MIRI-JWST mid-infrared direct imaging of the debris disk of HD106906

Adrian M. Glauser; Anthony Boccaletti; Bart Vandenbussche; Christophe Cossou; Cl\'ement Perrot; Daniel Rouan; David Barrado; Elodie Choquet; Eugene Serabyn; Gillian Wright

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

MIRI-JWST mid-infrared direct imaging of the debris disk of HD106906

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports that JWST's MIRI coronagraphic images of HD 106906 at 11.4 and 15.5 µm reveal a debris disk filled with dust inward of a 70 au critical radius, with no giant planet clearing a gap.

desk verdict New MIRI images of HD 106906's disk are solid and worth publishing, but the flat chi-square surface does not support the paper's central claim of a filled inner disk and no sculpting planet. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.13679 v1 pith:LIGUNR2H submitted 2025-04-18 astro-ph.EP

Daniel Rouan , Anthony Boccaletti , Clément Perrot , Pierre Baudoz , Mathilde Mâlin , Pierre-Olivier Lagage , Rens Waters , Manuel Güdel

show 15 more authors

Thomas Henning Bart Vandenbussche Olivier Absil David Barrado Christophe Cossou Leen Decin Adrian M. Glauser John Pye Polychronis Patapis Niall Whiteford Eugene Serabyn Elodie Choquet Göran Ostlin Tom P. Ray Gillian Wright

This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.EP

keywords debrisdisksHD106906mid-infraredimagingMIRIcoronagraphyradiativetransfermodelingdustgrainsizedistributionplanet-diskinteractionmass

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 mid-infrared coronagraphic images of the debris disk around HD 106906, taken with JWST's MIRI instrument at 11.4 and 15.5 µm. The authors argue that the thermal emission is best matched by a disk whose surface density rises gently inward to a critical radius of 70 au and falls steeply beyond it, rather than by a narrow ring or a disk with a planet-carved inner cavity. If correct, the inner region of the disk is populated with dust, no giant planet has cleared a gap inside 70 au, and the grains producing the mid-infrared light are small silicates (0.45–10 µm) near the radiation-pressure blowout limit. This result demonstrates how mid-infrared thermal imaging can distinguish a filled debris disk from a planet-sculpted one.

What carries the argument

The central object is the parameterized surface-density model of the disk, in which a critical radius $R_c$ separates an inner power-law rise ($\alpha_{\rm in}$) from an outer power-law fall ($\alpha_{\rm out}$). The paper couples this density model to a radiative-transfer calculation that solves each grain's equilibrium temperature and thermal flux, then feeds the synthetic image through a numerical simulation of the MIRI coronagraph's optics (pupil, four-quadrant phase mask, Lyot stop) so that model images can be compared pixel-by-pixel with the data using a fit-quality metric. The ratio of fluxes at 15.5 and 11.4 µm is the size diagnostic that pins the grain-size range, because small hot grains emit strongly in the Wien part of the Planck function where the flux ratio is most sensitive.

What would settle it

A mid-infrared observation that resolves the region inside 70 au, for example with a larger-aperture telescope or a coronagraph that does not mask the inner disk, would directly show whether the surface density keeps rising toward the star or turns over; alternatively, detection of a giant planet inside about 70 au would contradict the claim that no massive planet carved the inner edge.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the 11.4 and 15.5 µm emission from HD 106906's debris disk traces a filled, collisionally evolved disk rather than a ring with an inner void. Matching the coronagraphic images with a forward model that computes grain equilibrium temperatures and then simulates the full coronagraphic optical path, the paper finds a critical radius $R_c = 70$ au, an inner surface-density slope $\alpha_{\rm in} = 2$, an outer slope $\alpha_{\rm out} = -6$, and silicate grains spanning $0.45\text{--}10\,\mu$m (or graphite grains $0.65\text{--}10\,\mu$m) under an $a^{-3.5}$ size distribution. The derived mid-infrared-emitting dust mass is $3.3\text{--}5.0\times10^{-3}$ Earth masses, extrapolating to $0.10\text{--}0.16$ Earth masses when the collisional-cascade distribution is extended to 1 cm grains, which is consistent with ALMA's millimeter flux and dust-mass estimates. The average line-of-sight dust temperature is 74 K, ranging from 40 K at the disk edge to 130 K near the center.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's conclusion rests on the assumption that tiny differences in fit quality between many similar models are enough to pick one structure; if the fit-quality landscape is as flat as the quoted numbers suggest, other disk structures and grain sizes would explain the images just as well.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The inner region of the HD 106906 disk is populated with dust, so no giant planet currently clears a cavity inside about 70 au.
The mid-infrared-emitting grains are small (0.45–10 µm silicates), with a minimum size consistent with radiation-pressure blowout, implying a collisionally active disk that continually replenishes small dust.
Extending the size distribution to centimeter-sized grains gives a total dust mass of 0.10–0.16 Earth masses, in line with ALMA's millimeter flux and mass estimate, so the mid-infrared and millimeter views describe the same disk.
The average dust temperature of 74 K and the 40–130 K spread across the disk set the thermal context for volatile-ice condensation in the disk.
The fitted inner slope $\alpha_{\rm in} = 2$ matches the profile expected from a collisionally evolved disk, supporting planet-free sculpting of the inner edge.

Reading between the lines

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

The same forward-modeling approach could be applied to other debris disks observed with MIRI coronagraphy, and the two-wavelength flux-ratio technique offers a way to measure grain sizes without resolved spectroscopy.
The apparent contradiction between a scattered-light 'void' and a thermally filled inner disk may be a grain-size segregation effect: near-infrared scattering is dominated by larger grains near the birth ring, while mid-infrared emission picks out smaller, hotter grains further in; the paper hints at this but does not fully develop it.
If the flat fit-quality landscape is confirmed with wider parameter sampling and proper uncertainties, the structural parameters should be treated as ranges rather than a unique solution; a dedicated sampling or Markov-chain exploration would test uniqueness.
The temperature spread from 40 to 130 K implies that different ice species condense in different radial zones, which could be tested by future mid-infrared spectroscopy searching for ice or silicate features.

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

First, the genuinely new thing: two MIRI coronagraphic images at 11.4 and 15.5 µm that resolve HD 106906's disk in thermal emission. That is a real first, and the detection is solid. The forward-modeling chain (radiative transfer plus coronagraphic PSF) is thorough, and the result that the near-IR and mid-IR critical radii agree, with the mid-IR emission coming from smaller, hotter grains inside the birth ring, is a sensible and useful interpretation. The temperature map and the blowout-size argument are also reasonable. Credit is due for running a 96-model grid and for showing that the hook-like residuals constrain the structure qualitatively.

The problem is that the quantitative basis for the headline structural result is weak. Table 3 speaks for itself: the reduced chi-square values across the listed models differ by ±11% at 15.5 µm and ±3% at 11.4 µm, and the adopted (70 au, αin=2, αout=-6) model is not the best in either filter—it is selected because it is common to both. No parameter uncertainties are given. With reduced chi-square values of 2.8–4.9, there are clearly unmodeled systematics, so these few-percent differences cannot be taken at face value. The paper even admits the variation is "not very large." I don't see how αin=2 is uniquely preferred over αin=1 or 4, which means the "filled disk, no inner planet" conclusion is not established. The discussion is more careful than the abstract: it mentions the 11 alternative explanations for shallow inner edges from Pearce et al. and notes that MIRI and near-IR see different grains. But the abstract's planetary-sculpting sentence overstates what the data support.

The grain-size range (0.45–10 µm silicates) comes from a post-fit tuning of the flux ratio, so it is a plausible constraint rather than a rigorous one. The ALMA consistency checks are order-of-magnitude—predicted 1.2–1.4 mJy versus measured 0.35 mJy at 1.27 mm, a factor of three to four—so "fully consistent" is too strong.

Net: this is a worthy observational paper that deserves a serious referee, not a desk reject. The authors have the data, the code, and the expertise to tighten it. A referee should ask for confidence intervals or a proper likelihood ratio between the competing models, a treatment of systematics driving chi-square above unity, and a rephrased abstract that separates the secure detection and grain-size constraint from the speculative no-planet claim. For the community working on debris disks and planet–disk interaction, this will be a frequently cited detection even if the structural conclusion shifts.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents MIRI/JWST coronagraphic observations at 11.3 and 15.5 microns of the debris disk around the young binary HD 106906. The disk is clearly detected at both wavelengths, appearing as two lobed structures oriented roughly along the near-IR disk position angle, with a smaller apparent position-angle offset that the authors attribute to 4QPM diffraction. The authors forward-model the observations using a modified version of the DDiT radiative transfer code coupled to a coronagraphic optical model, fitting a parametrized surface density profile (critical radius Rc, inner exponent alpha_in, outer exponent alpha_out) over a grid of 96 models. They report a best common-wavelength model with Rc=70 au, alpha_in=2, alpha_out=-6, interpreting this as a filled inner disk that is inconsistent with an inner massive planet sculpting a gap. From the flux ratio F1550C/F1140C they infer grain size ranges of 0.45–10 microns (silicate) and 0.65–10 microns (graphite), derive a mid-IR grain mass of 0.0033–0.0051 Earth masses, and extrapolate to a total dust mass of 0.10–0.16 Earth masses including grains up to 1 cm, which they argue is consistent with ALMA millimeter measurements. The paper also provides a map of dust temperatures and estimates planet detection limits.

Significance. If the structural conclusion is correct, the paper provides rare mid-infrared thermal imaging of a debris disk interior region, with the potential to constrain planet-disk interaction in a system that hosts a wide-separation planet. The grain-size constraint from the two-filter flux ratio, the mass comparison with ALMA, and the temperature map are useful steps for connecting mid-IR and millimeter observations of debris disks. The paper also demonstrates a careful coronagraphic forward-modeling pipeline. However, the central claim about a filled inner disk and the absence of a giant planet rests on a narrow range of chi-square differences and on a parameter-selection criterion that is not statistically justified; as presented, the quantitative structural result is not yet firmly established.

major comments (3)

[§7.1, Table 3] The selection of the common-wavelength model (Rc=70 au, alpha_in=2, alpha_out=-6) is not supported by a statistical test. In Table 3, the adopted model is not the minimum at either wavelength: at 15.5 microns the minimum reduced chi-squared is 3.69 for (70,1,-8) while the adopted model gives 4.50 (about 22% higher), and at 11.4 microns the minimum is 2.83 for (75,2,-4) while the adopted model gives 2.94 (about 4% higher). The paper notes the variation in chi-squared is "not very large" and selects the common model by intersection, but no confidence intervals, likelihood-ratio test, or bootstrap are provided. Since the no-planet conclusion depends specifically on excluding large alpha_in (e.g., alpha_in=4 or 6), and Table 3 shows that alpha_in=2 models are not uniquely preferred, the filled-disk claim is currently underdetermined by the presented statistics.
[§7.1, Table 3, §7.2] The reduced chi-squared values of 2.8–4.9 listed in Table 3 are substantially larger than unity, indicating either unmodeled systematic residuals or underestimated noise. The paper does not discuss this discrepancy, nor does it quantify the effect of reference-star subtraction, PSF model errors, or the correlation of pixels within the resolution element on the chi-squared landscape. Because the relative differences between models are only a few percent in the 11.4 micron filter, these systematic terms could dominate the ranking; the paper should demonstrate that the adopted model remains preferred when realistic systematics are included, or should temper the structural conclusion accordingly.
[§7.3, §8.1, §9] The claim that the grain size range is "well constrained" by the flux ratio is internally inconsistent with the paper's own concluding remark in §9 that the analysis "may explain our failure to reach a strictly firm conclusion on the nature of the grains or their size distribution." The size-range fit shown in Fig. 7 selects ranges whose predicted ratio falls within the observed uncertainty but does not provide a formal confidence interval, and the silicate versus graphite degeneracy is not broken. Since the mass estimate and the blowout-size comparison in §8.1 both depend on the adopted amin and amax, the uncertainty in these values should be propagated or the conclusions stated more cautiously.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] The abstract contains a grammatical error: "inconsistent the brightness distribution" should be "inconsistent with the brightness distribution."
[§8.2] The reported ALMA dust mass from Kral et al. (2020), "0.054 ± 0.07 ML," has an uncertainty larger than the central value; please check whether the sign or magnitude is correct, as this affects the consistency argument.
[§8.2] The sentence "Fehr et al. (2022) estimated 10 ML, but without detailing how they reached this value" appears to be missing an exponent or a decimal; as written, 10 Earth masses is not a plausible debris-disk mass and conflicts with the comparison that follows.
[§8.1] In the discussion of the blowout size, the text reads "Thebault & Kral 2019" in one place and "Thébault & Kral 2019" in another; please unify the citation format.
[§5, Fig. 1] The position-angle difference between the mid-IR lobes (112 degrees) and the near-IR disk orientation (about 104 degrees) is attributed to 4QPM diffraction, but the quantitative support for this explanation is only stated qualitatively; a direct comparison of the model's apparent and intrinsic position angles would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: all structural and grain-size results are data fits or external consistency checks, not derivations from their own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is an empirical forward-modeling fit. Structural parameters (Rc, alpha_in, alpha_out) are selected by comparing 96 model images against the MIRI data with a chi2 metric, and the paper explicitly notes the flatness of the chi2 surface (Section 7.1: 'the variation in chi2 is also not very large: +-11% for the 12 listed sets at 15.5 um, and +-3% for the 8 sets at 11.4 um') and that the adopted common set is not the minimum at either wavelength. That undercuts the uniqueness of the inference, but it is a robustness/correctness issue, not circularity. The grain-size range is fitted to the observed ratio F15.5/F11.4, as the text states (Section 7.3: 'we reproduced the observed flux ratios Rf = 5.91 +- 0.50 by adjusting the range of grain sizes'); the paper does not relabel this fit as an independent prediction. The later claims are genuine external checks: the ALMA dust mass and 1.27 mm flux are independently measured (Kral et al. 2020; Fehr et al. 2022), the blowout size is an external theoretical calculation (Kirchschlager & Wolf 2013), and the near-IR structure comes from Kalas et al. (2015), Lagrange et al. (2016), and Crotts et al. (2021). The self-citations (Boccaletti et al. 2024; Malin et al. 2024; Rouan et al. 2000) concern data-reduction and coronagraph modeling pipelines and are not used to force the physical conclusions. No equation-level reduction of a claimed prediction to its own input was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derived quantities (Rc, alpha_in, alpha_out, amin, amax, mass) are all either grid-search values or scalings fitted to the two MIRI images; the size distribution index, grain optical properties, stellar parameters, distance, inclination, and PA are taken from the literature or assumed. The number of fitted parameters exceeds the two independent photometric points, and the morphological image comparison provides additional constraints but no formal uncertainties.

free parameters (7)

Rc (critical radius) = 70 au
Grid values 65, 70, 75 au; chosen as the set common to both wavelength fits (bold in Table 3).
alpha_in (inner surface-density exponent) = 2
Grid values 1, 2, 4, 6; preferred value from the common set; the chi2 difference from alpha_in = 1 is a few percent.
alpha_out (outer surface-density exponent) = -6
Grid values -4, -6, -8, -10; preferred from the common set.
amin (minimum grain radius) = 0.45 um (silicate), 0.65 um (graphite)
Adjusted until the modeled F15.5/F11.4 ratio matches the observed 5.91 +/- 0.50 (Sect 7.3, Fig. 7).
amax (maximum grain radius) = 10 um
Chosen such that the ratio fit works; the paper notes larger grains would not affect mid-IR flux.
Dust mass for mid-IR grains = 0.0033-0.0051 Earth masses
Scaling factor to match modeled to observed fluxes; this is a fit, not a prediction.
Grain composition = silicate (nominal) or graphite
Two compositions are tested; the paper states the data cannot distinguish them (Sect 8.2).

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The grain size distribution is a single power law with exponent -3.5 (Dohnanyi 1968; MRN).
Adopted in Sect 6 and 7.3; Crotts et al. (2021) found q = -3.19 and a bimodal distribution for the same disk in scattered light, which would change the inferred size range and mass.
domain assumption Dust grains are spherical and homogeneous, with optical constants from Laor & Draine (1993) for silicate or graphite.
Used for Qabs and Qsca in the radiative-transfer code; grain temperature, flux ratio, and mass all depend on this assumption.
domain assumption The inner binary is treated as a single star with T_eff = 6900 K and R = 1.7 solar radii, giving L = 5.9 solar luminosities.
Sect 6; the binary separation is 0.14 au and the components are identical F5V stars, so a single-star treatment is an approximation.
domain assumption The coronagraph simulator reproduces the MIRI four-quadrant phase mask PSF for extended sources, including hook-like diffraction features.
Sections 6-7; the structural parameter fit is made by comparing observed coronagraphic images to synthetic ones, so PSF fidelity is load-bearing.
domain assumption The disk is axisymmetric, has zero eccentricity, and has inclination 85 deg and PA 104 deg fixed from near-IR studies.
Table 2; eccentricity is set to 0 and orientation is fixed, which affects the asymmetry interpretation.
domain assumption Scattered light is negligible compared to thermal emission at 11-15 um.
Stated as computed in Sect 7; the paper says scattering is several orders of magnitude lower, but this is verified within the same model rather than by observation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MIRI-JWST mid-infrared direct imaging of the debris disk of HD106906." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LIGUNR2H

@misc{pith2026250413679,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MIRI-JWST mid-infrared direct imaging of the debris disk of HD106906},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LIGUNR2H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.13679}
}

read the original abstract

We report MIRI-JWST coronagraphic observations at 11.3 and 15.5 mic of the debris disk around the young star HD 106906. The observations were made to characterize the structure, temperature and mass of the disk through the thermal emission of the dust heated by the central star. Another goal was also to constrain the size distribution of the grains. The data were reduced and calibrated using the JWST pipeline. The analysis was based on a forward-modeling of the images using a multiparameter radiative transfer model coupled to an optical code for coronagraphy processing. The disk is clearly detected at both wavelengths. The slight asymmetry is geometrically consistent with the asymmetry observed in the near-IR, but it is inconsistent the brightness distribution. The observed structure is well reproduced with a model of a disk (or belt) with a critical radius 70 au, a mildly inward-increasing density (index 2) and a steeper decrease outward (index -6). This indication of a filled disk inside the critical radius is inconsistent with sculpting from an inner massive planet. The size distribution of the grains that cause the mid-IR emission is well constrained by the flux ratio at the two wavelengths : 0.45 10 mic and 0.65 10 mic for silicate and graphite grains, respectively. The minimum size is consistent with predictions of blowout through radiative pressure. We derive a mass of the dust that causes the mid-IR emission of 3.3 5.0 E3 Mearth. When the larger grains (up to 1 cm) that cause the millimeter emission are included, we extrapolate this mass to 0.10 0.16 Mearth. We point out to that this is fully consistent with ALMA observations of the disk in terms of dust mass and of its millimeter flux. We estimate the average dust temperature in the planetesimal belt to be 74 K, and a temperature range within the whole disk from 40 to 130 K.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.13679 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Top: MIRI F1140C (left) and F1550C (right) full-field coronagraphic images after data reduction (see text) and reference subtraction. The planet HD 106906 b can be seen at 7.3 arcsec NW. Bottom: Same after zooming and binning by a factor 2. The orientation is standard (north is up, and east is to the left). The field of view is 22 × 22 arcsec2 at the top and 11 × 11 arcsec2 at the bottom. and a forthcoming paper wi… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** MIRI 11.4 µm coronagraphic image. The contours of the SPHERE H1-H2 image of Lagrange et al. (2015) are superimposed. north of the frontier between the quadrants is 4.83◦ and that this must have some effect on the polar angle of the observed structures in the resulting image. In addition to the patches, two fainter hook-like structures are observed. They start from one side of each patch and describe a centro-symmet… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Comparison of simulated coronagraphic images and the observed image for a few cases for which the set of parameters αin, αout , and Rc led to a rather good solution, as indicated by the low residue level (second row of each set). The two upper rows correspond to the F1140C filter, and the two bottom rows show the F1550C filter. The label at the top of each image lists the values of the parameters in short. For examp… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Comparison of the observed coronagraphic images (left) and the best simulated images (center). The residuals of the difference are plotted at the right. els: 1223 ± 20 µJy and 7230 ±470 µJy at F1140C and F1550C, respectively. Article number, page 6 of 15 [PITH_FULL_IM…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Ratio Rf = F15.5/F11.4 vs. grain size for a single grain size, as given by the DDiT+ model. In blue, we show the case of silicate grains, and in orange, we show the case of graphite grains. The range of ratios deduced from observations is indicated by the shaded purple…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Dependence of the ratio Rf = F15.5/F11.4 on the grain size distribution. The ratio Rf is deduced from the model after integration of the flux in the considered size range. Rf is plotted for a selection of different size ranges, all following a distribution in a −3.5 .…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Intensity profiles at 11µm (green) and 15µm (red) derived from DDiT+ plotted as a dashed line in the nominal case (αin = 2, αout = -6) and as a solid line for αin = 6, αout = -6. This illustrates that the forward -modeling would be sensitive to the actual dust density …

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Theoretical estimation of the flux F1270 at 1.27 mm emitted by the population of grains (silicate shown in blue, and graphite shown in orange) up to a given size a (see text). The plotted quantity is proportional to the actual physical quantity. The first thicker part…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: From top to bottom: Maps of the average, the maximum, and the minimum dust grain temperature along each line of sight for the nominal set of parameters with silicate grains. The color-scale covers the range 40 - 130 K, as indicated at the bottom. (2015) proposed a som…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Dust Growth in Binary Systems: Inhibition of dust settling and growth in circumbinary discs
astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Dust grains in circumbinary discs end up five times smaller than in single-star discs, and the conditions for streaming-instability clumping are not met, arguing against in-situ planet formation there.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

2021, , 651, A45

Absil , O., Marion , L., Ertel , S., et al. 2021, , 651, A45

work page 2021
[2]

H., et al

Argyriou , I., Lage , C., Rieke , G. H., et al. 2023, , 680, A96

work page 2023
[3]

Augereau, J. C. & Beust, H. 2006, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 455, 987

work page 2006
[4]

C., Lagrange , A

Augereau , J. C., Lagrange , A. M., Mouillet , D., Papaloizou , J. C. B., & Grorod , P. A. 1999, , 348, 557

1999
[5]

Aumann , H. H. 1984, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 16, 483

work page 1984
[6]

2014, , 780, L4

Bailey , V., Meshkat , T., Reiter , M., et al. 2014, , 780, L4

work page 2014
[7]

2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 630, A85

Bhowmik, T., Boccaletti, A., Thébault, P., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 630, A85

work page 2019
[8]

2022, , 667, A165

Boccaletti , A., Cossou , C., Baudoz , P., et al. 2022, , 667, A165

work page 2022

Show all 65 references

[9]

O., Baudoz , P., et al

Boccaletti , A., Lagage , P. O., Baudoz , P., et al. 2015, , 127, 633

2015
[10]

2024, , 686, A33

Boccaletti , A., M \^a lin , M., Baudoz , P., et al. 2024, , 686, A33

2024
[11]

2025, JWST Calibration Pipeline

Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2025, JWST Calibration Pipeline

2025
[12]

H., Patten , B

Chen , C. H., Patten , B. M., Werner , M. W., et al. 2005, , 634, 1372

2005
[13]

2024, , 685, L1

Christiaens , V., Samland , M., Henning , T., et al. 2024, , 685, L1

2024
[14]

A., Matthews , B

Crotts , K. A., Matthews , B. C., Esposito , T. M., et al. 2021, , 915, 58

2021
[15]

De Rosa , R. J. & Kalas , P. 2019, , 157, 125

2019
[16]

H., Weinberger, A

Debes, J. H., Weinberger, A. J., & Song, I. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 684, L41

2008
[17]

Dohnanyi , J. S. 1968, in Physics and Dynamics of Meteors, ed. L. Kresak & P. M. Millman , Vol. 33, 486

1968
[18]

& Dawson , R

Dong , R. & Dawson , R. 2016, , 825, 77

2016
[19]

2012, , 544, A61

Ertel , S., Wolf , S., & Rodmann , J. 2012, , 544, A61

2012
[20]

M., Kalas , P., Fitzgerald , M

Esposito , T. M., Kalas , P., Fitzgerald , M. P., et al. 2020, , 160, 24

2020
[21]

A., Sefilian , A

Farhat , M. A., Sefilian , A. A., & Touma , J. R. 2023, , 521, 2067

2023
[22]

J., Hughes , A

Fehr , A. J., Hughes , A. M., Dawson , R. I., et al. 2022, , 939, 56

2022
[23]

Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023, , 674, A1

2023
[24]

R., Kalas , P

Graham , J. R., Kalas , P. G., & Matthews , B. C. 2007, , 654, 595

2007
[25]

M., Duch \^e ne , G., & Matthews , B

Hughes , A. M., Duch \^e ne , G., & Matthews , B. C. 2018 a , , 56, 541

2018
[26]

M., Duch \^e ne , G., & Matthews , B

Hughes , A. M., Duch \^e ne , G., & Matthews , B. C. 2018 b , , 56, 541

2018
[27]

M., Duch \^e ne , G., & Matthews , B

Hughes , A. M., Duch \^e ne , G., & Matthews , B. C. 2018 c , , 56, 541

2018
[28]

2023, , 522, 6150

Imaz Blanco , A., Marino , S., Matr \`a , L., et al. 2023, , 522, 6150

2023
[29]

2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.16367

Jang , H., Waters , R., Kaeufer , T., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.16367

2024 arXiv
[30]

H., Mittal , T., et al

Jang-Condell , H., Chen , C. H., Mittal , T., et al. 2015, , 808, 167

2015
[31]

G., Rajan , A., Wang , J

Kalas , P. G., Rajan , A., Wang , J. J., et al. 2015, , 814, 32

2015
[32]

2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 617, A44

Keppler, M., benisty, M., Müller, A., et al. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 617, A44

2018
[33]

K., & Weber , I

Kimura , H., Mann , I., Jessberger , E. K., & Weber , I. 2003, Meteoritics and Planetary Science Supplement, 38, 5211

2003
[34]

& Wolf , S

Kirchschlager , F. & Wolf , S. 2013, in Protostars and Planets VI Posters

2013
[35]

M., Marino , S., & Wyatt , M

Kral , Q., Matr \`a , L., Kennedy , G. M., Marino , S., & Wyatt , M. C. 2020, , 497, 2811

2020
[36]

Krivov , A. V. & Wyatt , M. C. 2021, , 500, 718

2021
[37]

M., Langlois , M., Gratton , R., et al

Lagrange , A. M., Langlois , M., Gratton , R., et al. 2016, , 586, L8

2016
[38]

& Draine , B

Laor , A. & Draine , B. T. 1993, , 402, 441

1993
[39]

C., Thi , W

Lebreton , J., Augereau , J. C., Thi , W. F., et al. 2012, , 539, A17

2012
[40]

Lynch , E. M. & Lovell , J. B. 2022, , 510, 2538

2022
[41]

2024, submitted

M \^a lin , M., Boccaletti , A., Baudoz , P., et al. 2024, submitted

2024
[42]

S., Rumpl , W., & Nordsieck , K

Mathis , J. S., Rumpl , W., & Nordsieck , K. H. 1977, , 217, 425

1977
[43]

C., Krivov, A

Matthews, B. C., Krivov, A. V., Wyatt, M. C., Bryden, G., & Eiroa, C. 2014, Protostars and Planets VI, 521

2014
[44]

C., et al

Mazoyer , J., Boccaletti , A., Augereau , J. C., et al. 2014, , 569, A29

2014
[45]

H., Jang-Condell , H., et al

Mittal , T., Chen , C. H., Jang-Condell , H., et al. 2015, , 798, 87

2015
[46]

Moore , N. W. H., Li , G., Hassenzahl , L., et al. 2023, , 943, 6

2023
[47]

2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 617, L2

Müller, A., Keppler, M., Henning, T., et al. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 617, L2

2018
[48]

R., Naoz , S., & Fitzgerald , M

Nesvold , E. R., Naoz , S., & Fitzgerald , M. P. 2017, , 837, L6

2017
[49]

M., De Rosa , R

Nguyen , M. M., De Rosa , R. J., & Kalas , P. 2021, , 161, 22

2021
[50]

2020, , 640, A12

Olofsson , J., Milli , J., Bayo , A., Henning , T., & Engler , N. 2020, , 640, A12

2020
[51]

2016, , 591, A108

Olofsson , J., Samland , M., Avenhaus , H., et al. 2016, , 591, A108

2016
[52]

R., & Kuchner , M

Pan , M., Nesvold , E. R., & Kuchner , M. J. 2016, , 832, 81

2016
[53]

D., Krivov , A

Pearce , T. D., Krivov , A. V., Sefilian , A. A., et al. 2024, , 527, 3876

2024
[54]

J., Mamajek , E

Pecaut , M. J., Mamajek , E. E., & Bubar , E. J. 2012, , 746, 154

2012
[55]

2023, , 620, 516

Perotti , G., Christiaens , V., Henning , T., et al. 2023, , 620, 516

2023
[56]

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

Phillips, M. W., Tremblin, P., Baraffe, I., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 637, A38

2020
[57]

2017, , 602, A12

Rodet , L., Beust , H., Bonnefoy , M., et al. 2017, , 602, A12

2017
[58]

2000, , 112, 1479

Rouan , D., Riaud , P., Boccaletti , A., Cl \'e net , Y., & Labeyrie , A. 2000, , 112, 1479

2000
[59]

Smith , B. A. & Terrile , R. J. 1984, Science, 226, 1421

1984
[60]

Strubbe , L. E. & Chiang , E. I. 2006, , 648, 652

2006
[61]

& Augereau , J

Th \'e bault , P. & Augereau , J. C. 2007, , 472, 169

2007
[62]

& Kral, Q

Thebault, P. & Kral, Q. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 626, A24

2019
[63]

2004, , 427, 519

Vandenbussche , B., Dominik , C., Min , M., et al. 2004, , 427, 519

2004
[64]

S., Rieke , G

Wright , G. S., Rieke , G. H., Glasse , A., et al. 2023, , 135, 048003

2023
[65]

Wyatt , M. C. 2008, , 46, 339

2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

2021, , 651, A45

Absil , O., Marion , L., Ertel , S., et al. 2021, , 651, A45

work page 2021

[2] [2]

H., et al

Argyriou , I., Lage , C., Rieke , G. H., et al. 2023, , 680, A96

work page 2023

[3] [3]

Augereau, J. C. & Beust, H. 2006, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 455, 987

work page 2006

[4] [4]

C., Lagrange , A

Augereau , J. C., Lagrange , A. M., Mouillet , D., Papaloizou , J. C. B., & Grorod , P. A. 1999, , 348, 557

1999

[5] [5]

Aumann , H. H. 1984, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 16, 483

work page 1984

[6] [6]

2014, , 780, L4

Bailey , V., Meshkat , T., Reiter , M., et al. 2014, , 780, L4

work page 2014

[7] [7]

2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 630, A85

Bhowmik, T., Boccaletti, A., Thébault, P., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 630, A85

work page 2019

[8] [8]

2022, , 667, A165

Boccaletti , A., Cossou , C., Baudoz , P., et al. 2022, , 667, A165

work page 2022