Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 49 references

ALMA High-resolution Observation for the Transitional Disk around IRAS 04125+2902

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read High-resolution 1.3 mm observations show IRAS 04125+2902 as a ring-gap transitional disk whose faint inner emission is likely a mildly misaligned inner disk, making the system a young, dynamically complex planet host.

desk verdict Solid ALMA characterization of an important disk; the misalignment conclusion is a weakly-supported hypothesis, though the authors are honest about it. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.01896 v1 pith:EP2L3HCI submitted 2025-09-02 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR

Ayumu Shoshi , Takayuki Muto , Quincy Bosschaart , Nienke van der Marel , Gijs D. Mulders , Mitsuki Omura , Kazuki Tokuda , Masahiro N. Machida This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR
keywords protoplanetarydiskstransitionaldustcontinuumALMASparseModelingimagingradiativetransferdiskmisalignmentexoplanetmigration
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 analyzes high-resolution 1.3 mm ALMA observations of the disk around IRAS 04125+2902, the youngest star known to host a transiting planet. It aims to establish that the disk is a ring-gap transitional disk inclined at 35.6 degrees, that a faint compact emission inside the gap is probably an inner disk (though free-free emission is not excluded), and that the gas, traced in 12CO J=2-1, rotates Keplerianly around a 0.7-1.0 solar-mass star. If true, the system would be a resolved example of an inner and outer disk that are only mildly misaligned with each other (~10 degrees) while both are misaligned with the planet's near-edge-on orbit. That would support the picture in which young planetary systems are dynamically complex, with warped or misaligned disks shaping early orbital evolution.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three tools: (1) Sparse Modeling, a regularized image reconstruction method using an ℓ1 norm plus total squared variation with cross-validated hyperparameters, to produce a super-resolution image of the dust; (2) a 1D axisymmetric Fourier-Bessel visibility model with Gaussian-process smoothing, run through Bayesian MCMC, to independently recover the radial brightness profile and separate axisymmetric structure from residuals; and (3) radiative transfer calculations with a Monte Carlo code to test whether a shadow from a misaligned inner disk can reproduce the weak azimuthal asymmetry. The consistency of the inner emission across the first two methods is the key evi

What would settle it

A deep cm-wavelength observation of IRAS 04125+2902: if free-free emission comparable to the 0.13 mJy inner flux is detected, the inner-disk interpretation loses its main support. A higher-resolution ALMA image at roughly 0.02-0.05 arcsec that resolves the inner component and shows it is extended and dust-like would confirm it. In addition, a position-velocity map of an optically thin CO isotopologue that shows no strong velocity distortion near the star is consistent with mild misalignment, whereas a clear kink would require a larger inner/outer misalignment.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that IRAS 04125+2902 hosts a transitional disk whose 1.3 mm dust continuum is a ring with a gap, inclined at 35.6±0.2 degrees, and which contains a weak inner emission component (peak ~0.13 mJy) detected consistently by two independent methods: Sparse Modeling super-resolution imaging and 1D axisymmetric visibility modeling. The 12CO J=2-1 emission traces Keplerian rotation giving a stellar mass of 0.7-1.0 solar masses. Since the transiting planet's orbit is nearly edge-on while the outer disk is nearly face-on, and the inner emission is only weakly asymmetric with no strong velocity distortion, the paper argues the inner disk, if present, is misaligned with the outer di

Load-bearing premise

The claim of a misaligned inner disk rests on the assumption that the faint, compact 1.3 mm emission inside the gap is real dust emission from an inner disk, not an imaging artifact, not a reconstruction side lobe, and not free-free radiation from the star; the paper itself states free-free is not ruled out and that the uv truncation affects the reconstructed inner structure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The system becomes one of the youngest resolved transitional disks, with a dust disk radius enclosing 95% of the flux of about 53 au and a dust mass of roughly 10 Earth masses.
  • The stellar mass of 0.7-1.0 solar masses from CO kinematics anchors the dynamical context for a ~3 Myr old star hosting a close-in giant planet.
  • If the inner emission is dust, the inner disk is likely only ~10 degrees misaligned with the outer disk, making the planet's near-edge-on orbit the most strongly misaligned component.
  • The gas mass lower limit, comparable to or lower than the dust mass, points to an evolved disk with non-negligible gas in the inner region where the planet orbits.
  • Future higher-resolution millimeter imaging and cm-wavelength observations can decide whether the inner emission is a dusty inner disk or free-free radiation from the star.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the inner component is a dusty inner disk, the ~10-degree misalignment implies a gentle warp; a testable prediction is that high-resolution scattered-light or mid-infrared images should show a dip or shadow feature that rotates with the inner disk's orientation.
  • A deep radio observation that detects free-free emission at the 0.13 mJy level would remove the inner-disk interpretation; a non-detection would make the inner-disk case much stronger and justify modeling warped-disk migration.
  • The measured near-face-on outer disk and near-edge-on planet orbit provide a geometric constraint for migration theories: inward migration must produce a large inclination change without strongly tilting the outer disk, favoring disk-warp or stellar-encounter histories over smooth in-situ formation.
  • Comparing the inner disk's position angle with the binary companion's orbit would help discriminate between the warped-disk and stellar-encounter scenarios; the authors note current data cannot yet do this.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes archival ALMA Band 6 observations of the young planet-host star IRAS 04125+2902. Using CLEAN imaging, sparse-modeling (PRIISM) super-resolution imaging, and 1D axisymmetric visibility modeling with protomidpy, the authors identify a ring-gap transitional dust disk with an inclination of about 35.6 degrees and a faint unresolved inner continuum component of roughly 0.13 mJy. The 12CO J=2-1 line is detected and used to estimate a stellar mass of 0.7-1.0 Msun and a lower limit on the gas mass. The paper argues that the weak inner emission may be an inner disk, that a weak azimuthal asymmetry in the outer ring may be explained by shadowing from a mildly misaligned inner disk, and that radiative transfer models with ~10 degree misalignment are consistent with the data. The authors explicitly acknowledge that free-free emission is not ruled out and that the radiative transfer comparison is demonstrative.

Significance. If the outer-ring geometry and stellar mass results stand, the paper provides a useful resolved view of the youngest known transiting-planet host: it establishes a face-on outer disk that is misaligned with the planet and binary orbits, and it gives one of the first disk-based constraints on the stellar mass. The main added interpretive value, however, is the claim of a misaligned inner disk and a 'dynamically complex' system. That claim is not currently supported at the same level as the ring geometry or the stellar mass: it hinges on a barely resolved, low-signal component whose dust nature is unconstrained and on radiative transfer models that are not quantitatively fitted. The paper is honest about these limitations and does not overstate the evidence in every sentence, but the abstract and conclusions present the misaligned inner disk as a likely outcome. The solid parts of the paper are standard and reproducible, using public software, MCMC fitting, and explicit uncertainty propagation; the speculative part needs to be clearly separated from the measured results.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.1 and Appendix B] The existence of the inner emission is not established. The feature has a peak intensity about ten times below the outer ring and a size comparable to the effective resolution. Its appearance in the protomidpy model depends on the ad hoc uv cutoff at 1.2 Mλ; Appendix B and Fig. B.1 show that the emission disappears at 1.0 Mλ and that truncated/full-baseline solutions produce negative sidelobes. Thus the chosen cutoff is what makes the feature appear, and there is no independent detection test in the visibility domain. The authors should either provide a quantitative significance estimate for the inner component (e.g., a fitted point-source flux with uncertainty, or a uv-domain residual test) or explicitly state that the inner emission is only a tentative model-dependent artifact candidate.
  2. [§5.1] Free-free emission is not excluded and may even be the preferred explanation given the current data. The VLASS 2-4 GHz nondetection gives an upper limit of 70 microJy; combined with the 0.13 mJy SpM measurement at 225 GHz, this yields a spectral index of about 0.14, which is fully consistent with a free-free or flat-spectrum component. The paper acknowledges this, but the abstract and Section 6 still list the inner emission as 'which may be attributed to an inner disk' without giving the free-free alternative equal weight. For the misalignment claim to be load-bearing, the authors need to show at minimum that the inner component is not dominated by free-free, e.g., via longer-wavelength data or a spectral index measurement within ALMA bands.
  3. [§5.2, Table 2] The '~10 degree misalignment' is not inferred from the data; it is assumed. The radiative transfer models fix ΔPA = -18.8 degrees based on the location of the weak azimuthal dip, vary Δi to two demonstrative values (10 and 50 degrees), and tune Σ_peak,in and Σ_peak,out to match the total fluxes. There is no likelihood, no parameter scan, and no residual-based comparison between the models and the observed images. The statement in the abstract and Section 6 that 'radiative transfer calculations suggest the inner and outer disk may be misaligned by ~10 degrees' is therefore an overreach. At most, the authors can say that a 10-degree misalignment is one of many possible configurations consistent with a weak asymmetry. The conclusion should be rephrased to reflect this, or a real model fitting/parameter estimation step should be added.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1 vs §3.1] The inclination is given as 35.6 ± 0.2 degrees in §3.1 and in the abstract, but Table 1 lists 35.2 ± 0.2 degrees. Please correct the inconsistency.
  2. [Eq. (7)] Typo: 'rpreak,in' should be 'r_peak,in'.
  3. [Figure 2 and §4.2.1] The quoted ring width for the SpM image is 21.7 ± 7.4 au in §3.1 and 21.4 ± 7.4 au in §4.2.1; the small numerical difference should be reconciled.
  4. [Section 5.2] The reference to 'Figure 3(b)' in the description of the measured fluxes should be 'Figure 1(b)'.
  5. [General] The phrase 'if at all, weak' is used several times. It is honest but would be clearer to state the quantitative upper limit on asymmetry from the residual map (Figure 6c) directly in the abstract or conclusions, so that the reader can evaluate the strength of the evidence.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Radiative-transfer '10° misalignment' is an assumed input, and the protomidpy inner-emission confirmation is cutoff-selected; ring, inclination, and stellar mass are independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.2 (RADMC-3D model parameters)]
    "To estimate ∆PA, we assume that the weak dip in the SpM image seen at PA=156.3◦ from the right panel of Figure 2. We assumed that the major axis of the inner disk was consistent with the direction of the dip, which was offset by -18.8◦ from the major axis of the outer ring. ... With Σ d,out fixed at 1.5-1.7 g cm−2, we adjusted Σd,in so that the final model image reproduces the flux densities within r <15 au and r < 60 au measured in the SpM image ..., which are approximately 0.13 mJy and 13.0 mJy, respectively."

    The radiative-transfer model's azimuthal asymmetry is built from the observed dip: ΔPA is set to -18.8° so that the inner-disk shadow falls at the observed PA=156.3°, and Σd,in is tuned to reproduce the measured 0.13 mJy and 13.0 mJy fluxes. The later statement that the Δidisk=10° model 'matches better' is therefore not an independent test: the model's dip position and inner/outer fluxes are forced by the data. The ~10° value is an assumed case (Δidisk=10°), not a fitted inference, yet the abstract and summary present the radiative-transfer calculation as suggesting that value.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Appendix B / §4.1 (uv cutoff choice)]
    "For the IRAS 04125+2902 1D brightness modeling, we used visibility data with baselines up to 1.2 Mλ ... In the model with a 1.0 M λ baseline, there is no inner emission ... In contrast, the model with a 1.2 M λ baseline exhibits the fewest negative components and sidelobes with relatively weak intensity."

    The 1.2 Mλ uv cutoff is selected among the tested 1.0/1.2/1.5 Mλ limits partly because it preserves the inner emission; at 1.0 Mλ the inner emission disappears. The same protomidpy model is then cited in §4.2.2 as 'consistent' with the SpM inner emission. The protomidpy 'confirmation' is thus conditional on a cutoff chosen after seeing the feature, so it is not an independent prediction of the inner component. This does not invalidate the SpM detection, but it weakens the claim of independent 1D-model support.

full rationale

The core observational results — the ring-gap morphology, the 35.6° inclination, the 1.3 mm flux/dust mass, and the CO Keplerian stellar mass of 0.7–1.0 M⊙ — are derived directly from the ALMA visibilities/images and are self-contained; no circularity is found there. The problems arise in the two derived interpretive steps. First, the RADMC misalignment analysis sets ΔPA to the observed dip direction and adjusts the surface density to the observed inner and outer fluxes, so the model's reproduction of the azimuthal asymmetry is true by construction. The '~10° misalignment' is an input parameter in one of two demonstrative cases, not a fitted or predicted quantity, yet it is summarized as a suggestion from the radiative-transfer calculation. Second, the protomidpy inner-emission feature disappears when the uv cutoff is changed to 1.0 Mλ; the adopted 1.2 Mλ cutoff is selected in part because it retains that feature, so calling protomidpy an independent confirmation is weakened by the selection. The paper is transparent about both limitations (free-free not ruled out; 'demonstrative purposes'; preliminary), which prevents a higher score, but the headline misalignment claim partially reduces to its own inputs. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem was found; self-citations concern imaging methodology only.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central measurements (ring geometry, inclination, CO rotation) rely on standard ALMA calibration and imaging assumptions. The interpretive layer, the misaligned inner disk, leans on several hand-chosen or fitted parameters: the radiative transfer surface densities are adjusted to match the observed fluxes, and Delta PA is taken from the very asymmetry the models are meant to explain. These do not invalidate the observations but shift the burden from measurement to modeling.

free parameters (8)
  • Dust temperature Tdust = 20 K
    Adopted for dust mass via Eq. 1; standard Class II value, not fitted but uncertain by about a factor of 2.
  • Dust opacity kappa_nu = 2.3 cm^2 g^-1
    Adopted from Beckwith et al. (1990) for the dust mass estimate; the paper notes an order-of-magnitude uncertainty and a factor-20 difference with the RADMC opacity.
  • CO abundance X_CO = 1e-4
    Assumed for the 12CO-based gas mass calculation (Eq. 2), following Frerking et al. (1982).
  • Excitation temperature T_ex = 50 K
    Assumed LTE excitation temperature in the gas mass estimate; the paper notes the result is 1.5x smaller at T_ex=20 K.
  • RADMC peak surface densities Sigma_peak,in and Sigma_peak,out = 0.09-0.13 and 1.55-1.70 g cm^-2
    Adjusted so that the model images reproduce the observed flux densities of 0.13 mJy and 13.0 mJy respectively (Table 2), i.e., fitted to the data.
  • RADMC disk geometry (r_peak,in, sigma_in, r_peak,out, sigma_out) = 3, 2, 41, 5 au
    Fixed by hand for a demonstrative radiative transfer calculation, not fitted to the data.
  • Relative position angle Delta PA = -18.8 degrees
    Set from the weak dip at PA=156.3 degrees in the SpM image, i.e., chosen from the same data being modeled.
  • Dust settling factor f_set = 1.0
    Set to unity for simplicity in the scale height calculation (Eq. 6).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Dust continuum emission is optically thin at 1.3 mm.
    Used to derive the dust mass from Eq. 1; later checked with RADMC optical depth below 0.25, so partially validated.
  • domain assumption 12CO J=2-1 emission is optically thin and in LTE.
    Stated in Section 3.2; foreground absorption is known to affect the blueshifted component.
  • domain assumption The disk is axisymmetric and geometrically thin for the protomidpy model.
    Section 4.1: this assumption underlies the 1D Fourier-Bessel decomposition and the residual map.
  • ad hoc to paper The weak azimuthal dip in the SpM image is a real shadow from a misaligned inner disk.
    Section 5.2: used to set Delta PA = -18.8 degrees; if the dip is noise or artifact, the radiative transfer setup is unjustified.
  • domain assumption Stellar parameters (mass 0.5-0.7 M_sun, L* = 0.4-0.5 L_sun, distance 160.1 pc) from prior publications.
    Taken from Barber et al. (2024), Gaia Collaboration et al. (2023), and SED analyses; used in the radiative transfer and mass estimates.
  • ad hoc to paper The uv-plane truncation at 1.2 M_lambda removes artifacts without removing real astrophysical signal.
    Appendix B: the choice is based on minimizing sidelobes and negative components; it directly affects the inner emission inference.
invented entities (1)
  • Inner disk around IRAS 04125+2902
    purpose: Explains the compact inner emission (0.13 mJy) inside the gap and the weak azimuthal asymmetry through shadowing; hypothesized to be misaligned by about 10 degrees with the outer disk.
    Free-free emission is not ruled out (Section 5.1); the component is unresolved, and the radiative transfer model parameters are tuned to the observed flux and asymmetry, so no independent falsifiable handle is provided beyond the current data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ALMA High-resolution Observation for the Transitional Disk around IRAS 04125+2902." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EP2L3HCI

@misc{pith2026250901896,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ALMA High-resolution Observation for the Transitional Disk around IRAS 04125+2902},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EP2L3HCI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01896}
}
abstract

Recently, the youngest transiting planet was discovered around the T Tauri star, IRAS 04125+2902, in the Taurus-Auriga star-forming region. This system is crucial for understanding the early stages of planet formation. We used Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array Band 6 data to investigate the IRAS 04125+2902 system in detail. The dust continuum emission reveals a ring-gap transitional disk structure with an inclination of 35.6$^{\circ}$. In addition, two-dimensional super-resolution imaging based on Sparse Modeling and the one-dimensional modeling of disk brightness distribution suggest the existence of an inner emission, which may be attributed to an inner disk, although free-free emission from the central star is not ruled out. Furthermore, we identified the $^{12}$CO $J$=2-1 emission, and the dynamical mass of the central star is estimated to be 0.7-1.0 $M_{\odot}$. The asymmetry of the dust ring and the velocity distortion around the central star are, if at all, weak, suggesting that the inner disk, if it exists, is not highly inclined with respect to the outer disk. Radiative transfer calculations of dust continuum emission suggest that the inner and the outer disk may be misaligned by $\sim$10$^\circ$, which may be confirmed in future observations with higher resolution and sensitivity. Our results suggest that IRAS 04125+2902 is a dynamically complex system, where the binary orbit, outer disk, inner disk, and planetary orbit are mutually misaligned, providing insight into the early orbital evolution of young systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01896 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ALMA 1.3 mm (Band 6) dust continuum around the IRAS 04125+2902 system. (a) CLEAN image with Briggs weighting (robust=0.5). The white ellipse indicates the synthesized beam. (b) SpM image with a color scale following a linear law with a scaling exponent of 1.0. The white ellipse represents the effective spatial resolution estimated using the point-injection method. The white contours show the continuum emission at 0.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Left) Radial intensity profile averaged over the full azimuthal angle, shown on a linear scale in the top panel and a logarithmic scale in the bottom one. The profile is linearly interpolated onto radial grid points spaced by 0.1 au using interpolate.interpld from the SciPy module. The light colored ribbon represents the error of the mean at each radius. (Right) Peak intensity profile in the azimuthal direction aft… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Velocity-channel maps of 12CO J=2–1 emission toward IRAS 04125+2902 with a velocity resolution of 0.6 km s−1 . The central velocity vcent is to be 7.7 km s−1 . The white cross represents the position of IRAS 04125+2902. The white contours show the 12CO J=2–1 emission for 8.0, 16.0, and 24.0 mJy beam−1 . The white ellipse in the lower left corner of each panel represents the synthesized beam of 0. ′′155 × 0. ′′106 (2… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spectrum of 12CO J=2–1 emission integrated within the region in a radius of 1 arcsec from the central star observed by ALMA. The black dotted line shows the central velocity of vcent=7.7 km s−1 . than or comparable to the mass of the transiting planet (∼ 90 M⊕). The ph…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Velocity-integrated intensity (moment 0) map of 12CO J=2–1 emission with intensities greater than 3 σCO (σCO=3.8 mJy beam−1 ) in the velocity ranges of 4.6–7.6 km s−1 and 7.8–12.8 km s−1 . (b) Velocity-field (moment 1) map of 12CO J=2–1 emission. The plot area is l…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) uv coverage of the ALMA observation toward IRAS 04125+2902 with the configurations of C-6 and C-7. The region within the red dashed circle, with a radius of 1.2 Mλ, indicates the dataset used for the axisymmetric disk modeling described in §4.1. (b) Disk model imag…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Corner plot of the posterior distribution for six parameters (∆xcen, ∆ycen, cos i, PA, γ, α) obtained from the axisymmetric disk modeling applied to the visibility data of the dust continuum emission around IRAS 04125+2902. The most probable parameter values are displa…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as the left panels of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (Top) Two RADMC model images. Note that these images were convolved with a Gaussian beam of the same size as the effective spatial resolution θeff of the SpM image. (Bottom) Peak intensity profile in the azimuthal di￾rection. Note that all the profiles were created aft…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2024, MNRAS, 532, 1361, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1549

    Aizawa, M., Muto, T., & Momose, M. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 1361, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1549

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1549 2024

  2. [2]

    2017, ApJ, 838, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6305

    Akiyama, K., Kuramochi, K., Ikeda, S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 838, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6305

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6305 2017

  3. [3]

    P., van der Marel, N., et al

    Ansdell, M., Williams, J. P., van der Marel, N., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 46, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/46 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/828/1/46 2016

  4. [4]

    G., Mann, A

    Barber, M. G., Mann, A. W., Vanderburg, A., et al. 2024, Nature, 635, 574, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08123-3

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08123-3 2024

  5. [5]

    Bate, M. R. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 5618, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty169

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty169 2018

  6. [6]

    Beckwith, S. V. W., Sargent, A. I., Chini, R. S., & Guesten, R. 1990, AJ, 99, 924, doi: 10.1086/115385

    doi:10.1086/115385 1990

  7. [7]

    2021, ApJL, 916, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f83

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f83 2021

  8. [8]

    D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A

    Bolatto, A. D., Wolfire, M., & Leroy, A. K. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 207, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140944 2013

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 751, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01634-x

    Currie, T., Lawson, K., Schneider, G., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 751, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01634-x

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.10734, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.10734

    Deng, D., Vioque, M., Pascucci, I., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.10734, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.10734

    2025 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    1995, A&A, 300, 503

    Mutschke, H. 1995, A&A, 300, 503

    1995

  4. [12]

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

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

    2012

  5. [13]

    M., Arce, H

    Dunham, M. M., Arce, H. G., Mardones, D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 783, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/29

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    2015, ApJ, 807, 156, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/156

    Espaillat, C., Andrews, S., Powell, D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 807, 156, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/156

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    J., Kim, J.-G., & Ostriker, E

    Evans, N. J., Kim, J.-G., & Ostriker, E. C. 2022, ApJL, 929, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6427

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    A., Langer, W

    Frerking, M. A., Langer, W. D., & Wilson, R. W. 1982, ApJ, 262, 590, doi: 10.1086/160451 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    1982 doi

  9. [17]

    Ginsburg, A., Bally, J., & Williams, J. P. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 2121, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19279.x

    2011

  10. [18]

    J., et al

    Hammond, I., Christiaens, V., Price, D. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, L51, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad027

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    1985, in Protostars and Planets II, ed

    Hayashi, C., Nakazawa, K., & Nakagawa, Y. 1985, in Protostars and Planets II, ed. D. C. Black & M. S. Matthews, 1100–1153

    1985

  12. [20]

    Hirano, S., Tsukamoto, Y., Basu, S., & Machida, M. N. 2020, ApJ, 898, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9f9d

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    2014, PASJ, 66, 95, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psu070 16 Figure B.1

    Honma, M., Akiyama, K., Uemura, M., & Ikeda, S. 2014, PASJ, 66, 95, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psu070 16 Figure B.1. Results of the disk modeling based on Aizawa et al. (2024) applied to four different datasets: full-baseline observation visibility (1st column), and visibility limited ...

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  15. [23]

    1994, A&A, 292, 641

    Henning, T. 1994, A&A, 292, 641

    1994

  16. [24]

    A., Tsutsumi, T., Brogan, C

    Kepley, A. A., Tsutsumi, T., Brogan, C. L., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 024505, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab5e14

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    2019, A&A, 625, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935034

    Keppler, M., Teague, R., Bae, J., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935034

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    2018, ApJ, 858, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab6b5

    Kuramochi, K., Akiyama, K., Ikeda, S., et al. 2018, ApJ, 858, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab6b5

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    A., Chandler, C

    Lacy, M., Baum, S. A., Chandler, C. J., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 035001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab63eb

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    Luhman, K. L. 2025, AJ, 169, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adb0cd

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    N., Hirano, S., & Kitta, H

    Machida, M. N., Hirano, S., & Kitta, H. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 2180, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3159

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    2015, ApJL, 798, L44, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/798/2/L44

    Marino, S., Perez, S., & Casassus, S. 2015, ApJL, 798, L44, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/798/2/L44

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    2008, ApJ, 678, 498, doi: 10.1086/529369 17

    Nagasawa, M., Ida, S., & Bessho, T. 2008, ApJ, 678, 498, doi: 10.1086/529369 17

    2008 doi

  24. [32]

    2020, PRIISM: Python module for Radio Interferometry Imaging with Sparse Modeling, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2006.002

    Nakazato, T., & Ikeda, S. 2020, PRIISM: Python module for Radio Interferometry Imaging with Sparse Modeling, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2006.002

    2020

  25. [33]

    2020, in

    Nakazato, T., Ikeda, S., Kosugi, G., & Honma, M. 2020, in

    2020

  26. [34]

    Millimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy X, ed. J. Zmuidzinas & J.-R. Gao, Vol. 11453, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 114532V, doi: 10.1117/12.2560904

    doi

  27. [35]

    L., Aly, H., et al

    Nealon, R., Smallwood, J. L., Aly, H., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 540, L84, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaf032

    2025 doi

  28. [36]

    2023, PASJ, 75, 424, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psad009

    Orihara, R., Momose, M., Muto, T., et al. 2023, PASJ, 75, 424, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psad009

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    J., et al

    Pascucci, I., Testi, L., Herczeg, G. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 125, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/125

    2016 doi

  30. [38]

    2015, ApJ, 798, 85, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/85

    Perez, S., Casassus, S., M´ enard, F., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, 85, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/85

    2015 doi

  31. [39]

    J., M´ enard, F., et al

    Pinte, C., Price, D. J., M´ enard, F., et al. 2018, ApJL, 860, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac6dc

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    Rau, U., & Cornwell, T. J. 2011, A&A, 532, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117104

    2011 doi

  33. [41]

    A., Meijerhof, J

    Rota, A. A., Meijerhof, J. D., van der Marel, N., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348387

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    Schwab, F. R. 1984, AJ, 89, 1076, doi: 10.1086/113605

    1984 doi

  35. [43]

    2025, PASJ, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaf026

    Shoshi, A., Yamaguchi, M., Muto, T., et al. 2025, PASJ, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaf026

    2025 doi

  36. [44]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 228, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad12b5

    Shoshi, A., Harada, N., Tokuda, K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 228, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad12b5

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    H., Adams, F

    Shu, F. H., Adams, F. C., & Lizano, S. 1987, ARA&A, 25, 23, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.25.090187.000323

    1987

  38. [46]

    F., et al

    Testi, L., Natta, A., Manara, C. F., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141380 van der Marel, N., van Dishoeck, E. F., Bruderer, S., et al. 2016, A&A, 585, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526988

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2bfd

    Yamaguchi, M., Tsukagoshi, T., Muto, T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2bfd

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    2024, PASJ, 76, 437, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae022

    Yamaguchi, M., Muto, T., Tsukagoshi, T., et al. 2024, PASJ, 76, 437, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae022

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.