is fed back as the gas temperature. The authors show that planet-carved substructures alter the disk temperature relative to smooth disks: gap midplanes are warmer by tens of kelvin, dust-trap rings are cooler by several kelvin, and volatile icelines shift or multiply. They further compare the multi-dust model (Model D) with a gas-only/0.1-micron-dust model (Model G), reporting that Model D produces ~1.5x shallower gaps and ~10 K (~25%) higher gap temperatures, and they study the effect of alpha viscosity on temperature and icelines. An ALMA observational strategy is proposed.

Significance. The iterative coupling of hydrodynamics and radiative transfer is a genuine strength: the temperature changes are emergent outputs, not imposed by fitted parameters, and the paper extends the prior gas-only approach by including multiple dust sizes with dynamics in both HD and MCRT. If the quantitative results hold, they would imply that smooth-disk temperature assumptions are inadequate for interpreting gap/ring observations and volatile distributions. The comparison with C23 as a baseline is appropriate and non-circular. However, the central quantitative claims rely on the assumed equality between dust and gas temperatures in gap regions, which the authors themselves identify as fragile, and on the neglect of viscous heating; these issues must be addressed before the specific magnitudes (10 K, 1.5x, tens of kelvin) can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [2.3, Eq. (2); 4.4] The assumption T_gas = surface-area-averaged T_dust is load-bearing for the central Model D versus Model G result in Section 3.1.2. The authors note in Section 4.4 that Facchini et al. (2018) find T_gas/T_dust < 1 in deep-gap midplanes because the reduced dust surface area weakens collisional coupling. Since the aspect ratio h/r is set by T_gas, a cooler gas temperature in the gap would reduce h/r and deepen the gap, counteracting or even reversing the claimed shallower-gap trend. The magnitude and sign of the feedback are therefore uncertain. Please quantify this uncertainty, for example by repeating the iteration with a parametric T_gas/T_dust ratio or by implementing a two-temperature prescription in the gap region.
  2. [3.1.2, Fig. 3; 4.4] The omission of viscous heating may change the sign of the gap temperature perturbation in the inner disk. The authors cite Broome et al. (2023) showing that with viscous heating, T_mid in a Jovian gap at ~3 au can decrease by 20-30% relative to a gap-free model, which is opposite in sign to the stellar-heating-only result presented here. Since the abstract's 'midplane temperatures in gaps can increase by tens of kelvin' is a headline claim, the radial range over which this claim holds should be stated explicitly, and the qualitative conclusion should be qualified accordingly, particularly for the r_p = 4 au cases.
  3. [3.1.2] The claim that Model D gaps are about 1.5 times shallower than Model G gaps is presented as a general statement but is based on one representative case (100 M_Earth at 10 au). The authors note exceptions for eccentric-gap cases with 3 M_J, where Model G gaps are actually shallower than Model D. This exception is not quantified and weakens the generality of the headline comparison. Please provide gap-depth statistics across the full parameter grid (Table 1) or restrict the claim to the cases for which it holds.
  4. [3.1.3, Fig. 5] The dust-ring cooling of 'several kelvin' is close to the expected uncertainty from dust opacity and grain-size choices: the 4-species versus 8-species test in Section 3.1.2 shows temperature differences up to 15% in most regions. The claim that dust rings 'create volatile freeze-out regions' should be softened or supported by a sensitivity test on the grain-size distribution, since the magnitude of the cooling is near the model's internal scatter.
minor comments (7)
  1. [2.3 heading] The heading 'Prossessing between radiative transfer and hydro' contains a typo; it should be 'Processing'.
  2. [Table 1 caption] The caption refers to the 'nineth row' of the table; this should be 'ninth row'.
  3. [Section 2] The word 'locaitons' in the parameter-list sentence should be 'locations'.
  4. [Section 4] The heading 'Limits of our model' is spelled 'limtis' in the text; please correct the typo.
  5. [Figures 6 and 7 captions] The captions contain typos: 'differemt' and 'Miplane' in Fig. 6, and 'Comparions' in Fig. 7.
  6. [3.2.1] The statement that the radiative transfer simulations do not include viscous heating appears in the results section; it would be better placed in Section 4.4 where the limitation is discussed in detail.
  7. [2.3] Please clarify that Eq. (3) produces a vertically averaged, density-weighted temperature that is not necessarily equal to the midplane temperature used later for iceline analysis; the difference between T_iterate and T_mid should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the temperature and iceline results are emergent outputs of an iterated HD-MCRT loop, and the T_gas = T_dust assumption is a flagged limitation rather than a definitional equivalence.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: all reported temperatures, gap depths, aspect-ratio changes, and iceline positions are emergent outputs of the iterated FARGO3D + RADMC-3D loop (Section 2), not quantities fitted to the same data they are used to predict. The comparison between Model G and Model D is a controlled simulation difference with the same initial conditions, not an input-equivalent construction. The only self-referential element is the adoption of the authors' prior C23 workflow and disk setup ('We modify our previous iteration model in Figure 1 in C23'), which is method inheritance rather than evidence import; C23 is a baseline, and the new multi-dust result is computed rather than assumed. The Section 2.3 assumption T_dust = T_gas via Eq. (2)-(3), and the Section 4.4 caveat that Facchini et al. (2018) find T_gas/T_dust < 1 in deep gaps, is a model limitation and validity concern, not a circular step: the paper does not define the temperature predictions in terms of that assumption, and it explicitly flags where the assumption can break. No fitted parameter is relabeled a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, and no known result is merely renamed.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard disk physics plus several modeling choices that are stated in the paper. The main load-bearing simplifications are the T_gas = T_dust equality, the steady-state vertical dust profile, the omission of viscous heating, the fixed grain size distribution, and the azimuthal averaging of temperature before feedback. None of these are fitted to the outcome, but they set the quantitative scale of the predicted temperature changes.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha viscosity = 10^-2, 10^-3, 10^-4 (scanned)
    Chosen based on turbulence constraints (Flaherty et al. 2015, 2018, 2020). These values are inputs that control gap depth, dust diffusion, and settling; the viscosity dependence results in Section 3.2 are the central output, not fitted constants.
  • Planet mass M_p = 10 M_Earth, 100 M_Earth, 3 M_Jupiter
    Parameter study range to test gap opening; selected to cover no-gap to deep-gap regimes. Not fitted to the temperature outcome.
  • Planet location r_p = 4, 10, 30 au
    Covers inner, middle, and outer disk; chosen as in C23. Not fitted.
  • Dust-to-gas ratio epsilon = 0.01
    Standard assumed value; initial condition for dust surface density. Not fitted.
  • Initial gas surface density normalization Sigma0 = 1.8e-4, 4.5e-4, 1.34e-3 (M_star/r0^2)
    Set per planet location to produce comparable disk masses; standard disk model choices, not fitted.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Gas temperature equals surface-area-averaged dust temperature (T_gas = T_dust).
    Section 2.3, Eq. (2); used to convert MCRT dust temperatures into the gas temperature for the HD step. Section 4.4 acknowledges that Facchini et al. (2018) find T_gas/T_dust < 1 in gap midplanes, so this equality is the most fragile load-bearing premise for the gap-depth and temperature results.
  • domain assumption Vertical dust distribution follows the steady-state turbulent diffusion-settling solution (Fromang & Nelson 2009, eq. 19).
    Section 2.2; this extrapolates 2D dust surface densities to 3D for the MCRT. It assumes a steady state that may be violated at low alpha, where the authors note transient features at 2000 orbits.
  • domain assumption Only stellar radiation is included in the MCRT; viscous heating and external radiation are omitted.
    Section 4.4; the authors cite Broome et al. (2023) showing viscous heating changes gap midplane temperatures by 20-30%, so this affects the quantitative iceline positions, especially in the inner disk.
  • domain assumption Dust grain sizes are fixed to four species following n(a) ~ a^-3.5, with no growth or fragmentation.
    Section 2.1 and Section 4.4; the 4-species choice is tested against 8 species with <15% temperature differences, but dust growth could change opacities and sizes over the run.
  • domain assumption The MCRT temperature field is azimuthally averaged before being returned to the HD simulation.
    Section 2.2; this removes azimuthal thermal structure (spirals, eccentric gap features) from the feedback loop, potentially affecting gap edge dynamics.
  • standard math The public hydrodynamics and radiative transfer solvers (FARGO3D, RADMC-3D) correctly implement the relevant physics.
    The paper relies on these well-established codes without modifying the underlying equations; no formal verification is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Planet-induced Gas and Dust Substructure Feedbacks on Disk Thermal Structure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KZ44I2SA

@misc{pith2026250701336,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Planet-induced Gas and Dust Substructure Feedbacks on Disk Thermal Structure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KZ44I2SA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01336}
}
abstract

Protoplanets can interact with their natal disks and generate gas and dust substructures such as gaps and rings. However, how these planet-induced substructures affect the disk temperature, and how that in turn influences the substructures, remains unclear. We aim to study disk substructures and the thermal structure self-consistently and explore their impact on volatile distribution. To this end, we perform iterative multi-fluid hydrodynamical and radiative transfer simulations of planet-disk interactions. We find that the temperature in a structured disk deviates significantly from that of a smooth disk due to giant planet formation. In particular, midplane temperatures in gaps can increase by tens of Kelvin, leading to volatile sublimation as well as radial shifts and multiplication of icelines. Comparing our multi-dust models with previous gas-only models, we find that the former produces slightly shallower gaps and temperatures about 10 K ($\sim25\%$) higher. Furthermore, the temperature at dust rings formed by pressure bumps can drop by several Kelvin, creating volatile freeze-out regions. Nevertheless, the overall midplane ice distribution is not strongly sensitive to whether dust is included. We also investigate the effect of varying disk viscosity. Increasing $\alpha$ viscosity from $10^{-4}$ to $10^{-2}$ leads to a roughly 10 K ($\sim25\%$) warmer midplane due to enhanced vertical dust mixing. However, higher viscosity suppresses gap opening and reduces the temperature enhancement within gaps. As a result, iceline locations do not follow a simple trend with viscosity. Finally, we propose an observational strategy using ALMA to test our predicted temperature changes within disk gaps.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01336 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Workflow of our iteration method with the implementation of multiple dust species. The workflow is modified from the workflow in C23 by adding multiple dust species in both HD and MCRT simulations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparisons of surface density between the Model G (left) and Model D (right) with iterations for 100𝑀⊕ at 10au at 2000 orbits. For four dust species in Model D, with panels named from dust1dens to dust4dens, they are 0.1𝜇𝑚, 2.2𝜇𝑚, 46𝜇𝑚 and 1mm, respectively. 2D surface density maps are shown in units of normalized densities, while the 1D radial surface density profiles are shown in absolute values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Radial profiles of gas surface density (a), gas aspect ratio (b), and temperature (c) of iterative process 𝑇iterate (solid lines) and midplane 𝑇mid (dashed lines) of 100𝑀⊕ at 10au at 2000 orbits obtained from Model G and Model D, respectively. 3.1.3 Temperature at dust rings We also study how dust rings, formed by dust trapping at pressure maxima, can affect disk temperature. For the case of 3𝑀J at 30au in Model D, … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 𝜏 = 1 surfaces at differen wavelengths of Model G (left) and Model D (right) of 100𝑀⊕ at 10au at 2000 orbit, respectively. Background colormap is the dust temperature in Model G and dust surface area averaged temperature in Model D. Vertical and radial 𝜏 = 1 surfaces a…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Dust trap in mm size grains of 3𝑀J at 30au at 2000 orbits. Panel (a) shows surface density map of mm dust and panel (b) shows midplane temperature 𝑇mid (solid lines) and sublimation temperature 𝑇sub (dashed lines) from Model G and Model D. In panel (b), the green line …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Miplane (solid) and sublimation (dashed) temperature profiles of differemt 𝑀p at 𝑟p = 30 au of Model D 3.2.1 Disks without planets When there is no planet in a disk, different turbulence levels can affect turbulent mixing then affect dust settling, which in turn change…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparions of radial ice distribution of H2O, CO2 and CO obtained from Model G (left) and Model D (right). We show different 𝑀p, 3𝑀J , 100𝑀⊕ and 10𝑀⊕ from top to bottom. In each panel, from top to bottom, 𝑟p is 4, 10, and 30 au, respectively. Each bar represents ice ex…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Radial midplane temperature (solid lines) and sublimation tem￾perature (dashed lines) of Model D in non-planet disks with 𝛼 = 10−2 , 10−3 and 10−4 , respectively. 4 DISCUSSION We discuss the implications of our results on the disk temperature structure and the observab…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Ice plot with no planets in disks with different viscosities. turn affects dust opacities, influencing heating and cooling processes and ultimately modifying the disk temperature and iceline locations. Despite this, Savvidou et al. (2020) finds the temperature compar￾…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The surface density of gas, 0.1 𝜇𝑚 and 1mm dust (left to right) as a function of disk radius of 100𝑀⊕ at 10au at different viscosities. The surface density is normalized by the initial value [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Iceline locations obtained from models with 𝑀p = 100𝑀⊕ and viscosity of 𝛼 = 10−2 (bottom), 10−3 (middle) and 𝛼 = 10−4 (top). The vertical cyan lines mark 𝑟p. channel maps, velocity perturbations at gap edges and spirals may mimic thermal effects, requiring detailed 3D…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Barraza-Alfaro M., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/abc1d6 , 905, 68

    Alarcón F., Teague R., Zhang K., Bergin E. A., Barraza-Alfaro M., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/abc1d6 , 905, 68

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc1d6 2020

  2. [2]

    M., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf741 , 869, L41

    Andrews S. M., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf741 , 869, L41

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf741 2018

  3. [3]

    Bae J., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aa9705 , p. 10

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9705 2017

  4. [4]

    Birnstiel T., 2023, Dust growth and evolution in protoplanetary disks, http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.13287

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    W., Dullemond C

    Birnstiel T., Ormel C. W., Dullemond C. P., 2011, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015228 , 525, A11

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015228 2011

  6. [6]

    Broome M., Kama M., Booth R., Shorttle O., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad1159 , 522, 3378

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1159 2023

  7. [7]

    K., et al., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/abd255 , 908, 8

    Calahan J. K., et al., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/abd255 , 908, 8

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd255 2021

  8. [8]

    Chen K., Dong R., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad83d0 , 976, 49

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad83d0 2024

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Chen K., Kama M., Pinilla P., Keyte L., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad3247 , 527, 2049

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    Crida A., Morbidelli A., Masset F., 2006, @doi [Icarus] 10.1016/j.icarus.2005.10.007 , 181, 587

    2006 doi

  3. [11]

    ascl:2104.010

    Dominik C., Min M., Tazaki R., 2021, Astrophysics Source Code Library, p. ascl:2104.010

    2021

  4. [12]

    Dong R., Li S., Chiang E., Li H., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa72f2 , 843, 127

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    C., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5b0f , 889, 16

    Duffell P. C., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5b0f , 889, 16

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    P., Dominik C., 2004, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20040284 , 421, 1075

    Dullemond C. P., Dominik C., 2004, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20040284 , 421, 1075

    2004 doi

  7. [15]

    P., Juhasz A., Pohl A., Sereshti F., Shetty R., Peters T., Commercon B., Flock M., 2012, Astrophysics Source Code Library, p

    Dullemond C. P., Juhasz A., Pohl A., Sereshti F., Shetty R., Peters T., Commercon B., Flock M., 2012, Astrophysics Source Code Library, p. ascl:1202.015

    2012

  8. [16]

    P., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf742 , 869, L46

    Dullemond C. P., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf742 , 869, L46

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    F., 2017, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201630329 , 605, A16

    Facchini S., Birnstiel T., Bruderer S., van Dishoeck E. F., 2017, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201630329 , 605, A16

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    F., de Juan Ovelar M., 2018, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731390 , 612, A104

    Facchini S., Pinilla P., van Dishoeck E. F., de Juan Ovelar M., 2018, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731390 , 612, A104

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    F., Kama M., Bruderer S., Hogerheijde M

    Fedele D., Van Dishoeck E. F., Kama M., Bruderer S., Hogerheijde M. R., 2016, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526948 , 591, A95

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    M., Hughes A

    Flaherty K. M., Hughes A. M., Rosenfeld K. A., Andrews S. M., Chiang E., Simon J. B., Kerzner S., Wilner D. J., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/99 , 813, 99

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    Flaherty K., Hughes A., Teague R., Simon J., Andrews S., Wilner D., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab615 , 856, 117

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    Flaherty K., et al., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8cc5 , 895, 109

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    P., 2009, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/200811220 , 496, 597

    Fromang S., Nelson R. P., 2009, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/200811220 , 496, 597

    2009 doi

  16. [24]

    Fung J., Shi J.-M., Chiang E., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/88 , 782, 88

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Bergin E

    Hollenbach D., Kaufman M. J., Bergin E. A., Melnick G. J., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/690/2/1497 , 690, 1497

    2009 doi

  18. [26]

    Huang J., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf740 , 869, L42

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    D., Muto T., Tanaka H., Tanigawa T., Takeuchi T., Tsukagoshi T., Momose M., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/2041-8205/806/1/L15 , 806, L15

    Kanagawa K. D., Muto T., Tanaka H., Tanigawa T., Takeuchi T., Tsukagoshi T., Momose M., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/2041-8205/806/1/L15 , 806, L15

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    D., Zhang K., Schwarz K

    Krijt S., Bosman A. D., Zhang K., Schwarz K. R., Ciesla F. J., Bergin E. A., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aba75d , 899, 134

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    J., et al., 2021a, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1434 , 257, 3

    Law C. J., et al., 2021a, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1434 , 257, 3

    doi

  22. [30]

    J., et al., 2021b, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1439 , 257, 4

    Law C. J., et al., 2021b, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1439 , 257, 4

    doi

  23. [31]

    J., et al., 2024, Mapping the Vertical Gas Structure of the Planet -hosting PDS 70 Disk , http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.03018

    Law C. J., et al., 2024, Mapping the Vertical Gas Structure of the Planet -hosting PDS 70 Disk , http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.03018

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Leemker M., et al., 2022, arXiv:2204.03666 [astro-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Long F., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae8e1 , 869, 17

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    S., Rumpl W., Nordsieck K

    Mathis J. S., Rumpl W., Nordsieck K. H., 1977, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/155591 , 217, 425

    1977 doi

  27. [35]

    P., Uribe A

    Pinilla P., Birnstiel T., Ricci L., Dullemond C. P., Uribe A. L., Testi L., Natta A., 2012a, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118204 , 538, A114

    doi

  28. [36]

    Pinilla P., Benisty M., Birnstiel T., 2012b, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219315 , 545, A81

    doi

  29. [37]

    M., Birnstiel T., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7edb , 845, 68

    Pinilla P., Pohl A., Stammler S. M., Birnstiel T., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7edb , 845, 68

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    Pinte C., Dent W. R. F., Ménard F., Hales A., Hill T., Cortes P., Gregorio-Monsalvo I. D., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637X/816/1/25 , 816, 25

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    A., Delage T

    Pyerin M. A., Delage T. N., Kurtovic N. T., Gárate M., Henning T., Pinilla P., 2021, arXiv:2110.03373 [astro-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Qi C., et al., 2013, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1239560 , 341, 630

    2013 doi

  33. [41]

    P., Juhasz A., Booth R

    Rosotti G. P., Juhasz A., Booth R. A., Clarke C. J., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw691 , 459, 2790

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    Savvidou S., Bitsch B., Lambrechts M., 2020, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936576 , 640, A63

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    W., 2017, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201630013 , 602, A21

    Schoonenberg D., Ormel C. W., 2017, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201630013 , 602, A21

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    R., Bergin E

    Schwarz K. R., Bergin E. A., Cleeves L. I., Zhang K., Öberg K. I., Blake G. A., Anderson D., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaae08 , 856, 85

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    R., Bergin E

    Schwarz K. R., Bergin E. A., Cleeves L. I., Zhang K., Öberg K. I., Blake G. A., Anderson D. E., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1c5e , 877, 131

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    Teague R., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad80e , 864, 133

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    J., Choukroun M., Castillo-Rogez J., Bryden G., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/92 , 748, 92

    Turner N. J., Choukroun M., Castillo-Rogez J., Bryden G., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/92 , 748, 92

    2012 doi

  40. [48]

    Weber P., Pérez S., Benítez-Llambay P., Gressel O., Casassus S., Krapp L., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab412f , 884, 178

    2019 doi

  41. [49]

    J., 1977, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/180.2.57 , 180, 57

    Weidenschilling S. J., 1977, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/180.2.57 , 180, 57

    1977 doi

  42. [50]

    A., Bergin E

    Zhang K., Blake G. A., Bergin E. A., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/2041-8205/806/1/L7 , 806, L7

    2015 doi

  43. [51]

    A., Blake G

    Zhang K., Bergin E. A., Blake G. A., Cleeves L. I., Schwarz K. R., 2017, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-017-0130 , 1, 0130

    2017 doi

  44. [52]

    Zhang S., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf744 , 869, L47

    2018 doi

  45. [53]

    Zhang S., Hu X., Zhu Z., Bae J., 2021, arXiv:2110.00858 [astro-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  46. [54]

    M., Rafikov R

    Zhu Z., Stone J. M., Rafikov R. R., Bai X.-n., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/122 , 785, 122

    2014 doi

  47. [55]

    I., Murray-Clay R., Bergin E

    Öberg K. I., Murray-Clay R., Bergin E. A., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/2041-8205/743/1/L16 , 743, L16

    2011 doi

  48. [56]

    I., et al., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1432 , 257, 1

    Öberg K. I., et al., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1432 , 257, 1

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.