Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 93 references

JWST reveals the largest known M-dwarf debris disk, a ~191 au ring around TWA 10.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 04:44 UTC pith:AQSB7UWW

load-bearing objection Real and useful disk discovery, but the '191 au record' radius needs a model-systematic error before it can be quoted as the largest known M-dwarf disk. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.22426 v1 pith:AQSB7UWW submitted 2026-07-24 astro-ph.EP

JWST NIRCam Reveals the Largest Known M-dwarf Debris Disk Around TWA 10 and New Scattered-Light Observations of the TWA 25 Debris Disk

Katie A. Crotts , Aarynn L. Carter , Beth Biller , Mark Booth , Rachel Bowens-Rubin , Rapha\"el Bendahan-West , Rodrigo Ferrer-Chavez , Kellen Lawson
show 21 more authors
Briley L. Lewis Sebastian Marino Tim Pearce Marshall Perrin Giovanni M. Strampelli Cl\'emence Fontanive Aiza Kenzhebekova Patricia Luppe Isabel Rebollido Ben J. Sutlieff Ellis Bogat Evelyn L. Bruinsma Christine H. Chen Julien H. Girard Kielan Hoch Andrew D. James Rohan Kane Jarron Leisenring Emily Rickman Andy Skemer Klaus Subbotina Stephenson
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords TWA 10TWA 25M-dwarf debris diskJWST NIRCamscattered-light imagingdisk radiusplanet sculptinginfrared surveys
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper reports the first resolved images of a debris disk around the M-dwarf TWA 10, taken with JWST's NIRCam coronagraph, and new images of a previously known disk around TWA 25. The central claim is that the TWA 10 disk is exceptionally large, with a modeled radius of about 191 astronomical units, making it the largest debris disk ever found around an M-dwarf. If correct, this single system breaks the empirical trend that M-dwarf disks are compact, and it suggests that many similar disks are too faint in the infrared for earlier surveys to have detected. For TWA 25, the data sharpen the disk's inner edge to a steep density slope and reveal a moderate 2-micron brightness asymmetry, hinting at planet sculpting and recent collisions. The paper also argues that both disks were missed by Spitzer and Herschel because their infrared luminosity fractions are extremely low, not because such disks are rare.

Core claim

The discovery is that TWA 10 hosts a debris disk with radius ~191 au, more than twice the typical size of previously imaged M-dwarf debris disks and far outside the radius–luminosity scaling seen for brighter stars. The authors derive this from forward models of the NIRCam scattered-light images, using a ring-like disk with a two-parameter scattering phase function, and they note the radius is formally uncertain (the two fitting runs give 191 and 157 au). In addition, the paper characterizes TWA 25's disk as having a very steep inner density power-law (~12–17) and a 10–25% brightness asymmetry in the F200W filter, which they interpret as likely evidence of an inner planetary system or a rece

What carries the argument

The central tool is forward modeling of the coronagraphic images: a simple axisymmetric ring model (fiducial radius r0, scale height h0=0.05, radial power-law exponents α_in and α_out, and a two-parameter scattering phase function) is fitted to the NIRCam F200W and F444W data after reference-star differential imaging. The same model is then fed to a radiative-transfer code to predict the disk's spectral energy distribution, demonstrating that the disks could have escaped detection in previous infrared surveys. The fitted r0 is the quantity that carries the paper's headline claim.

Load-bearing premise

The 'largest M-dwarf disk' claim rests on a forward model that assumes a single axisymmetric ring with a fixed scale height and a two-parameter scattering phase function; the two fitting methods disagree on the radius (191 vs 157 au) and the phase function is unconstrained, so the true disk radius could be significantly smaller if the model is too simple.

What would settle it

ALMA submillimeter imaging of TWA 10 that resolves the thermal emission from large grains: if the millimeter continuum peaks at a radius substantially below ~191 au (e.g., <100 au), then the scattered-light ring is tracing small, radiation- or wind-blown grains rather than the planetesimal belt, and the claim of an exceptionally large disk is wrong. Alternatively, a re-fit of the NIRCam data with a more flexible model (free scale height, broken power law, or eccentric ring) that yields a significantly smaller r0 would falsify the headline claim.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • If the 191 au radius holds, TWA 10 becomes the largest M-dwarf debris disk known, requiring a re-examination of the disk radius–stellar luminosity scaling.
  • The low luminosity fractions derived for these disks (about 3.6e-5 and 6.9e-5) imply that previous Spitzer and Herschel surveys would have missed them, meaning the census of M-dwarf debris disks is incomplete.
  • TWA 25's sharp inner edge (α_in ~ 12–17) and the F200W brightness asymmetry are consistent with a sculpting planet or a recent collision; the paper's planet-search shows that if a single massive planet were responsible, it should have been detected, so the architecture must be different (multiple smaller planets, inward migration, or non-planetary sculpting).
  • The three point sources found in the images are all likely background objects based on their F200W–F444W colors, so no new companions are confirmed in these systems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If M-dwarf disks are commonly this faint, then the known population of M-dwarf debris disks is heavily biased toward the brightest and most compact examples; a systematic JWST survey of nearby M-dwarfs could reveal a much wider range of disk sizes and frequencies.
  • The TWA 10 disk's scattered-light radius may not coincide with the planetesimal belt if stellar winds push small grains outward; the paper assumes the peak surface brightness marks the belt, but longer-wavelength imaging of large grains would test this.
  • The steep inner edge of TWA 25 adds to a pattern seen in other debris disks where inner edges are too steep for pure collisional grinding and too shallow for a single planet, supporting a multi-planet or migration scenario.
  • A direct follow-up prediction: deep ALMA observations should detect thermal emission from large grains at ~191 au in TWA 10 and ~64 au in TWA 25; if the millimeter radius of TWA 10 is much smaller, the scattered-light ring is dominated by blowout grains and the 'giant disk' claim would be weakened.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents JWST NIRCam coronagraphic F200W/F444W observations of two M-dwarfs in TW Hydra, TWA 10 and TWA 25. It reports the discovery and first resolved imaging of a debris disk around TWA 10, re-images the known TWA 25 disk, and fits both disks with an axisymmetric Augereau et al. (1999) ring model. From these fits the authors derive a radius of ~191 au for TWA 10, claim this is the largest known M-dwarf debris disk, and argue that the TWA 25 disk has a steep inner edge and a brightness asymmetry consistent with planetary sculpting. The paper also uses MCFOST to estimate SEDs and dust masses, presents 5σ contrast curves and planet-detection probability maps, and identifies three point-source candidates that are shown to be likely background objects. The central discovery claim—the exceptionally large TWA 10 radius—is interesting but, as discussed below, is not yet robust to the modeling assumptions used to derive it.

Significance. If the ~191 au radius is robust, the TWA 10 disk would be a landmark object: it would be the largest resolved debris disk around an M-dwarf, challenge the empirical radius–luminosity relation, and support the idea that many M-dwarf disks are too faint for previous SED surveys. The strengths of the paper include the careful reduction with public pipelines (spaceKLIP/Winnie), the use of forward-model-constrained RDI, jack-knife tests of candidate companions, and a sensible color-based rejection of background objects. The data are also made available through a MAST DOI. However, the headline radius currently rests on a single model that fixes h0 and leaves the scattering phase function largely unconstrained, while the two fitting methods used by the authors disagree by 34 au—five times the quoted 1σ uncertainty. Because the abstract and summary state the emcee radius without this systematic uncertainty, the main quantitative claim needs additional robustness testing or a substantially more cautious presentation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, Table 3; §5.1; Abstract and §7] The headline 'largest known M-dwarf debris disk' is not yet robust. Table 3 gives Powell r0 = 157.13 au and emcee r0 = 191.15 ± 6.53 au for TWA 10 in F200W. The 34 au difference is much larger than the quoted 1σ uncertainty and is not propagated into the abstract or summary, which quote 191 au as the measured radius. This matters because the scattered-light surface brightness is the product of the radial density profile and an anisotropic, two-parameter Henyey-Greenstein SPF; Section 5.1 explicitly states that the SPF is difficult to constrain, with no constraint on g2 in F200W and no constraint on any SPF parameter in F444W. The model also fixes h0 = 0.05. A robust claim requires either a systematic uncertainty that covers the Powell–emcee range, a model-selection argument for preferring the emcee solution, or a test of sensitivity to h0 and SPF parameterization. At minimum, the paper s
  2. [§4.3, §5.1] The statement that TWA 10 and TWA 25 were 'likely missed by previous disk detection surveys due to low luminosity fractions' is presented in the Summary as a conclusion, but the MCFOST SEDs in §4.3 are normalized to the F200W best-fit model and the dust mass is scaled to match that model's surface brightness. The resulting luminosity fractions (~3.6e-5 and ~6.9e-5) are therefore illustrative estimates, not independent predictions from the SED. The paper acknowledges degeneracies, but the language in the Summary should be softened, and the dependence of the disk SED on r0 should be noted: if r0 shifts from 191 to 157 au, the dust mass and peak flux of the model SED would also change.
  3. [§5.2, Table 3] For TWA 25, the derived radius of 63.8 ± 3.3 au is formally inconsistent with the SPHERE estimate of 76 ± 2 au at about 3.5σ. The paper attributes this to ADI self-subtraction and to SPHERE's ellipse-fitting approach, which is plausible but not demonstrated. Since the same axisymmetric ring model is used for both disks and a significant part of the paper's credibility on TWA 10 depends on this modeling approach, it would strengthen the analysis to test TWA 25 with at least one alternative model (e.g., free h0 or a single-component HG SPF) and quantify how the radius changes. This would also give a better sense of the model uncertainty that likely affects TWA 10.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§7] Typo: 'stis appears axisymmetric' should be 'still appears axisymmetric'.
  2. [Figure 12 caption] Typo: 'circled in whie' should be 'circled in white'.
  3. [Table 5] The TWA 10 2MASS Ks flux of 3.5e-2 ± 9.9e-3 Jy appears anomalously low compared to the listed J and H fluxes and to WISE3/WISE4. This may be a typographical or unit error; please check.
  4. [§5.2] The text lists Ren et al. (2023) as a previous detection but only compares the new results with NICMOS and SPHERE. A brief comparison with the STIS-based analysis would be useful.
  5. [Throughout] The paper uses both 'TWA' and 'TW A' (e.g., 'TW A 10' in text and title, 'TWA 10' in tables/abstract). Please unify the notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: disk radii and morphology are fit directly to NIRCam images, and the SED and planet-sculpting inferences use those fits as inputs rather than assuming the conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (TWA 10 disk radius ~191 au, TWA 25 inner slope and asymmetry) come from forward modeling of the NIRCam images, with model parameters (r0, inclination, PA, alpha_in/out, SPF) adjusted to the data via Powell/emcee. This is a measured inference from the observations, not a quantity defined in terms of the conclusion. The 'largest known M-dwarf disk' headline is a comparison of the fitted r0 to literature radii, and the paper explicitly notes the model degeneracy (SPF poorly constrained, Powell vs emcee r0 difference of 191 vs 157 au), which is a robustness/correctness concern rather than circularity. The MCFOST disk SEDs are scaled to the measured F200W disk brightness and then shown to be consistent with the independent Spitzer/Herschel non-detections; the conclusion that the disks were missed because they are faint follows from the model plus external upper limits, not from the same measured quantity. The SculptingPlanet planet-mass/semi-major-axis estimates take the fitted inner radius as input and are compared to the independent non-detection of companions, so no 'prediction' reduces to its fitting input by construction. Software/self-citations (spaceKLIP, Winnie, MCRDI) are methodological references to code, not load-bearing evidence for the scientific result. No derivation chain reduces to its inputs by definition or to a self-citation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central results depend on a fairly standard debris-disk forward-modeling framework. The main free parameters are the geometrical and SPF parameters of the ring model, with h0 fixed by hand. The MCFOST SED uses the same fitted geometry plus ad hoc grain assumptions, so the derived luminosity fractions are illustrative rather than independent measurements. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • TWA 10 r0 (disk radius) = 191.15±6.53 au (emcee); 157.13 au (Powell)
    Best-fit radius from ring model; drives the 'largest M-dwarf disk' claim.
  • TWA 25 r0 (disk radius) = 63.81±3.26 au
    Best-fit radius; smaller than previous SPHERE estimate (76±2 au).
  • TWA 10 surface density slopes (αin, αout) = 4.53±3.36, -8.45±2.56
    Fit to scattered-light profile; uncertainties large, particularly αin.
  • TWA 25 surface density slopes (αin, αout) = 11.94±5.37, -3.84±0.31
    Steep inner slope used to infer planet sculpting.
  • Scale height h0 = 0.05 (fixed)
    Fixed by hand for both disks; not fit to data.
  • SPF parameters g1, g2, wg1 = TWA 10: g1=0.80±0.13, g2=0.57±0.65, wg1=0.80±0.18; TWA 25: g1=0.90±0.06, g2=0.44±0.19, wg1=0.87±0.07
    Henyey-Greenstein parameters; poorly constrained, especially in F444W.
  • Dust mass in MCFOST SED = 6.7e-3 M⊕ (TWA 10); 3.3e-3 M⊕ (TWA 25)
    Scaled to match F200W surface brightness; not independently constrained.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Ring-like disk morphology with a two-parameter Henyey-Greenstein SPF (Augereau et al. 1999)
    Used for forward modeling of both disks (Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption Distance and age from Gaia DR3 and Miret-Roig et al. (2025)
    Table 1; all linear sizes and planet-mass estimates scale with adopted distance.
  • domain assumption Stellar SED models from Yelverton et al. (2019)
    Used to separate stellar and disk flux in SED analysis (Section 4.3).
  • domain assumption Assumed dust grain properties: astrosilicate, 0.1–1000 µm, size distribution -3.5
    Inputs to MCFOST; not verified by data and affect derived dust mass and SED.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 24669 in / 10740 out tokens · 117579 ms · 2026-08-01T04:44:45.458354+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of JWST NIRCam Reveals the Largest Known M-dwarf Debris Disk Around TWA 10 and New Scattered-Light Observations of the TWA 25 Debris Disk." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AQSB7UWW

@misc{pith2026260722426,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: JWST NIRCam Reveals the Largest Known M-dwarf Debris Disk Around TWA 10 and New Scattered-Light Observations of the TWA 25 Debris Disk},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AQSB7UWW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.22426}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We present JWST NIRCam observations of two M-dwarf systems located in the TW Hydra association, TWA 10 and TWA 25. Both systems harbor detected debris disks in the F200W and F444W filters. Whereas the TWA 25 disk has been previously imaged, these observations represent the discovery and first images of the TWA 10 disk. In addition to planet searches within these systems, we also conduct an analysis of each debris disk, where the TWA 10 debris disk is characterized for the first time. We find that the TWA 10 debris disk is very large, with a radius of $\sim$191 au, significantly greater than other known M-dwarf debris disks. The TWA 25 disk hosts a sharp inner dust surface density power-law and a moderate brightness asymmetry present at 2 $\mu$m, suggesting potential sculpting from inner planets and potentially enhanced collisional activity. Finally, we find one potential companion candidate within the TWA 10 system and two within the TWA 25 system, although the measured F200W-F444W color suggests that these candidates are likely background objects. Both systems do not have measured IR-excesses in their SEDs, where radiative-transfer modeling suggests that these disks (and potentially more M-dwarf disks) were likely missed by previous disk detection surveys due to having low luminosity fractions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.22426 by Aarynn L. Carter, Aiza Kenzhebekova, Andrew D. James, Andy Skemer, Ben J. Sutlieff, Beth Biller, Briley L. Lewis, Christine H. Chen, Cl\'emence Fontanive, Ellis Bogat, Emily Rickman, Evelyn L. Bruinsma, Giovanni M. Strampelli, Isabel Rebollido, Jarron Leisenring, Julien H. Girard, Katie A. Crotts, Kellen Lawson, Kielan Hoch, Klaus Subbotina Stephenson, Mark Booth, Marshall Perrin, Patricia Luppe, Rachel Bowens-Rubin, Rapha\"el Bendahan-West, Rodrigo Ferrer-Chavez, Rohan Kane, Sebastian Marino, Tim Pearce.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Final data reductions for (from left to right) TWA 10 and TWA 25 in the F200W (top) and F444W (bottom) filters. All images are rotated with North up, and the + represents the star location. disk found in Choquet et al. (2016) to define the ini￾tial starting values for each parameter. In the case of TWA 10, because this is the first resolved detection of the disk, the initial geometrical parameters (e.g. r0… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Forward modeling results for TWA 10 and TWA 25 in the F200W and F444W filters. The left panels are our MCRDI reductions, the middle panels are the best fitting emcee forward models, and right panels are the resulting residuals. All images are rotated with North up, and the + represents the star location [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Disk radii (R0) vs. stellar luminosity. The blue data points represent debris disks observed with GPI (Esposito et al. 2020), while the pink data points represent TWA 10 and 25. The orange data points highlight the other M-dwarfs, where triangles are upper limits. The solid black and light grey lines represents the best-fit power-law with 1σ uncertainties derived from Esposito et al. (2020) for the GPI sam… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Surface brightness (SB) profiles for the TWA 10 (top) and TWA 25 (bottom) disks in the F200W as a function of projected separation from the host star. The blue data points represent the East side of the disk and the pink data points represent the West side of the disk. The grey shaded region represents the area where the throughput is ≲50% (≤ 0. ′′6), as attenuation from the coronagraph affects the surface… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Stellar SEDs of TWA 10 (top) and TWA 25 (bottom). The grey data points are photometry measure￾ments that are consistent with the stellar SED model (blue line), while the colored data points are measurements from Spitzer/MIPS and Herschel/PACS (triangles are 3σ upper limits). The estimated disk SED is shown by the purple line and the stellar+disk SED is represented by the light blue line. have reported the … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Close in look of our convolved MCRDI reduction of TWA 10 in the F444W filter. The data is binned into 3x3 pixel bins and is further smoothed with a gaussian with σ=2 pixels. Contours represent the surface brightness of the disk in F200W (0.07, 0.10, 0.13, 0.16 MJy sr−1 ). While very faint, a clear signal is observed at the location of the disk as seen in the F200W. at ∼30-40 au, i.e. at the relative locati… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top: Our MCRDI reduction in the F200W filter deconvolved with the instrumental PSF. The image is rotated by the disk PA, so that the major-axis is horizontal. Contours are added at 2, 5, 10, and 20 MJy sr−1 to highlight the observed brightness asymmetry. Bottom Left: Our MCRDI reduction of TWA 25 in the F200W filter. Bottom Right: The residual map after the best fitting model of the TWA 25 debris disk is s… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: 5σ contrast curves of our disk model subtracted data for TWA 10 (top) and TWA 25 (bottom). The blue lines are the contrasts for the F200W observations, while the orange lines are the contrasts for the F444W observations. The shaded regions represent ±1σ contrasts. The blue data points are the contrasts for potential candidates observed in F200W, while the orange data points are the contrasts for potential … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Planet detection probability maps for TWA 10 (left) and TWA 25 (right) as calculated by ExoDMC using the planet mass sensitivity derived from our 5σ contrast curves. The dashed black line represents the estimated disk inner radius, while the orange shaded region represents the disk extent. The grey shaded region represents the area where the throughput is ≤50% (e.g. ≤0.6′′). The pink data point represents … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Model subtracted observations for TWA 10 (left) and TWA 25 (right), where the F200W data for both systems is shown in the top row and F444W data is shown in the bottom row. The blue circles represent identified can￾didates that are present in that specific filter, while pink circles represent identified candidates that are only observed in the opposite filter. Each candidate companion is labeled by CC1-CC… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: F200W–F444W colors vs. F444W apparent magnitude for TWA 10 (top) and TWA 25 (bottom). The black/grey data points represent the sample of galaxies mea￾sured as part of the JADES survey, while the orange stars represent the model stars from TRILEGAL. The blue data points represent the candidate companions in the TWA 10 and TWA 25 systems, which we compare to the BEX evolu￾tionary model (pink dashed line). t… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: TWA 25 F444W data zoomed out to show the additional sources, which are circled in whie and labeled B1-B5. The white dashed box represents the FOV of the F200W observations. Additionally, CC1 is circled in blue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    M., Rosenfeld, K

    Andrews, S. M., Rosenfeld, K. A., Kraus, A. L., & Wilner, D. J. 2013, ApJ, 771, 129, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/2/129 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f A...

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/771/2/129 2013

  2. [2]

    2006, A&A, 455, 987, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054250

    Augereau, J.-C., & Beust, H. 2006, A&A, 455, 987, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054250

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054250 2006

  3. [3]

    On the HR 4796A circumstellar disk

    Augereau, J. C., Lagrange, A. M., Mouillet, D., Papaloizou, J. C. B., & Grorod, P. A. 1999, A&A, 348, 557, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9906429

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9906429 1999

  4. [4]

    2014, ApJL, 780, L4, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/780/1/L4

    Bailey, V., Meshkat, T., Reiter, M., et al. 2014, ApJL, 780, L4, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/780/1/L4

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/780/1/l4 2014

  5. [5]

    2020, Exo-DMC: Exoplanet Detection Map

    Bonavita, M. 2020, Exo-DMC: Exoplanet Detection Map

    2020

  6. [6]

    http://ascl.net/2010.008

    Calculator, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2010.008. http://ascl.net/2010.008

    2010

  7. [7]

    2012, A&A, 537, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116852

    Bonavita, M., Chauvin, G., Desidera, S., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116852

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116852 2012

  8. [8]

    A., et al

    Bowens-Rubin, R., Mang, J., Limbach, M. A., et al. 2025, ApJL, 986, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/addbde

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/addbde 2025

  9. [9]

    A., Lamy, P

    Burns, J. A., Lamy, P. L., & Soter, S. 1979, Icarus, 40, 1, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(79)90050-2

    doi:10.1016/0019-1035(79)90050-2 1979

  10. [10]

    Carrera, D., Gorti, U., Johansen, A., & Davies, M. B. 2017, ApJ, 839, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6932

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6932 2017

  11. [11]

    L., Hinkley, S., Kammerer, J., et al

    Carter, A. L., Hinkley, S., Kammerer, J., et al. 2023b, ApJL, 951, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd93e Choquet, ´E., Perrin, M. D., Chen, C. H., et al. 2016, ApJL, 817, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/817/1/L2

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acd93e 2041

  12. [12]

    A., Olofsson, J., Harvey, P

    Cieza, L. A., Olofsson, J., Harvey, P. M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 762, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/762/2/100

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/762/2/100 2013

  13. [13]

    F., Kennedy, G

    Cronin-Coltsmann, P. F., Kennedy, G. M., Kral, Q., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 5401, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3083

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3083 2023

  14. [14]

    A., Draper, Z

    Crotts, K. A., Draper, Z. H., Matthews, B. C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 932, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6c86

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6c86 2022

  15. [15]

    A., Carter, A

    Crotts, K. A., Carter, A. L., Lawson, K., et al. 2025, ApJL, 987, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ade798

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ade798 2025

  16. [16]

    M., Skrutskie, M

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

    2003

  17. [17]

    Dent, W. R. F., Wyatt, M. C., Roberge, A., et al. 2014, Science, 343, 1490, doi: 10.1126/science.1248726

    doi:10.1126/science.1248726 2014

  18. [18]

    Dohnanyi, J. S. 1969, JGR, 74, 2531, doi: 10.1029/JB074i010p02531 Dra˙ zkowska, J., & Alibert, Y. 2017, A&A, 608, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731491

    doi:10.1029/jb074i010p02531 1969

  19. [19]

    J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al

    Eisenstein, D. J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.02465, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.02465

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.02465 2023

  20. [20]

    2025, A&A, 704, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554953

    Engler, N., Milli, J., Pawellek, N., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554953

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554953 2025

  21. [21]

    M., Kalas, P., Fitzgerald, M

    Esposito, T. M., Kalas, P., Fitzgerald, M. P., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab9199

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab9199 2020

  22. [22]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  23. [23]

    F., Pearce, T

    Friebe, M. F., Pearce, T. D., & L¨ ohne, T. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 4441, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac664 Gaia Collaboration. 2018, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Gaia DR2 (Gaia Collaboration, 2018), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: I/345. Originally published in: 2018A&A...616A...1G, doi: 10.26093/cds/vizier.1345 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. ...

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac664 2022

  24. [24]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, L1, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx063

    Gaidos, E. 2017, MNRAS, 470, L1, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx063

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slx063 2017

  25. [25]

    H., Leisenring, J., Kammerer, J., et al

    Girard, J. H., Leisenring, J., Kammerer, J., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12180, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. L. E. Coyle, S. Matsuura, & M. D. Perrin, 121803Q, doi: 10.1117/12.2629636

    doi:10.1117/12.2629636 2022

  26. [26]

    Girardi, L., Groenewegen, M. A. T., Hatziminaoglou, E., & da Costa, L. 2005, A&A, 436, 895, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042352

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20042352 2005

  27. [27]

    M., van der Marel, N., Williams, J

    Guerra-Alvarado, O. M., van der Marel, N., Williams, J. P., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A232, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453338

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453338 2025

  28. [28]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  29. [29]

    A., Templeton, M., Terrell, D., et al

    Henden, A. A., Templeton, M., Terrell, D., et al. 2016, VizieR Online Data Catalog: AA VSO Photometric All Sky Survey (APASS) DR9 (Henden+, 2016), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/336. Originally published in: 2015AAS...22533616H

    2016

  30. [30]

    G., & Greenstein, J

    Henyey, L. G., & Greenstein, J. L. 1941, ApJ, 93, 70, doi: 10.1086/144246

    doi:10.1086/144246 1941

  31. [31]

    J., & Hillenbrand, L

    Herczeg, G. J., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2014, ApJ, 786, 97, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/97 Høg, E., Fabricius, C., Makarov, V. V., et al. 2000, A&A, 355, L27 22

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/786/2/97 2014

  32. [32]

    M., Duchˆ ene, G., & Matthews, B

    Hughes, A. M., Duchˆ ene, G., & Matthews, B. C. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 541, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-052035

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-052035 2018

  33. [33]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, CSE, 9, 90

    2007

  34. [34]

    2016, A&A, 596, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629680

    Ida, S., & Guillot, T. 2016, A&A, 596, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629680

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629680 2016

  35. [35]

    2000, ApJ, 528, 351, doi: 10.1086/308179

    Ida, S., Larwood, J., & Burkert, A. 2000, ApJ, 528, 351, doi: 10.1086/308179

    doi:10.1086/308179 2000

  36. [36]

    2010, A&A, 514, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913811

    Ishihara, D., Onaka, T., Kataza, H., et al. 2010, A&A, 514, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913811

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913811 2010

  37. [37]

    N., et al

    Izidoro, A., Dasgupta, R., Raymond, S. N., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01557-z

    doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01557-z 2022

  38. [38]

    Esposito, T. M. 2023, ApJ, 948, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc466

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc466 2023

  39. [39]

    C., & Matthews, B

    Kalas, P., Liu, M. C., & Matthews, B. C. 2004, Science, 303, 1990, doi: 10.1126/science.1093420

    doi:10.1126/science.1093420 2004

  40. [40]

    L., et al

    Kammerer, J., Girard, J., Carter, A. L., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12180, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. L. E. Coyle, S. Matsuura, & M. D. Perrin, 121803N, doi: 10.1117/12.2628865

    doi:10.1117/12.2628865 2022

  41. [41]

    J., & Bromley, B

    Kenyon, S. J., & Bromley, B. C. 2001, AJ, 121, 538, doi: 10.1086/318019 —. 2002, AJ, 123, 1757, doi: 10.1086/338850

    doi:10.1086/318019 2001

  42. [42]

    T., Pinilla, P., Long, F., et al

    Kurtovic, N. T., Pinilla, P., Long, F., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038983

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038983 2021

  43. [43]

    2010, Science, 329, 57, doi: 10.1126/science.1187187

    Lagrange, A.-M., Bonnefoy, M., Chauvin, G., et al. 2010, Science, 329, 57, doi: 10.1126/science.1187187

    doi:10.1126/science.1187187 2010

  44. [44]

    2025, Nature, 642, 905, doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09150-4

    Lagrange, A.-M., Wilkinson, C., Mˆ alin, M., et al. 2025, Nature, 642, 905, doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09150-4

    doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09150-4 2025

  45. [45]

    P., et al

    Lawson, K., Currie, T., Wisniewski, J. P., et al. 2022, ApJL, 935, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac853b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac853b 2022

  46. [46]

    E., Leisenring, J

    Lawson, K., Schlieder, J. E., Leisenring, J. M., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aced08 —. 2024, ApJL, 967, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4496

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aced08 2023

  47. [47]

    F., Mordasini, C., Molli` ere, P., et al

    Linder, E. F., Mordasini, C., Molli` ere, P., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833873

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833873 2019

  48. [48]

    J., Smith, P

    Low, F. J., Smith, P. S., Werner, M., et al. 2005, ApJ, 631, 1170, doi: 10.1086/432640

    work page doi:10.1086/432640 2005

  49. [49]

    V., Booth, M., & Lestrade, J.-F

    Luppe, P., Krivov, A. V., Booth, M., & Lestrade, J.-F. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 3932, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2608

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2608 2020

  50. [50]

    A., Wilner, D

    MacGregor, M. A., Wilner, D. J., Rosenfeld, K. A., et al. 2013, ApJL, 762, L21, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/762/2/L21

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/762/2/l21 2013

  51. [51]

    R., Ingraham, P., et al

    Macintosh, B., Graham, J. R., Ingraham, P., et al. 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 111, 12661, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1304215111

    doi:10.1073/pnas.1304215111 2014

  52. [52]

    V., Robinson, T

    Mang, J., Morley, C. V., Robinson, T. D., & Gao, P. 2024, ApJ, 974, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6c4c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6c4c 2024

  53. [53]

    Marocco, F., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Fowler, J. W., et al. 2021, ApJS, 253, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abd805

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abd805 2021

  54. [54]

    2006, ApJ, 641, 556, doi: 10.1086/500401 Matr` a, L., Marino, S., Kennedy, G

    Nadeau, D. 2006, ApJ, 641, 556, doi: 10.1086/500401 Matr` a, L., Marino, S., Kennedy, G. M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabcc4 Matr` a, L., Marino, S., Wilner, D. J., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A151, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451397

    doi:10.1086/500401 2006

  55. [55]

    C., Krivov, A

    Matthews, B. C., Krivov, A. V., Wyatt, M. C., Bryden, G., & Eiroa, C. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 521–544, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816531240-ch023

    doi:10.2458/azu 2014

  56. [56]

    2025, A&A, 694, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452558

    Miret-Roig, N., Alves, J., Ratzenb¨ ock, S., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452558

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452558 2025

  57. [57]

    V., et al

    Montesinos, B., Eiroa, C., Krivov, A. V., et al. 2016, A&A, 593, A51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628329

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628329 2016

  58. [58]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 72, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01517-7 Morey, ´E., & Lestrade, J.-F

    Morbidelli, A., Bailli´ e, K., Batygin, K., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 72, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01517-7 Morey, ´E., & Lestrade, J.-F. 2014, A&A, 565, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322567

    doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01517-7 2022

  59. [59]

    J., & Wyatt, M

    Mustill, A. J., & Wyatt, M. C. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 1403, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15360.x

    arXiv 2009

  60. [60]

    2025, LMFIT: Non-Linear Least-Squares Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python, 1.3.3, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15014437

    Newville, M., Otten, R., Nelson, A., et al. 2025, LMFIT: Non-Linear Least-Squares Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python, 1.3.3, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15014437

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.15014437 2025

  61. [61]

    L., Liu, M

    Nielsen, E. L., Liu, M. C., Wahhaj, Z., et al. 2014, ApJ, 794, 158, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/158

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/794/2/158 2014

  62. [62]

    A., Zhang, J., et al

    Palatnick, S., Millar-Blanchaer, M. A., Zhang, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 995, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1963

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1963 2025

  63. [63]

    I., Metchev, S

    Patel, R. I., Metchev, S. A., & Heinze, A. 2014, ApJS, 212, 10, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/212/1/10

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/212/1/10 2014

  64. [64]

    Pawellek, N., Mo´ or, A., Pascucci, I., & Krivov, A. V. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 5874, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1682

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1682 2019

  65. [65]

    D., & Wyatt, M

    Pearce, T. D., & Wyatt, M. C. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 2541, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1302

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1302 2014

  66. [66]

    D., Launhardt, R., Ostermann, R., et al

    Pearce, T. D., Launhardt, R., Ostermann, R., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142720

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142720 2022

  67. [67]

    D., Krivov, A

    Pearce, T. D., Krivov, A. V., Sefilian, A. A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 3876, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3462

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3462 2024

  68. [68]

    Perez, F., & Granger, B. E. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 21, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.53 2007

  69. [69]

    W., Tremblin, P., Baraffe, I., et al

    Phillips, M. W., Tremblin, P., Baraffe, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 637, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937381

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937381 2020

  70. [70]

    2022, European Physical Journal Plus, 137, 1206, doi: 10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-03384-1 23

    Pinilla, P. 2022, European Physical Journal Plus, 137, 1206, doi: 10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-03384-1 23

    doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-03384-1 2022

  71. [71]

    2006, A&A, 459, 797, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053275

    Pinte, C., M´ enard, F., Duchˆ ene, G., & Bastien, P. 2006, A&A, 459, 797, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053275

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053275 2006

  72. [72]

    Powell, M. J. D. 1964, The Computer Journal, 7, 155, doi: 10.1093/comjnl/7.2.155

    doi:10.1093/comjnl/7.2.155 1964

  73. [73]

    L., De Rosa, R

    Rameau, J., Nielsen, E. L., De Rosa, R. J., et al. 2016, ApJL, 822, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/822/2/L29

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/822/2/l29 2016

  74. [74]

    C., Kammerer, J., et al

    Rebollido, I., Stark, C. C., Kammerer, J., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad1759

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad1759 2024

  75. [75]

    2008, A&A, 480, 551, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077934

    Reche, R., Beust, H., Augereau, J.-C., & Absil, O. 2008, A&A, 480, 551, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077934

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077934 2008

  76. [76]

    B., Rebollido, I., Choquet, ´E., et al

    Ren, B. B., Rebollido, I., Choquet, ´E., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245458

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245458 2023

  77. [77]

    2016, A&A, 594, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527829

    Montesinos, B. 2016, A&A, 594, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527829

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527829 2016

  78. [78]

    2013, A&A, 555, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321506

    Riviere-Marichalar, P., Pinte, C., Barrado, D., et al. 2013, A&A, 555, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321506

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321506 2013

  79. [79]

    2012, ApJ, 754, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/754/1/39

    Schneider, A., Melis, C., & Song, I. 2012, ApJ, 754, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/754/1/39

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/754/1/39 2012

  80. [80]

    Schoonenberg, D., & Ormel, C. W. 2017, A&A, 602, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630013

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630013 2017

Showing first 80 references.