Resolved ALMA continuum image of the circumbinary ring and circumstellar disks in the L1551 IRS 5 system

\'Agnes K\'osp\'al; Fernando Cruz-S\'aenz de Miera; Hauyu Baobab Liu; Michihiro Takami; P\'eter \'Abrah\'am

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 26 references

Resolved ALMA continuum image of the circumbinary ring and circumstellar disks in the L1551 IRS 5 system

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read ALMA resolves the circumbinary ring around L1551 IRS 5, peaking at 100 au and 38 au wide.

desk verdict First resolved look at the L1551 IRS 5 circumbinary ring, but the ring is a subtraction residual and needs a synthetic recovery test before the geometry is taken as firm. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04649 v1 pith:6DHCY6YI submitted 2019-08-13 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Fernando Cruz-Sáenz de Miera , Ágnes Kóspál , Péter Ábrahám , Hauyu Baobab Liu , Michihiro Takami This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA

keywords circumstellarmatterpre-main-sequencestarsL1551IRS5circumbinarydiskALMAcontinuumFUorprotoplanetarydisksdust

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 reports the first resolved 1.3 mm continuum images of the young binary L1551 IRS 5, separating the two circumstellar disks from the circumbinary material and, for the first time, resolving the circumbinary ring. The ring peaks at 100 ± 1 au and has a width of 38 ± 0.6 au. The authors derive lower limits on the circumstellar disk masses and show with a radiative transfer model that the ring's brightness asymmetry is mostly a geometrical projection effect, with residual features attributed to dust density enhancements. If the detection holds, it provides a direct measurement of circumbinary ring geometry in a FUor-like system—a young eruptive binary with enhanced accretion—which is key to understanding how binaries feed their disks and form planets.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on ALMA 1.3 mm continuum images made by concatenating 7 m and 12 m array visibilities, giving a 21 au by 15 au synthesized beam in the uniform-weighted image. The circumstellar disk emission is removed by fitting each disk with two 2D Gaussians, the second component representing unresolved jet-contaminated emission, and the ring is characterized from the deprojected, radially averaged residual profile fit with a 1D Gaussian to extract peak radius and width. A RADMC-3D radiative transfer model, using the surface-density parametrization of Andrews et al. (2009), is fit via an MCMC routine to test whether the observed brightness asymmetries can be explained purely as geometric projection.

What would settle it

Re-observe L1551 IRS 5 at 0.87 mm with ALMA at a resolution of about 10 au or better, resolve the jet components independently, and redo the subtraction with a PSF-matched model of each disk. If the residual ring's peak radius (100 au) or width (38 au) shifts beyond the quoted uncertainties, or the ring disappears, the circumbinary ring detection is an artifact of the Gaussian subtraction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, after subtracting multi-Gaussian models of the two circumstellar disks from the ALMA 1.3 mm image, the residual emission is a resolved circumbinary ring rather than an artifact. The ring is measured to peak at 100 ± 1 au with a width of 38 ± 0.6 au, inclined at roughly 60 degrees with a position angle around 161 degrees. A RADMC-3D radiative transfer model reproduces the stronger northern and weaker southern brightness as the projection of an inclined, optically thin ring; the remaining positive and negative residuals are interpreted as non-axisymmetric dust density structure and envelope emission. The two circumstellar disks are marginally resolved at roughly 9–14 au radii, with the northern disk about twice as bright as the southern, supporting the view that the northern star is the active eruptive source.

Load-bearing premise

The ring is seen only after subtracting fitted Gaussian models of the circumstellar disks, and the paper concedes that the disk emission is mixed with unresolved jet emission; if the subtraction creates or erases the ring-like residual, the measured ring is not real.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the ring detection is correct, L1551 IRS 5 becomes one of the few embedded multiple systems with directly measured circumbinary ring geometry, providing a clean target for disk-truncation and binary-accretion models.
The measured ring radius (~100 au) and width (~38 au) can be used to estimate the binary's viscous timescale and to test whether the circumbinary disk is being tidally sculpted by the 50 au binary.
The marginal resolution of both circumstellar disks, with the northern disk brighter and slightly larger, strengthens the interpretation that the northern star is the current FUor-like eruptive source.
The optically thick spectral indices imply that the reported disk masses are lower limits, possibly underestimating the true masses by up to 90%, which would place the disks squarely in the FUor mass range.
The mostly axisymmetric ring contrasts with the strongly asymmetric circumbinary material around the similar binary L1551 NE, suggesting that different binary configurations or accretion states produce measurably different circumbinary structures.

Reading between the lines

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

If the ring is real, its narrow radial width (38 au at a 100 au peak) implies a sharply edged ring rather than a smoothly extended disk, possibly sculpted by tidal interaction with the binary or by a recent accretion event.
The third bright component near the northern disk, previously undetected, could be a jet knot or an unresolved companion; if confirmed, it would complicate the binary's dynamical history and the interpretation of the disk subtraction.
A testable extension: observe the system at 3 mm where the circumstellar disks are more optically thin; if the ring persists with the same radius and width, the Gaussian-subtraction interpretation is secure, while a changed shape would indicate residual contamination.
The radiative transfer model treats the ring as optically thin at 1.3 mm; comparing the ring's flux ratio at 0.87 mm and 1.3 mm would directly test this assumption, since an optically thin ring should follow the dust opacity law.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

What should you know about this paper? It gives the first resolved 1.3 mm image of the circumbinary ring around L1551 IRS 5, with the ring peaking at ~100 au and a width of ~38 au. That is a genuinely new measurement and worth knowing about. But the ring exists only after subtracting four 2D Gaussian components from two marginally resolved circumstellar disks, and the subtraction is the load-bearing step. The stress-test note is right to demand a synthetic recovery test before we take the geometry at face value.

The paper does several things well. The observations combine compact and extended ALMA configurations and reach ~20 au resolution. The photometry is consistent with earlier SMA fluxes, which is a good sanity check. The authors are candid about their limitations: they call the disk masses lower limits, admit the CS disk emission is mixed with jet components they cannot resolve, and note that their radiative transfer model leaves positive residuals in the cavity and negative residuals to the east. They compare their disks to the Cieza et al. sample and put the system in context with L1551 NE. The RT modeling is a reasonable way to test whether the north-south brightness asymmetry is just a projection effect, and it does not drive the main claim.

The soft spots are real but not disqualifying. The ring is measured from residual images after subtracting four Gaussians, and the disks are only marginally resolved (radii 9-14 au against a 15-27 au beam). The second Gaussian per disk is an empirical choice; it can absorb extended emission and carve a ring-like feature. The two weighting schemes are not independent checks because the same model is subtracted from both. The quoted 0.6 au width uncertainty is a formal fit error and does not include subtraction systematics. The extra bright component north of the N disk is unexplained and adds another layer of uncertainty. So the geometry of the ring should be treated as provisional until a no-ring injection test shows that the residuals cannot be produced by over-subtraction.

Who is this for? People working on circumbinary disks around young binaries and FUor objects. It is a competent observational letter that reports a plausible new detection, but the central claim needs one more piece of evidence. I would send it to a referee, but I would ask for a synthetic recovery test and a more honest error budget for the ring parameters.

Recommendation: engage with it, conditionally. The data are real and the analysis is transparent; the interpretation just needs to be stress-tested.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents ALMA Band 6 (1.3 mm) continuum observations of the young binary L1551 IRS 5, combining 7 m and 12 m array data to image the system at approximately 15–29 au resolution. The authors fit two-dimensional Gaussian models to the two circumstellar disks, subtract these models from the cleaned images, and identify the residual emission as a resolved circumbinary ring, reporting a peak radius of 100 ± 1 au and a deconvolved width of 38 ± 0.6 au. They also measure the radii, fluxes, and lower-limit masses of the two circumstellar disks, estimate in-band spectral indices, and fit a RADMC-3D radiative transfer model to argue that some brightness asymmetries in the ring are geometric in origin. The paper concludes that these are the first resolved observations of the circumbinary material in L1551 IRS 5.

Significance. If the ring detection is robust, this would be the first resolved image of the circumbinary ring in L1551 IRS 5, providing a direct measurement of its radius and width and enabling comparison with other young binary systems such as L1551 NE. The paper also contributes photometry and conservative mass lower limits for the two circumstellar disks in a FUor-like system, which is useful given the scarcity of resolved FUor disk measurements. The ALMA data are of high quality, and the total flux is consistent with previous SMA measurements. However, the central claim depends entirely on a model-subtraction procedure whose robustness is not demonstrated: no synthetic recovery test is presented, and the radiative transfer analysis is under-reported. The paper's impact is therefore conditional on the ring detection withstanding additional scrutiny.

major comments (2)

[§4, Fig. 1(e,f), Table 1] The detection of the circumbinary ring is entirely a residual product: the ring parameters are measured after subtracting four 2D Gaussian components (two per circumstellar disk) from the cleaned continuum images. The CS disks are only marginally resolved (fitted radii 8.8–14.0 au versus synthesized beams of 15–29 au, Table 1), and the authors themselves concede in §4 that the CS disk emission is mixed with other components, including possible jet emission, that cannot be resolved with the current angular resolution. In this regime, over-subtraction of the disk model can carve out a central depression and leave a positive annulus that mimics a ring. Agreement between the uniform and natural weighting schemes is reassuring, but it is not a sufficient control because both images are cleaned and then processed with the same multi-Gaussian subtraction procedure. Moreover, the quoted uncertainty of 0.6 au on the ring width is a formal 1D-Gaussian fit error and does not include model-subtraction systematics. I request a synthetic recovery test: inject a model without any circumbinary ring (for example, the fitted CS disk and jet-like components) into the visibilities, image and clean using the same parameters, run the same four-Gaussian subtraction, and show that no residual ring at ~100 au is produced. Without such a test, the central claim of a 'first resolved circumbinary ring' is not yet established.
[§5.3, Fig. 3] The radiative transfer modeling section does not report the fitted values of the key model parameters, making the stated conclusion difficult to evaluate. Only the characteristic radius Rc = 110.9^{+0.12}_{-0.18} au is given; the surface density gradient γ, the scale height at Rc (hc), the flaring index ψ, and the normalization Σc are not listed, and no corner plots or goodness-of-fit diagnostics are shown. Consequently, the claim that 'geometrical effects can explain some of the brightness asymmetries found in the ring' is not testable from the paper, and the interpretation of the remaining residuals as dust density enhancements is not justified by the presented material. In addition, the quoted uncertainty on Rc is unrealistically small given the systematic residuals visible in the right panel of Fig. 3 (positive emission in the inner cavity and negative emission east of the ring). The authors should report the full fitted parameter set, the MCMC exploration, and a quantitative model-data residual analysis.

minor comments (6)

[§4] The sentence 'the residuals show less emission in the center of the image, indicating the presence on a circumbinary ring' contains a typo: 'on' should be 'of'.
[§5.3] The word 'non-axysimmetric' should read 'non-axisymmetric'.
[§5.1, Eq. (1)] In the description of the in-band spectral index, 'the amplitude for each spectral window' should be 'the integrated flux density in each spectral window', since Eq. (1) uses Fν in units of flux density.
[§5.2] The dust temperature for the circumbinary ring mass estimate, Tdust,R = 80 K, is taken from the same radiative transfer model that was fitted to the same data; this is a mild circularity and should be stated explicitly, or an independent temperature estimate should be used to check the sensitivity of the mass.
[§4, Fig. 2] The measured ring peak and width are obtained after removing a bright source north of the N disk with a 2D Gaussian, but the sensitivity of the ring parameters to this removal is not quantified; an estimate of this systematic uncertainty should be provided.
[Table 1] The 'Disk mass' rows for the circumbinary ring are listed alongside the CS disk masses; the text should clarify explicitly that these are lower limits that depend on the assumed dust temperature and opacity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ring geometry is measured from residual image, not derived from the fitted models.

full rationale

The central result—the resolved circumbinary ring peaking at 100 ± 1 au with width 38 ± 0.6 au—is measured directly from the residual image after subtracting fitted 2D Gaussian disk models (Section 4, Figs. 1e-f and 2). The ring parameters are not predetermined by the disk fit: the residual could in principle have been noise or negative, and no equation forces the ring radius or width to equal any fitted disk parameter. The RADMC-3D model in Section 5.3 is a forward radiative transfer fit used to interpret brightness asymmetries in an already-detected ring, not to generate the detection; the MCMC fit is thus a consistency check rather than an independent prediction. The only mild coupling is in Section 5.2, where the ring mass lower limit uses Tdust,R = 80 K taken from that same model; however, this is explicitly labeled a lower-limit estimate and does not feed back into the ring geometry claim. Self-citations to Lim et al. (2016), Chou et al. (2014), and Liu et al. (2018) are contextual or methodological and are not load-bearing. The paper's own caveat that CS-disk emission is mixed with unresolved components (Section 4) is a robustness limitation affecting model-subtraction systematics, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 15 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Most assumptions are standard in the field (distance, opacity, gas-to-dust ratio). The main modeling assumptions are the coplanarity of the ring and heating sources and the accuracy of the disk-subtraction model. Several geometric parameters are fitted directly from the image, and the radiative transfer model parameters are fitted to the same data.

free parameters (15)

CS disk N radius = 10.3-13.3 au (Table 1)
From deconvolved 2D Gaussian half-width half-maximum in both weighting schemes. The disk is marginally resolved.
CS disk N inclination = 35-40 deg
From ratio of Gaussian semi-axes.
CS disk N position angle = 156-169 deg
From deconvolved Gaussian orientation.
CS disk S radius = 8.8-14.0 au
Same method; larger uncertainty due to fainter emission.
CS disk S inclination = 24-45 deg
Poorly constrained.
CS disk S position angle = 80-110 deg
Very uncertain.
CB ring radius from ellipse fit = 137-142 au
Fitted to pixels above 12 sigma in residual images.
CB ring inclination = 59.5-61.5 deg
Ellipse fit.
CB ring position angle = 161-162 deg
Ellipse fit.
CB ring peak radius (radial profile) = 100 +/- 1 au
Peak of azimuthally averaged deprojected radial profile, deconvolved.
RT model characteristic radius Rc = 110.9 au (+0.12 -0.18)
Best-fit from MCMC on the ring model.
RT model surface density gradient gamma
Free parameter in MCMC fit; value not reported in the paper.
RT model scale height at Rc (hc)
Free parameter in MCMC fit; value not reported.
RT model flaring index psi
Free parameter in MCMC fit; value not reported.
CB ring dust temperature = 80 K
Taken from the radiative transfer model at the characteristic radius, then used in Eq. (2) to compute the ring mass.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Distance to L1551 IRS 5 is 147 +/- 5 pc.
Taken from prior literature (Liseau et al. 2005); used to convert angular sizes to au and to compute masses (Section 4).
domain assumption Dust opacity at 1.3 mm is 0.22 square meters per kg.
Standard assumption (opacity per gas plus dust) used in Eq. (2) for mass estimates. The value is from literature, not measured here.
domain assumption Gas-to-dust mass ratio is 100:1.
Assumed to convert dust mass to total disk mass (Section 5.2). Common but not directly measured.
domain assumption Emission is optically thin at 1.3 mm.
Eq. (2) assumes optically thin emission; the authors note the CS disks are likely optically thick (Section 5.1) so the masses are lower limits. For the ring, the model also assumes optically thin dust. The paper explicitly flags this.
domain assumption Heating sources in the RT model have T* = 10,000 K and R* = 2 solar radii.
Section 5.3 states these are roughly equivalent to the total bolometric luminosity of the system and are representative of the enhanced accretion rate.
domain assumption The heating sources and the circumbinary ring are in the same plane.
Section 5.3: 'we fixed the positions of the two heating sources to the peak emission of each CS disk, and assumed the heating sources and the circumbinary ring to be in the same plane.' This coplanarity is not directly tested.
ad hoc to paper The residual emission after subtracting CS disk models is dominated by the circumbinary ring and envelope, not subtraction artifacts.
The central detection depends on subtracting the fitted 2D Gaussians; the paper itself notes that CS disk emission is mixed with unresolved components (Section 4), so the clean separation of the ring depends on this assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Resolved ALMA continuum image of the circumbinary ring and circumstellar disks in the L1551 IRS 5 system." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6DHCY6YI

@misc{pith2026190804649,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Resolved ALMA continuum image of the circumbinary ring and circumstellar disks in the L1551 IRS 5 system},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6DHCY6YI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04649}
}

read the original abstract

L1551 IRS 5 is a FUor-like object located in the Taurus star forming region. We present ALMA 1.3 mm continuum observations using a wide range of baselines. The observations recovered the two circumstellar disks composing the system and, for the first time, resolved the circumbinary ring. We determined the geometry and estimated lower mass limits for the circumstellar disks using simple models. We calculated lower limits for the total mass of both circumstellar disks. After subtracting the two circumstellar disk models from the image, the residuals show a clearly resolved circumbinary ring. Using a radiative transfer model, we show that geometrical effects can explain some of the brightness asymmetries found in the ring. The remaining features are interpreted as enhancements in the dust density.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04649 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** 1.3 mm continuum ALMA images of L1551 IRS 5. The left and right columns are the uniform and natural weighted images, respectively. The synthesized beam is shown in the bottom left corner of each panel. Panels (a, b) show the complete flux range in logarithmic scale. The uniform contours range from 3 to 283σ and the natural contours range from 3 to 205σ, in both cases the contours are in logarithmic steps. Panels (c,… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Top row: Deprojected maps of the uniform and natural residuals, after the removal of the CS disks and the remaining bright source. The contours range from 12σ to 24σ and 27σ for the uniform and natural images, respectively, with steps of 3σ. Bottom row: Radial profiles of the deprojected residuals (solid lines), best fitted 1D Gaussian (dashed lines) and the residuals (dotted lines). by up to 90% (Liu et al. 2018), … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Radiative transfer modeling of the CB ring based on the natural weighted image of L1551 IRS 5. The colorscale is saturated at 30σ to show the structured of the circumbinary material. Left panel shows our observations. Middle panel shows the best fit model convolved with the clean beam. Right panel shows the differences between the observations and the best fit model. The overplotted contours are from 3 to 27σ in ste… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[1]

Dullemond, C. P. 2009, ApJ, 700, 1502 —. 2010, ApJ, 723, 1241 8 Cruz-S´aenz de Miera et al

work page 2009
[2]

Artymowicz, P., & Lubow, S. H. 1994, ApJ, 421, 651 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

work page 1994
[3]

Bate, M. R. 2000, MNRAS, 314, 33

work page 2000
[4]

2010, A&A, 516, L14

Birnstiel, T., Ricci, L., Trotta, F., et al. 2010, A&A, 516, L14

work page 2010
[5]

2017, ApJ, 840, 60

Boehler, Y., Weaver, E., Isella, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 840, 60

work page 2017
[6]

Chou, T.-L., Takakuwa, S., Yen, H.-W., Ohashi, N., & Ho, P. T. P. 2014, ApJ, 796, 70

work page 2014
[7]

A., Ru´ ız-Rodr´ ıguez, D., Perez, S., et al

Cieza, L. A., Ru´ ız-Rodr´ ıguez, D., Perez, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 4347

work page 2018
[8]

S., & Reipurth, B

Connelley, M. S., & Reipurth, B. 2018, ApJ, 861, 145 Duchˆ ene, G., Bontemps, S., Bouvier, J., et al. 2007, A&A, 476, 229 Duchˆ ene, G., & Kraus, A. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 269

work page 2018

Show all 26 references

[9]

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, , , ascl:1202.015

2012
[10]

2014, Nature, 514, 600

Dutrey, A., di Folco, E., Guilloteau, S., et al. 2014, Nature, 514, 600

2014
[11]

W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306

2013
[12]

1998, ApJ, 492, 323

Gullbring, E., Hartmann, L., Brice˜ no, C., & Calvet, N. 1998, ApJ, 492, 323

1998
[13]

Lim, J., Yeung, P. K. H., Hanawa, T., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 153

2016
[14]

Liseau, R., Fridlund, C. V. M., & Larsson, B. 2005, ApJ, 619, 959

2005
[15]

B., Dunham, M

Liu, H. B., Dunham, M. M., Pascucci, I., et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A54

2018
[16]

2010, Science, 327, 306

Mayama, S., Tamura, M., Hanawa, T., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 306

2010
[17]

2007, in Astronomical Society of the Paciﬁc Conference Series, Vol

Golap, K. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Paciﬁc Conference Series, Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw, F. Hill, & D. J. Bell, 127

2007
[18]

2003, ApJ, 586, 1148

Hartmann, L. 2003, ApJ, 586, 1148

2003
[19]

J., Cuello, N., Pinte, C., et al

Price, D. J., Cuello, N., Pinte, C., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1270

2018
[20]

J., Boss, A

Reipurth, B., Clarke, C. J., Boss, A. P., et al. 2014, Protostars and Planets VI, 267 Rodr´ ıguez, L. F., Porras, A., Claussen, M. J., et al. 2003, ApJL, 586, L137

2014
[21]

2017, ApJ, 837, 86

Takakuwa, S., Saigo, K., Matsumoto, T., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 86

2017
[22]

2014, Protostars and Planets VI, 339

Testi, L., Birnstiel, T., Ricci, L., et al. 2014, Protostars and Planets VI, 339

2014
[23]

J., Looney, L

Tobin, J. J., Looney, L. W., Li, Z.-Y., et al. 2018, ApJ, 867, 43

2018
[24]

2018, ApJ, 854, 130

Wagner, K., Dong, R., Sheehan, P., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 130

2018
[25]

F., Orosz, J

Welsh, W. F., Orosz, J. A., Short, D. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 809, 26

2015
[26]

2016, A&A, 586, A103

Woitke, P., Min, M., Pinte, C., et al. 2016, A&A, 586, A103

2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Dullemond, C. P. 2009, ApJ, 700, 1502 —. 2010, ApJ, 723, 1241 8 Cruz-S´aenz de Miera et al

work page 2009

[2] [2]

Artymowicz, P., & Lubow, S. H. 1994, ApJ, 421, 651 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

work page 1994

[3] [3]

Bate, M. R. 2000, MNRAS, 314, 33

work page 2000

[4] [4]

2010, A&A, 516, L14

Birnstiel, T., Ricci, L., Trotta, F., et al. 2010, A&A, 516, L14

work page 2010

[5] [5]

2017, ApJ, 840, 60

Boehler, Y., Weaver, E., Isella, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 840, 60

work page 2017

[6] [6]

Chou, T.-L., Takakuwa, S., Yen, H.-W., Ohashi, N., & Ho, P. T. P. 2014, ApJ, 796, 70

work page 2014

[7] [7]

A., Ru´ ız-Rodr´ ıguez, D., Perez, S., et al

Cieza, L. A., Ru´ ız-Rodr´ ıguez, D., Perez, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 4347

work page 2018

[8] [8]

S., & Reipurth, B

Connelley, M. S., & Reipurth, B. 2018, ApJ, 861, 145 Duchˆ ene, G., Bontemps, S., Bouvier, J., et al. 2007, A&A, 476, 229 Duchˆ ene, G., & Kraus, A. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 269

work page 2018