Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 77 references

A young gas giant and hidden substructures in a protoplanetary disk

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 This paper argues that MP Mus hosts a gas giant protoplanet at 1-3 au, using a Gaia proper-motion anomaly and a 3 mm ALMA cavity invisible at 1.3 mm.

desk verdict The 3 mm disk results are solid and worth publishing; the planet claim hinges on an unpublished baseline for disk-induced astrometric noise, not on the l=q^3.5 heuristic the reader flagged. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11612 v1 pith:X6JPCL5F submitted 2025-07-15 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Álvaro Ribas , Miguel Vioque , Francesco Zagaria , Cristiano Longarini , Enrique Macías , Cathie J. Clarke , Sebastián Pérez , John Carpenter
show 2 more authors
Nicolás Cuello Itziar de Gregorio-Monsalvo
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords propermotionanomalyprotoplanetarydiskgasgiantALMA3mmsubstructuresMPMusplanet-diskinteractionGaiaastrometry
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 argues that the apparently smooth disk around MP Mus is not smooth: new ALMA 3 mm observations reveal an inner cavity below 3 au, a ring at 10.5 au, and gaps at 7.5 and 15 au that are invisible at 1.3 mm. Combined with a 4.5-sigma Gaia proper-motion anomaly, the authors conclude that the system hosts a gas giant protoplanet at 1-3 au, named MP Mus b. If correct, this is the first indirect exoplanet detection inside a protoplanetary disk using Gaia astrometry, and the first case where longer-wavelength observations uncover previously hidden disk substructures. The proposed planet would also explain the disk's unusual longevity and its very low accretion rate.

What carries the argument

The proper motion anomaly technique compares the Gaia DR2 and DR3 astrometric solutions; combined with an assumed mass-luminosity relation where a companion's luminosity scales as the 3.5th power of its mass ratio, circular orbits, and 500,000 simulated two-body systems, it maps the allowed companion mass and separation. The new ALMA 3 mm observations exploit the lower dust optical depth at longer wavelengths to probe the disk midplane, where substructures hidden at 1.3 mm become visible. The frank visibility-space fitting recovers the radial profile of the disk, isolating the inner cavity, ring, and gaps, while Phantom smoothed-particle-hydrodynamic simulations plus MCFOST radiative transfer test which planet parameters can carve the observed cavity.

What would settle it

A future astrometric or radial-velocity measurement that places the companion outside 1-3 au, or an observation showing that the 3 au cavity is carved by a non-planetary process such as a dead zone or dust trap, would refute the claim. The cleanest check is a second-epoch astrometric detection that recovers MP Mus b with an orbital period inconsistent with a 1-3 au orbit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that MP Mus harbors a gas giant protoplanet orbiting between 1 and 3 au. The evidence is two-fold and independent: a Gaia proper-motion anomaly of 0.21 mas/yr at 4.5 sigma, and a small inner cavity seen only at 3 mm, together with a ring and two gaps that appear only at the longer wavelength. Hydrodynamic and radiative-transfer simulations show that a planet of 3 to 7 Jupiter masses at 1 to 2 au can open a cavity of the observed size, and in some cases produces a cavity visible at 3 mm but not at 1.3 mm, matching the observations. The authors present this as an indirect but consistent detection of MP Mus b, a young gas giant, and note that the 7.5 and 15 au gaps are unlikely to host the body responsible for the astrometric signal because that would require a companion more massive than about ten Jupiter masses.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the assumption that the companion's brightness scales with mass as it would on the main sequence, and that the orbit is circular and single; if the embedded protoplanet is dimmer or brighter than that heuristic, the inferred mass at every separation changes, and the case that only the 1-3 au cavity is viable weakens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, MP Mus becomes the first protoplanetary disk with an indirectly detected exoplanet found through Gaia astrometry.
  • A planet at 1-3 au around a 1.3-solar-mass star would sit near the habitable zone and would explain the disk's low accretion rate and its survival to 7-10 Myr.
  • The current census of disk substructures is incomplete: rings and gaps hidden at 1.3 mm can be revealed at 3 mm, so smooth disks may be more structured than surveys suggest.
  • High-resolution, high-sensitivity ALMA surveys at longer wavelengths should be used to search for hidden substructures in other apparently smooth disks.
  • Radial-velocity confirmation of MP Mus b would be challenging, since the expected 40-70 m/s signal is below the typical stellar-activity noise of young stars.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The inferred mass and location of the companion depend directly on the main-sequence mass-luminosity heuristic; if embedded protoplanets deviate from that relation, the mass at every separation shifts and the exclusion of the outer gaps weakens.
  • The single-companion model may be an oversimplification: if future astrometry reveals a multi-body signal, the 1-3 au localization could be revised.
  • A testable prediction is that other old, apparently smooth disks re-observed at 3 mm will show cavities or rings hidden at shorter wavelengths.
  • If MP Mus b is real, it most likely formed beyond the snowline and migrated inward, connecting this system to the population of close-in giant planets.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents new ALMA 3 mm continuum observations of the MP Mus protoplanetary disk and claims that these data, combined with a Gaia proper-motion anomaly, constitute an indirect detection of a gas giant protoplanet ('MP Mus b') at 1-3 au. The 3 mm data are reported to reveal an inner cavity of about 3 au, a ring at 10.5 au, and gaps at 7.5 and 15 au that are not detected at 1.3 mm. Hydrodynamic (Phantom) and radiative transfer (MCFOST) simulations are used to argue that a 3-15 Jupiter-mass companion at 1-2 au can carve the observed cavity, sometimes with a 3 mm-visible but 1.3 mm-invisible cavity. The paper further claims that MP Mus is the first system in which longer-wavelength observations uncover previously hidden disk substructures and the first indirect exoplanet detection in a disk using Gaia astrometry.

Significance. If substantiated, the result would be valuable: it would demonstrate a new avenue for finding young embedded planets by combining Gaia astrometry with high-resolution ALMA imaging, and it would show that the census of disk substructures is incomplete because optical depth effects can hide rings and gaps at shorter wavelengths. The paper has genuine strengths: the substructure analysis is cross-checked with three independent methods (frank, GoFish on robust=-0.5 images, and gpuvmem); the ALMA data are public; the codes are public; and the authors are candid about the tentative nature of the cavity and about model sensitivities in the supplementary material. These strengths make the overall program credible even though, as detailed below, several load-bearing steps need additional quantitative support before the central claim is secure.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 1.1] The central attribution of the Gaia proper motion anomaly to a companion rather than to the disk rests on the assertion that only edge-on, highly asymmetric, or massive disks can induce proper motion anomalies (Vioque et al. in prep) and on MP Mus's low accretion rate. This is load-bearing, and the cited analysis is unpublished. Given that MP Mus exhibits scattered-light shadows (refs. 20, 21) and is not static, the paper needs a quantitative, system-specific upper limit on the photocenter jitter that the disk could produce over the DR2-DR3 baseline; an unpublished general statement cannot carry this weight. Without such a bound, the 4.5-sigma PMa could in principle be disk-induced and the companion claim would not follow.
  2. [Secs. 1.2 and 2.2] The inner cavity is the key datum that places the companion at 1-3 au, but the manuscript itself describes it as barely resolved and tentatively detected in the image-based profiles, and a 3 au radius corresponds to roughly 0.031 arcsec versus a 0.06 x 0.04 arcsec beam. The frank reconstruction is sub-beam, so the cavity's reality depends on the regularization assumptions. I ask for a quantified detection significance for the cavity, such as a model comparison or false-alarm test over the frank hyperparameter grid, and a demonstration that the cavity is not an artifact of the alpha and wsmooth choices at the resolution limit.
  3. [Secs. 1.1 and 1.4] The inference that the PMa must come from a companion in the inner cavity assumes a single-companion model. The new 3 mm data reveal three separate substructures (cavity, ring, and two gaps), and the combined astrometric signal of multiple planets at 7.5 and 15 au, or an eccentric outer companion, is not modeled. The paper should either quantify the multi-body degeneracy or add a test showing that the observed PMa and RUWE cannot be reproduced without an inner planet.
  4. [Sec. 1.3 and Supplementary Sec. 8.2] The hydrodynamical grid varies only mass and semi-major axis, fixing viscosity alpha_ss = 5e-3, disk mass 0.01 solar masses, and dust size distribution n(s) proportional to s^-3.5. The authors note in the Supplementary Material that the crucial 3 mm-visible, 1.3 mm-invisible cavity behavior is highly sensitive to the disk and dust properties and should not be read as precise measurements, yet Sec. 1.4 states that simulations show that planets between 1-2 au carve a cavity with the correct size without carrying these caveats into the main conclusion. Please propagate the model sensitivity into the claimed 1-2 au localization or soften the conclusion accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Main text and Supplementary Material] The main text refers to Supplementary Fig. 1 when discussing the inner cavity, but the supplementary material provided begins at Fig. 5; please add or renumber the missing figure.
  2. [Sec. 2.2] The sentence beginning Under the assumption that the the disk is axisymmetric contains a duplicated article.
  3. [Fig. 3 and Supplementary Figs. 7-8] The radial profiles are shown without uncertainty bands or credible intervals; adding them would help the reader judge the significance of the claimed hidden structures, especially the sub-beam cavity.
  4. [Sec. 1.1] The light-ratio relation l = q^3.5 is calibrated for main-sequence stars and becomes negligible for planetary mass ratios, so the paper should state explicitly why this heuristic does not affect the gas-giant solutions, or demonstrate that the allowed region is unchanged for l = 0.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

One load-bearing self-citation (Vioque et al. in prep) carries the exclusion of disk-induced PMa; the Gaia and ALMA evidence otherwise remain independent.

  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. 1.1 (The Gaia proper motion anomaly of MP Mus), first paragraph]
    "However, the analysis of well-known protoplanetary disks shows that only edge-on, highly asymmetric, or massive disks can induce proper motion anomalies (Vioque et al. in prep), and MP Mus has a very low accretion rate [∼ 10−10 M⊙ yr−1, 32]."

    The PMa-based companion claim requires that the observed 4.5σ signal is not produced by the disk. The paper's argument for this is: (i) the general statement that only edge-on, highly asymmetric, or massive disks induce PMas, attributed to 'Vioque et al. in prep,' and (ii) MP Mus's low accretion rate. Statement (i) is an unpublished analysis by one of the present authors (M. Vioque), and it is load-bearing: without it, low accretion alone does not exclude time-variable shadowing or faint asymmetries (the same section notes scattered-light shadows, refs. 20-21). This is a self-citation used to suppress the main alternative to the companion interpretation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: Gaia DR2-DR3 PMa indicates a companion; new ALMA 3 mm data reveal an inner cavity, ring, and gaps; PHANTOM/MCFOST models show that a 1-2 au giant planet can open a cavity of the observed size; the combination is presented as an indirect exoplanet detection. The Gaia PMa and the ALMA cavity are independent measurements, so the central claim has genuine external content. The l=q^3.5 heuristic is an external main-sequence scaling, not fitted to MP Mus, and for the small planetary mass ratios considered it is not load-bearing for the inferred location. The SPH grid is a forward consistency scan over parameters already suggested by the data, not a fitted prediction, and the paper explicitly cautions that the 3 mm visibility of the cavity is sensitive to disk and dust assumptions. No equation is shown to be self-defined or to reduce to its own input. However, one step is circular in the self-citation sense: the exclusion of disk-induced astrometric contamination is attributed to 'Vioque et al. in prep,' an unpublished work by a co-author that is not in the reference list. This citation carries the premise needed to convert the PMa into a companion signal. Because the rest of the evidence remains independent and the self-citation is the only load-bearing unverified link, the circularity score is 4 rather than 0.

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

The central claim rests on a chain of assumptions. The Gaia-to-mass conversion uses the l = q^3.5 main-sequence light-ratio heuristic, circular orbits, and a single-companion model; the ALMA structures are assumed to be carved by the companion even though the text admits non-planetary mechanisms can open cavities; the cavity-to-separation conversion uses the equal-mass binary scaling from Artymowicz and Lubow (1994) and Ragusa et al. (2020); the Phantom grid then confirms the inferred range, but it is a consistency scan whose 3 mm versus 1.3 mm contrast is admitted to be sensitive to disk and dust properties; and the frank reconstruction assumes axisymmetry with hand-tuned regularization. The only invented entity is the planet MP Mus b itself, for which the paper offers no currently feasible independent detection channel.

free parameters (5)
  • l = q^3.5 light-ratio exponent = 3.5
    Chosen by hand in Sec. 1.1 to convert mass ratio to light ratio in the astromet simulations; calibrated for main-sequence binaries, unvalidated for embedded protoplanets, and it directly sets the inferred companion mass at each separation.
  • frank regularization at 3 mm (alpha, wsmooth) = alpha=1.3, wsmooth=1e-2
    Selected in Sec. 2.2 as the smallest values that avoid 'clearly artificial ripples' in the 3 mm radial profile; the smoothing threshold influences which structures, including the ~3 au cavity, survive in the reconstruction.
  • Simulation viscosity alpha_ss = 5e-3
    Chosen by hand via shock-capturing coefficients alpha_AV=0.2 and beta_AV=2 in Sec. 2.3.1; viscosity controls cavity depth and size in the Phantom grid, so the 1-2 au confirmation result depends on it.
  • Simulation disk mass = 0.01 Msun
    Set in Sec. 2.3.1 from the 3 mm dust mass (0.12 MJup) and a gas-to-dust ratio of 100; affects gap morphology and the optical depth contrast between 1.3 and 3 mm.
  • Dust size distribution power law and range = n(s) proportional to s^-3.5, s from 1 micron to 0.5 cm
    Assumed in Sec. 2.3.1; the authors state that the 3 mm versus 1.3 mm cavity contrast is 'highly sensitive to the disk and dust properties which we have not explored in detail.'
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Gaia PMa of MP Mus is dominated by a single companion (two-body model)
    Stated in Sec. 1.1: 'we assume that, although there may be other planets in MP Mus, its PMa is dominated by a single companion.' Multi-body configurations would change the inferred mass-separation curve.
  • domain assumption Disk-induced proper motion anomalies are negligible for MP Mus
    Sec. 1.1 argues low accretion (~1e-10 Msun/yr) and cites Vioque et al. (in prep) for the claim that only edge-on, asymmetric, or massive disks induce PMa; this is the main guard against a false astrometric signal.
  • domain assumption Circular orbits for the companion in the astrometric simulations
    Sec. 1.1: 'We assumed no eccentricity.' An eccentric orbit would change the PMa amplitude and phase and is not explored.
  • domain assumption The inner cavity is carved by the companion
    Sec. 1.2 acknowledges 'mechanisms other than planets can open cavities and gaps' (MHD winds, instabilities) but proceeds with the planetary interpretation that localizes the companion to 1-3 au.
  • domain assumption A non-eccentric companion opens a cavity of 2-3 times its orbital separation
    Sec. 1.2 invokes Artymowicz and Lubow (1994) and Ragusa et al. (2020), results for equal-mass binaries, to convert the observed ~3 au cavity into a 1-3 au orbital separation; the simulations later reproduce this same scaling.
  • domain assumption The disk is axisymmetric for the frank visibility reconstruction
    Sec. 2.2: frank assumes axisymmetry; the residuals are small (below 3 rms at 3 mm, two localised ~5 rms blobs at 1.3 mm), and image-based and gpuvmem checks are consistent, but true non-axisymmetry is not modeled.
invented entities (1)
  • MP Mus b, the inferred gas giant protoplanet at 1-3 au
    purpose: Explains the Gaia proper motion anomaly, the 3 mm inner cavity, and the disk's low accretion rate and long dust lifetime.
    The evidence is indirect (astrometry plus cavity morphology); the paper's own predicted RV semi-amplitude of 40-70 m/s (Sec. 1.4) is below the ~100 m/s activity floor of young stars, so no currently feasible independent detection channel is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A young gas giant and hidden substructures in a protoplanetary disk." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X6JPCL5F

@misc{pith2026250711612,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A young gas giant and hidden substructures in a protoplanetary disk},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X6JPCL5F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11612}
}
read the original abstract

The detection of planets in protoplanetary disks has proven to be extremely challenging. In contrast, rings and gaps, usually attributed to planet-disk interactions, have been found in virtually every large protoplanetary (Class II) disk observed at 0.9-1.3 mm with sufficient spatial resolution (5 au). The nearby disk around MP Mus (PDS 66) stands as an exception to this rule, and its advanced age (7-10 Myr) is particularly difficult to reconcile with its apparent lack of substructures. Despite the disk's smooth appearance, Gaia data of MP Mus show a significant proper motion anomaly, signalling the presence of a companion. Here we present ALMA 3 mm observations of the system with comparable high spatial resolution to previous 1.3 mm data. The new observations pierce deeper into the disk midplane and reveal an inner cavity (<3 au) and a ring at 10 au. The disk structure inferred from ALMA observations narrows down the properties of the companion to a gas giant orbiting at 1-3 au, and hydrodynamic simulations further confirm that such a planet can produce the observed cavity. These independent pieces of evidence constitute an indirect but compelling detection of an exoplanet within a protoplanetary disk using Gaia astrometry. MP Mus is the first system in which undetected substructures are revealed thanks to the lower optical depths at longer wavelengths, suggesting that rings and gaps are even more abundant than what is currently believed.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Keppler, M. et al. Discovery of a planetary-mass companion within the gap of the transition disk around PDS 70.Astron. Astrophys.617, A44 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Haffert, S. Y.et al. Two accreting protoplanets around the young star PDS 70. Nat. Astron. 3, 749–754 (2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    G.et al.A giant planet transiting a 3-Myr protostar with a misaligned disk

    Barber, M. G.et al.A giant planet transiting a 3-Myr protostar with a misaligned disk. Nature 635, 574–577 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Testi, L.et al.Hunting for Planets in the HL Tau Disk.Astrophys. J. Lett.812, L38 (2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Donati, J. F.et al. The magnetic field and accretion regime of CI Tau.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.491, 5660–5670 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    M.et al.The Disk Substructures at High Angular Resolution Project 15 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Radius (au) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0Intensity (Normalized) 1.3 mm 3 mm 3 mm (GPUVMEM) Fig

    Andrews, S. M.et al.The Disk Substructures at High Angular Resolution Project 15 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Radius (au) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0Intensity (Normalized) 1.3 mm 3 mm 3 mm (GPUVMEM) Fig. 7 Intensity radial profiles of MP Mus at 1.3 and 3 mm calculated directly from images. The profilesarecalculatedusingthe robust=-0.5image(solidlines)andtheimagefrom g...

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Long, F. et al. Gaps and Rings in an ALMA Survey of Disks in the Taurus Star-forming Region. Astrophys. J. 869, 17 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Bae, J. et al. Inutsuka, S., Aikawa, Y., Muto, T., Tomida, K. & Tamura, M. (eds) Structured Distributions of Gas and Solids in Protoplanetary Disks. (eds Inutsuka, S., Aikawa, Y., Muto, T., Tomida, K. & Tamura, M.)Protostars and Planets VII, Vol. 534 ofAstronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, 423 (2023). 2210.13314

    arXiv 2023

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    Weidenschilling, S. J. Aerodynamics of solid bodies in the solar nebula.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.180, 57–70 (1977)

    1977

  2. [10]

    Brauer, F. et al. Survival of the mm-cm size grain population observed in protoplanetary disks. Astron. Astrophys.469, 1169–1182 (2007)

    2007

  3. [11]

    Paardekooper, S. J. & Mellema, G. Planets opening dust gaps in gas disks. Astron. Astrophys.425, L9–L12 (2004). 16 0 0.5 1 3 MJup companion at 0.5 au 3 MJup companion at 1.0 au 3 MJup companion at 1.5 au 3 MJup companion at 2.0 au 3 MJup companion at 2.5 au 1.3 mm (sim) 1.3 mm...

    2004

  4. [12]

    & Piskunov, N

    Lyra, W., Johansen, A., Klahr, H. & Piskunov, N. Standing on the shoul- ders of giants. Trojan Earths and vortex trapping in low mass self-gravitating protoplanetary disks of gas and solids.Astron. Astrophys.493, 1125–1139 (2009)

    2009

  5. [13]

    & Birnstiel, T

    Pinilla, P., Benisty, M. & Birnstiel, T. Ring shaped dust accumulation in transition disks. Astron. Astrophys.545, A81 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    The SPHERE view of the Taurus star-forming region

    Garufi, A.et al. The SPHERE view of the Taurus star-forming region. The full census of planet-forming disks with GTO and DESTINYS programs. Astron. Astrophys. 685, A53 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    The full census of planet-forming disks with GTO and DESTINYS programs.Astron

    Ginski, C.et al.The SPHERE view of the Chamaeleon I star-forming region. The full census of planet-forming disks with GTO and DESTINYS programs.Astron. Astrophys. 685, A52 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Ribas, Á. et al. The ALMA view of MP Mus (PDS 66): A protoplanetary disk with no visible gaps down to 4 au scales.Astron. Astrophys.673, A77 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Gaia Early Data Release 3

    Gaia Collaboration et al. Gaia Early Data Release 3. Summary of the contents and survey properties.Astron. Astrophys.649, A1 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Onthesecularevolution of the ratio between gas and dust radii in protoplanetary discs.Mon

    Toci,C.,Rosotti,G.,Lodato,G.,Testi,L.&Trapman,L. Onthesecularevolution of the ratio between gas and dust radii in protoplanetary discs.Mon. Not. R. 17 Astron. Soc.507, 818–833 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Confirmation of a ring structure in the disk around MP Mus (PDS 66) with ALMA Band 7 observations.Astron

    Aguayo, Auroraet al. Confirmation of a ring structure in the disk around MP Mus (PDS 66) with ALMA Band 7 observations.Astron. Astrophys. 698, A165 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    Wolff, S. G.et al. The PDS 66 Circumstellar Disk as Seen in Polarized Light with the Gemini Planet Imager.Astrophys. J. Lett.818, L15 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Avenhaus, H. et al. Disks around T Tauri Stars with SPHERE (DARTTS- S). I. SPHERE/IRDIS Polarimetric Imaging of Eight Prominent T Tauri Disks. Astrophys. J. 863, 44 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    E., Jr., Lada, E

    Haisch, K. E., Jr., Lada, E. A. & Lada, C. J. Disk Frequencies and Lifetimes in Young Clusters.Astrophys. J. Lett.553, L153–L156 (2001)

    2001

  15. [23]

    E., Henning, T., Jayawardhana, R

    Fedele, D., van den Ancker, M. E., Henning, T., Jayawardhana, R. & Oliveira, J. M. Timescale of mass accretion in pre-main-sequence stars.Astron. Astrophys. 510, A72 (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    & Merín, B

    Ribas, Á., Bouy, H. & Merín, B. Protoplanetary disk lifetimes vs. stellar mass and possible implications for giant planet populations.Astron. Astrophys. 576, A52 (2015)

    2015

  17. [25]

    Perryman, M., Hartman, J., Bakos, G. Á. & Lindegren, L. Astrometric Exoplanet Detection with Gaia.Astrophys. J. 797, 14 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    & Thévenin, F

    Kervella, P., Arenou, F., Mignard, F. & Thévenin, F. Stellar and substellar com- panions of nearby stars from Gaia DR2. Binarity from proper motion anomaly. Astron. Astrophys.623, A72 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    & Thévenin, F

    Kervella, P., Arenou, F. & Thévenin, F. Stellar and substellar companions from Gaia EDR3. Proper-motion anomaly and resolved common proper-motion pairs. Astron. Astrophys.657, A7 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    J.et al.Direct imaging discovery of a super-Jovian around the young Sun-like star AF Leporis.Astron

    De Rosa, R. J.et al.Direct imaging discovery of a super-Jovian around the young Sun-like star AF Leporis.Astron. Astrophys.672, A94 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Mesa, D. et al. AF Lep b: The lowest-mass planet detected by coupling astrometric and direct imaging data.Astron. Astrophys.672, A93 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Direct imaging and astrometric detection of a gas giant planet orbiting an accelerating star.Science 380, 198–203 (2023)

    Currie, T.et al. Direct imaging and astrometric detection of a gas giant planet orbiting an accelerating star.Science 380, 198–203 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    & Philipot, F

    Kiefer, F., Lagrange, A.-M., Rubini, P. & Philipot, F. Searching for substellar companion candidates with Gaia. II. A catalog of 9,698 planet candidate solar- type hosts. arXiv e-prints arXiv:2409.16993 (2024). 18

    2024

  24. [32]

    Accretion Rates for T Tauri Stars Using Nearly Simultaneous Ultraviolet and Optical Spectra.Astrophys

    Ingleby, L.et al. Accretion Rates for T Tauri Stars Using Nearly Simultaneous Ultraviolet and Optical Spectra.Astrophys. J. 767, 112 (2013)

    2013

  25. [33]

    & Evans, N

    Penoyre, Z., Belokurov, V. & Evans, N. W. Astrometric identification of nearby binary stars - I. Predicted astrometric signals.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.513, 2437–2456 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    & Evans, N

    Penoyre, Z., Belokurov, V. & Evans, N. W. Astrometric identification of nearby binary stars - II. Astrometric binaries in the Gaia Catalogue of Nearby Stars. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.513, 5270–5289 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    & Holl, B

    Boubert, D., Everall, A., Fraser, J., Gration, A. & Holl, B. Completeness of the Gaia-verse III: using hidden states to infer gaps, detection efficiencies, and the scanning law from the DR2 light curves.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.501, 2954–2968 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Astrophys

    Pinilla, P.et al.Testing particle trapping in transition disks with ALMA.Astron. Astrophys. 584, A16 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    A., Tazzari, M., Rosotti, G

    Jennings, J., Booth, R. A., Tazzari, M., Rosotti, G. P. & Clarke, C. J. franken- stein: protoplanetarydisc brightness profilereconstruction atsub-beam resolution with a rapid Gaussian process.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.495, 3209–3232 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    Zhang, K., Blake, G. A. & Bergin, E. A. Evidence of Fast Pebble Growth Near Condensation Fronts in the HL Tau Protoplanetary Disk. Astrophys. J. Lett. 806, L7 (2015)

    2015

  31. [39]

    Gaps, rings, and non-axisymmetric structures in protoplanetary disks

    Flock, M.et al. Gaps, rings, and non-axisymmetric structures in protoplanetary disks. From simulations to ALMA observations. Astron. Astrophys. 574, A68 (2015)

    2015

  32. [40]

    F., Laibe, G

    Gonzalez, J. F., Laibe, G. & Maddison, S. T. Self-induced dust traps: overcoming planet formation barriers.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.467, 1984–1996 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    Dong, R., Li, S., Chiang, E. & Li, H. Multiple Disk Gaps and Rings Generated by a Single Super-Earth.Astrophys. J. 843, 127 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    & Hartmann, L

    Bae, J., Zhu, Z. & Hartmann, L. On the Formation of Multiple Concentric Rings and Gaps in Protoplanetary Disks.Astrophys. J. 850, 201 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    & Dullemond, C

    Ziampras, A., Kley, W. & Dullemond, C. P. Importance of radiative effects in gap opening by planets in protoplanetary disks.Astron. Astrophys.637, A50 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Astrophys.652, A101 (2021)

    Asensio-Torres, R.et al.Perturbers: SPHERE detection limits to planetary-mass companions in protoplanetary disks.Astron. Astrophys.652, A101 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    DBNets:Apubliclyavailabledeeplearning tooltomeasurethemassesofyoungplanetsindustyprotoplanetarydiscs

    Ruzza,A.,Lodato,G.&Rosotti,G.P. DBNets:Apubliclyavailabledeeplearning tooltomeasurethemassesofyoungplanetsindustyprotoplanetarydiscs. Astron. 19 Astrophys. 685, A65 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    & Lubow, S

    Artymowicz, P. & Lubow, S. H. Dynamics of Binary-Disk Interaction. I. Resonances and Disk Gap Sizes.Astrophys. J. 421, 651 (1994)

    1994

  39. [47]

    & Price, D

    Ragusa, E., Alexander, R., Calcino, J., Hirsh, K. & Price, D. J. The evolution of large cavities and disc eccentricity in circumbinary discs.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 499, 3362–3380 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    Price, D. J. et al. Phantom: A Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics and Mag- netohydrodynamics Code for Astrophysics. Publ. Astron. Soc. Aust. 35, e031 (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    & Bastien, P

    Pinte, C., Ménard, F., Duchêne, G. & Bastien, P. Monte Carlo radiative transfer in protoplanetary disks.Astron. Astrophys.459, 797–804 (2006)

    2006

  42. [50]

    Pinte, C. et al. Benchmark problems for continuum radiative transfer. High optical depths, anisotropic scattering, and polarisation.Astron. Astrophys.498, 967–980 (2009)

    2009

  43. [51]

    Gofish: Fishing for line observations in protoplanetary disks

    Teague, R. Gofish: Fishing for line observations in protoplanetary disks. The Journal of Open Source Software4, 1632 (2019). URL https://doi.org/10.21105/ joss.01632

    2019

  44. [52]

    & Alibert, Y

    Drążkowska, J. & Alibert, Y. Planetesimal formation starts at the snow line. Astron. Astrophys.608, A92 (2017)

    2017

  45. [53]

    Alexander, R. D. & Pascucci, I. Deserts and pile-ups in the distribution of exo- planets due to photoevaporative disc clearing.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.422, L82–L86 (2012)

    2012

  46. [54]

    Zakhozhay, O. V.et al. Radial Velocity Survey for Planets around Young stars (RVSPY). Target characterisation and high-cadence survey.Astron. Astrophys. 667, A63 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    Johns-Krull, C. M.et al. A Candidate Young Massive Planet in Orbit around the Classical T Tauri Star CI Tau.Astrophys. J. 826, 206 (2016)

    2016

  48. [56]

    I., Johns-Krull, C

    Biddle, L. I., Johns-Krull, C. M., Llama, J., Prato, L. & Skiff, B. A. K2 Reveals Pulsed Accretion Driven by the 2 Myr Old Hot Jupiter CI Tau b.Astrophys. J. Lett. 853, L34 (2018)

    2018

  49. [57]

    Donati, J. F. et al. The classical T Tauri star CI Tau observed with SPIRou: magnetospheric accretion and planetary formation. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 530, 264–286 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    Long-period modulation of the classical T Tauri star CI Tau

    Manick, R.et al. Long-period modulation of the classical T Tauri star CI Tau. Evidence for an eccentric close-in massive planet at 0.17 au.Astron. Astrophys. 20 686, A249 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    Carrasco-González, C.et al.The Radial Distribution of Dust Particles in the HL Tau Disk from ALMA and VLA Observations.Astrophys. J. 883, 71 (2019)

    2019

  52. [60]

    Huang, J. et al. A Multifrequency ALMA Characterization of Substructures in the GM Aur Protoplanetary Disk.Astrophys. J. 891, 48 (2020)

    2020

  53. [61]

    & Kataoka, A

    Doi, K. & Kataoka, A. Constraints on the Dust Size Distributions in the HD 163296 Disk from the Difference of the Apparent Dust Ring Widths between Two ALMA Bands. Astrophys. J. 957, 11 (2023)

    2023

  54. [62]

    E., Casassus, S., Moral, V

    Cárcamo, M., Román, P. E., Casassus, S., Moral, V. & Rannou, F. R. Multi- GPU maximum entropy image synthesis for radio astronomy.Astron. Comput. 22, 16–27 (2018)

    2018

  55. [63]

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaborationet al.First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole.Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L1 (2019)

    2019

  56. [64]

    et al.RegularizedMaximumLikelihoodImageSynthesisandValida- tion for ALMA Continuum Observations of Protoplanetary Disks.Publ

    Zawadzki,B. et al.RegularizedMaximumLikelihoodImageSynthesisandValida- tion for ALMA Continuum Observations of Protoplanetary Disks.Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 135, 064503 (2023)

    2023

  57. [65]

    URL https://doi.org/10

    Czekala, I.et al.Mpol-dev/mpol: v0.2.0 release (2023). URL https://doi.org/10. 5281/zenodo.3594081

    2023

  58. [66]

    Pérez, S. et al. Long Baseline Observations of the HD 100546 Protoplanetary Disk with ALMA.Astrophys. J. Lett.889, L24 (2020)

    2020

  59. [67]

    On planet formation in HL Tau.Mon

    Dipierro, G.et al. On planet formation in HL Tau.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 453, L73–L77 (2015)

    2015

  60. [68]

    & Pinte, C

    Toci, C., Lodato, G., Fedele, D., Testi, L. & Pinte, C. Long-lived Dust Rings around HD 169142.Astrophys. J. Lett.888, L4 (2020)

    2020

  61. [69]

    Is the gap in the DS Tau disc hiding a planet?Mon

    Veronesi, B.et al. Is the gap in the DS Tau disc hiding a planet?Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.495, 1913–1926 (2020)

    2020

  62. [70]

    Law, C. J.et al. Molecules with ALMA at Planet-forming Scales (MAPS). IV. Emission Surfaces and Vertical Distribution of Molecules.Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 257, 4 (2021)

    2021

  63. [71]

    Astrophys.669, A126 (2023)

    Paneque-Carreño, T.et al.Directly tracing the vertical stratification of molecules in protoplanetary disks.Astron. Astrophys.669, A126 (2023)

    2023

  64. [72]

    Woitke, P.et al.Consistent dust and gas models for protoplanetary disks. I. Disk shape, dust settling, opacities, and PAHs.Astron. Astrophys.586, A103 (2016). 21

    2016

  65. [73]

    & Ménard, F

    Min, M., Rab, C., Woitke, P., Dominik, C. & Ménard, F. Multiwavelength optical properties of compact dust aggregates in protoplanetary disks.Astron. Astrophys. 585, A13 (2016)

    2016

  66. [74]

    & Mutschke, H

    Dorschner, J., Begemann, B., Henning, T., Jaeger, C. & Mutschke, H. Steps toward interstellar silicate mineralogy. II. Study of Mg-Fe-silicate glasses of variable composition. Astron. Astrophys.300, 503 (1995)

    1995

  67. [75]

    G., Mennella, V., Colangeli, L

    Zubko, V. G., Mennella, V., Colangeli, L. & Bussoletti, E. Optical constants of cosmic carbon analogue grains - I. Simulation of clustering by a modified con- tinuous distribution of ellipsoids. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 282, 1321–1329 (1996)

    1996

  68. [76]

    Andrews, S. M. & Williams, J. P. Circumstellar Dust Disks in Taurus-Auriga: The Submillimeter Perspective.Astrophys. J. 631, 1134–1160 (2005)

    2005

  69. [77]

    Tazzari, M.et al.Multiwavelength continuum sizes of protoplanetary discs: scal- ing relations and implications for grain growth and radial drift.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.506, 2804–2823 (2021). 22

    2021

Pith tools

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