Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 100 references

Resurgence of CO in a warm bubble around accreting protoplanets and its observability

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A luminous accreting protoplanet outside the CO snowline keeps a warm bubble of gas-phase CO around itself, and the bubble shows up as a 9-sigma residual in synthetic ALMA C18O channel maps.

desk verdict A solid simulation-based proof of concept for a new protoplanet detection channel, with the headline 9-sigma claim resting on an unpublished subtraction pipeline and a parametric luminosity. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03370 v2 pith:NSEAZK3Q submitted 2025-07-04 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

O. Chrenko , S. Casassus , R. O. Chametla This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords protoplanetarydisksCOfreeze-outaccretionluminosityprotoplanetdetectioncircumplanetarydiskplanet-diskinteractionsradiativetransferhydrodynamics
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

Cold outer disk regions freeze CO out of the gas phase, leaving a midplane void between the two dragonfly-wing surfaces seen in CO channel maps. This paper argues that a luminous, actively accreting protoplanet inside that void heats its surroundings enough to sustain a roughly Hill-sphere-sized bubble of gas-phase CO, locally boosting the CO abundance by five orders of magnitude. In synthetic ALMA observations of a Jupiter-mass planet at 120 au, the bubble appears as a faint optically thick spot between the dragonfly wings, and after the rotating disk emission is subtracted it stands out as a 9-sigma point-source residual. If real disks behave this way, CO channel maps would give a largely automatic way to find forming planets even when no dusty circumplanetary disk is visible in the millimeter continuum. The same model explains why such continuum detections are rare: the horseshoe flow steadily drains large dust grains from the planet's vicinity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the warm CO bubble, whose size is set by the balance between the planet's accretion luminosity $L = G M_p^2/(R_p t_{\rm acc})$ and radiative cooling through two-population dust opacities: small submicron grains set the irradiation surface, while large millimeter grains regulate cooling. The bubble becomes observable through a freeze-out scaling: wherever $T \le 21$ K the CO abundance is multiplied by $f_{\rm freeze} = 10^{-5}$, so the $T > 21$ K region stands out against the frozen midplane. The detection pipeline is the subtraction of an axially symmetric kinematic model of the disk from the data cube, followed by median filtering, which turns the bubble into a point-source residual between the dragonfly wings.

What would settle it

Look for the bubble in a real disk with an independently confirmed accreting giant planet near 100 au: a C18O(2-1) observation at about 70 mas resolution, 0.2 km/s channels, and a deep integration should show a point-source residual above roughly 6$\sigma$ at the planet's position after subtraction of the axisymmetric disk flow. A clean non-detection that cannot be blamed on viewing geometry or deblending would refute the claim that the accretion-heated bubble is observable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the nominal 3D radiation-hydrodynamic run, a Jupiter-mass planet at 120 au outside the CO snowline, with accretion luminosity $L_p = 2.8 \times 10^{-3}\,L_\odot$ (mass-doubling time 0.1 Myr and effective temperature about 4000 K), maintains a warm bubble in which the temperature stays above the 21 K freeze-out threshold out to slightly beyond the Hill radius. Because the model resets the CO abundance by a factor of $1/f_{\rm freeze} = 10^5$ wherever $T > 21$ K, the bubble contains far more gas-phase CO than the surrounding frozen interior. Monte Carlo radiative-transfer post-processing of the same grid predicts that in C18O(2-1) channel maps this bubble is a low-intensity optically thick spot sitting in the void between the dragonfly wings; its emission intensity is nearly independent of isotopolog because unity optical depth is reached at the bubble's cool outskirts. After degrading to a 70 mas beam, adding ALMA-style thermal noise, and subtracting an axially symmetric kinematic disk model, the peak point-source residual reaches 9$\sigma$ at +1.6 km/s (6$\sigma$ at +1.2 and +1.4 km/s), so the planet would be detectable without a continuum counterpart. The same model shows the horseshoe flow removes millimeter-sized grains from the circumplanetary region, so the thermal continuum there is essentially absent, explaining the rarity of ALMA circumplanetary-disk detections.

Load-bearing premise

The entire bubble rests on how much energy the planet actually releases while swallowing gas: the luminosity is put in by hand as a 0.1 Myr mass-doubling time, not computed self-consistently, and the paper's own sensitivity test shows that a five-times-weaker release shrinks the bubble to 45% of its nominal size.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the nominal model the bubble is detectable in C18O(2-1) at 9$\sigma$ peak after subtracting the axisymmetric disk flow, so CO channel maps can reveal an embedded giant planet even where the millimeter continuum and velocity kinks show nothing.
  • Because the bubble is optically thick, its brightness is almost independent of isotopolog; any CO isotopolog that is optically thin or weakly stratified across the gap, especially C18O, can serve as the tracer.
  • The model reproduces the observed scarcity of ALMA continuum detections of circumplanetary disks: horseshoe-flow depletion removes large dust within roughly 450 orbits, so the circumplanetary continuum fades with time.
  • Weaker accretion changes the picture: with a five-times-longer mass-doubling time the bubble shrinks to 45% of its nominal size, and a 20-Earth-mass planet with the same mass-doubling time yields a 30%-size bubble that is not detectable even in roughly 7-day integrations.
  • The bubble's size also depends on the dust opacity law; using uniform opacities recovers 73% of the nominal diameter for the same reduced luminosity, so the same observable can be produced by different combinations of luminosity and opacity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: a bubble-size measurement would not translate directly into an accretion rate, because the bubble diameter also depends on the dust opacity law; surveys that use bubble size to rank accretion rates would need independent opacity constraints.
  • Editorial inference: the model implies young embedded giants should be continuum-bright early in their gap-clearing phase and then fade as horseshoe flows drain dust, so multi-epoch millimeter monitoring could distinguish newly formed planets from older ones.
  • Editorial inference: the quoted 9-sigma detection assumes roughly two days of integration under ideal calibration; realistic long-baseline observations with phase noise will likely need the median-filtered residual technique and favorable geometry, with inclination near 45 degrees and the planet off the disk minor axis, to reproduce the signal.
  • Editorial inference: if accretion luminosities near the assumed value are common during giant-planet formation, the same procedure could turn existing deep CO surveys of disks beyond roughly 70 au into automated protoplanet searches that do not wait for continuum or H-alpha detections.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents 3D two-fluid radiation-hydrodynamic simulations (FARGO3D with a two-population dust model and frequency-averaged radiation transport) of a protoplanetary disk hosting a Jupiter-mass planet at 120 au, embedded in the CO freeze-out region beyond the snowline. The planet's accretion luminosity, parameterized by a mass-doubling time t_acc = 0.1 Myr (L_p = 2.8e-3 L_sun, T_p,e ~ 4000 K), maintains a warm bubble with T > 21 K extending slightly beyond the Hill sphere, so gas-phase CO survives locally despite the cold background. Post-processing with RADMC-3D and an instantaneous freeze-out prescription (ffreeze = 1e-5) yields synthetic C18O(2-1) channel maps in which the bubble appears as a low-intensity spot between the dragonfly wings of the line-forming surfaces. After adding thermal noise and subtracting an axially symmetric kinematic disk model computed with the unpublished disckin package, the point-source residual peaks at 9 sigma at +1.6 km/s. A companion result is that large dust grains are evacuated from the circumplanetary region by the horseshoe flow, making the planet nearly invisible in 1 mm continuum, consistent with the scarcity of ALMA circumplanetary detections. Appendix B reports sensitivity runs: a fivefold lower luminosity (S1) shrinks the bubble to 45% of the nominal diameter, an altered opacity law (S2) partly compensates, a planet at 85 au (S3) gives a similar bubble, and a 20 M_Earth planet (S4) produces a bubble that is not detectable.

Significance. Taken at face value, the paper offers a new, falsifiable observable channel for embedded accreting protoplanets outside the CO snowline: a thermally revived CO bubble that is visible even when the circumplanetary continuum is not. The mechanism is an emergent property of the forward RHD model rather than a fit to any target observation, so the circularity concern does not land; the audibility concern does, because the quantitative 9 sigma claim rests on a subtraction pipeline whose validation is deferred and on thermal-noise-only synthetic data. The paper deserves credit for its transparency: the parameter set is fully tabulated, the simulation codes are public, the noise calibration and median-filter steps are described in enough detail to reproduce, and the Appendix B sensitivity suite brackets the detectability in luminosity and planet mass. The continuum-depletion result (horseshoe-flow removal of large grains) is a clean mechanistic prediction that directly addresses a known observational tension.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, disckin subtraction and the 9 sigma claim] The abstract's quantitative headline ("the peak PS residual is at 9 sigma at +1.6 km/s") is produced by the disckin package, cited as "Casassus et al. in prep", whose underlying model "will be benchmarked against the input hydrodynamics in an upcoming article." The manuscript itself reports that at disk velocities the disckin model fits part of the bubble into the axisymmetric background, so the surviving residual is exactly the portion that the model cannot absorb. Since the subtraction depends on tunable choices (the free parameter Rfreeze, the 5-beam median kernel, and the 3 sigma pixel selection), the reported significance cannot be independently audited until either a full algorithmic description of disckin is supplied or a benchmark is shown, for example a null test on a planet-free control simulation or a comparison of the disckin model surfaces with the actual hydrodynamics. I request that this validation be added to the paper, or that the detection claim in the abstract be demoted to the raw channel-map identification of Fig. 5a, which does not depend on disckin.
  2. [§5 and Appendix B, parametric luminosity] The authors state in §5 that "the accretion luminosity, which is of critical importance for the formation of the bubble, is parametric and was not obtained in a self-consistent manner." The sensitivity runs quantify the stakes: with L_p reduced by a factor of about 5 (S1), the bubble shrinks to 45% of its nominal diameter, and a 20 M_Earth planet with the same t_acc (S4) gives a bubble of 30% nominal size that "cannot be localized as a significant point source residual" even in a ~7 d integration. Because the true accretion luminosities of embedded planets at ~100 au span a wide and poorly constrained range, the observability claim holds only for a subset of that range. The abstract's unconditional phrasing ("enabling new automatic detections of forming protoplanets") should therefore be qualified by the luminosity and planet-mass conditions established in Appendix B.
  3. [§4.2, synthetic observation setup and detection statistics] The 9 sigma significance refers to a peak pixel in residuals that are thermal-noise-limited by construction: the text states that "systematic errors due to sparse uv-plane sampling" are neglected and perfect calibration is assumed. Real ALMA data contain correlated nonthermal residuals, and the 5-beam median filter correlates the noise in the residual maps, so a peak-over-rms ratio is not a matched-filter detection significance. I ask the authors to report a PSF-weighted or matched-filter S/N for the bubble and to state the number of independent beams searched, so that a trials-corrected significance can be evaluated; this can be done with the existing residual cubes and does not require new hydrodynamics.
  4. [§B.3, simulation S4] The nondetection around a 20 M_Earth planet rests on a main-stage run of only 25 orbits (Table B.1), i.e., about 20 kyr at 85 au, during which large dust is artificially removed from the planet's vicinity to keep the dust-to-gas ratio below 90%. It is not demonstrated that the bubble structure has converged on this timescale or that the dust-removal procedure does not alter the local thermal balance. A longer integration or an explicit convergence check for the S4 bubble would make the conclusion that subthermal-mass planets are undetectable more robust.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.4] The freeze-out treatment (T <= 21 K, ffreeze = 1e-5) and the neglect of photodissociation and microturbulence are acknowledged, but a sentence assessing their effect on the bubble contrast specifically (as distinct from the dragonfly wings) would help; the claim that the bubble is optically thick suggests the intensity is set by temperature rather than by ffreeze, and this robustness could be stated explicitly.
  2. [§Abstract] The phrase "very rich observable chemistry" goes beyond what is modeled: the simulations cover only CO and its isotopologs with an identical LTE excitation treatment. Suggest rephrasing, for example, "the bubble is visible in multiple CO isotopologs."
  3. [§4.2 and Fig. 6] The caption's "Symmetric velocity channels" should be defined; presumably these are channels symmetric about the systemic velocity (v and -v), which is not stated.
  4. [§4.2] The description of the noise calibration (rms "amplified by a factor close to sqrt(N), where N is the number of pixels in the solid angle covered by the Gaussian beam") is hard to follow; please state directly what noise level applies to the beam-smoothed cubes, and the assumed integration time and array configuration.
  5. [§3.1 and Fig. 4] The convergence information is given only for Sigma_g (change of 5% per 100 orbits); a corresponding check on the size of the T = 21 K bubble (for example, its azimuthally averaged extent during the last few hundred orbits) would strengthen the nominal case.
  6. [§2.3.3] The minimum dust density of 10^{-180} g cm^{-3} mentioned in the discussion of the high-altitude damping zones is a striking numerical value; please state the actual floor value imposed in the code and confirm that the midplane dust evolution is unaffected by it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the CO bubble emerges from forward radiation-hydrodynamics; the main caveats are a parametric accretion luminosity and an unvalidated, self-cited disckin subtraction pipeline, which affect robustness but do not reduce the prediction to its inputs.

full rationale

The central prediction, a warm CO bubble around a luminous planet outside the snowline, is an emergent output of a 3D two-fluid radiation-hydrodynamics simulation, not a quantity fitted to target observations. The CO abundance enhancement is prescribed as a physical freeze-out law (ffreeze = 1e-5 for T <= 21 K, Sect. 2.4), and the bubble's existence follows from the computed temperature field exceeding 21 K; while this abundance law is an input, the temperature structure, bubble size, and emission morphology are simulation outputs, and Appendix B explicitly varies the luminosity and opacity to show sensitivity. The accretion luminosity is stated as a parametric input (Eq. 16, t_acc = 0.1 Myr), and the paper itself flags it as 'not obtained in a self-consistent manner' (Sect. 5), which is parameter sensitivity rather than circularity. The headline 'peak PS residual ... at 9 sigma' (Sect. 4.2) is produced after subtracting an axisymmetric model from the synthetic cubes with the package disckin (Casassus et al. in prep), and the paper states the model 'will be benchmarked against the input hydrodynamics in an upcoming article'; this is a self-citation to unpublished, unvalidated software that limits independent auditability of the automatic-detection claim, but it does not make the bubble signal equivalent to the subtraction input, since the bubble is already visually conspicuous in the unsubtracted synthetic channel maps (Fig. 5a) and the paper explicitly notes disckin can partly absorb the bubble, so the surviving residual is not a fit renamed as a prediction. No step in the derivation chain reduces an equation to itself or a fitted parameter to a predicted observable; the limitations are robustness and validation concerns, not circularity. Score 2 reflects the mild self-citation and validation burden rather than a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central observable rests on several externally supplied parameters and approximations, with the most sensitive being the accretion luminosity, which is explicitly parametric. The CO chemistry is represented by an instantaneous freeze-out threshold rather than a chemical network. These choices are disclosed, but they set the scale of the predicted signal and therefore the strength of the detectability claim.

free parameters (5)
  • Planet mass-doubling time t_acc = 0.1 Myr (Lp = 2.8e-3 Lsun, Tp,e about 4000 K)
    Sets the accretion luminosity, the energy source that maintains the CO bubble. The authors state it is parametric and not self-consistent (Section 5); Appendix B shows that lowering it to 0.5 Myr shrinks the bubble to 45% of nominal extent.
  • Initial large-grain mass fraction X0 = 0.9
    Eq. (1); chosen as a moderate value to avoid overly extended frozen-out zones or optically thin gaps. It controls the dust opacities and hence the disk thermal structure.
  • Kinematic viscosity parameter alpha = 5e-4
    Eq. (8); sets the viscosity and dust diffusion strength, affecting gap depth, dust scale height, and the dust ring that forms part of the observability background.
  • Initial dust-to-gas ratio Z0 = 0.01
    Adopted initial dust-to-gas ratio used in Eq. (2) to set small-grain densities and opacities.
  • Rfreeze in the disckin model = not quoted (free parameter)
    Section 4.2 states that Rfreeze is a free parameter of the axially symmetric background model. The least-squares fit of the disk model to the synthetic cube affects what remains in the residuals, including the claimed 9-sigma point source.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Ideal gas equation of state with gamma = 1.43 and gas-dust thermal equilibrium
    Eq. (7), Section 2.1; standard but an approximation for the two-fluid model.
  • domain assumption Small dust grains are perfectly coupled to the gas and trace the gas distribution (Eq. 2)
    Removes explicit evolution of the 0.1 micron population; this assumption shapes the opacity and cooling structure.
  • ad hoc to paper CO chemistry is reduced to instantaneous freeze-out and sublimation with T <= 21 K and abundance scaling by ffreeze = 1e-5, with no photodissociation or microturbulence
    Section 2.4 and Section 5 caveats; the bubble contrast is directly proportional to this assumed abundance reduction.
  • ad hoc to paper Accretion luminosity is parameterized as L = G Mp^2 / (Rp tacc) with tacc = 0.1 Myr and is not obtained self-consistently
    Section 2.1 and Section 5; the entire bubble's existence and size depend on this assumed luminosity.
  • domain assumption Dust opacities come from two fixed grain sizes (0.1 micron and 1 mm) with DSHARP composition and 50% porosity, mixed via Eq. (24)
    Section 2.2; no coagulation or fragmentation, and gas opacities are neglected.
  • domain assumption Large grains are treated as a pressureless fluid with Stokes number capped at 0.5
    Section 2.1, Eq. (12); keeps the fluid approximation and Schmidt number near unity, but may suppress some dust-trapping behavior.
  • domain assumption The disckin axisymmetric line-forming surfaces in LTE with meridional flows and free parameter Rfreeze reproduce the disk background
    Section 4.2; the claimed residual detection depends on this background model, which is unpublished and described as 'in prep'.
  • domain assumption The planet orbit is fixed and circular, with boundary damping near the disk surfaces and dust reintroduced at the outer edge
    Section 2.3; affects long-term dust availability and gap profile. The authors argue the damping effect is negligible.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Resurgence of CO in a warm bubble around accreting protoplanets and its observability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NSEAZK3Q

@misc{pith2026250703370,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Resurgence of CO in a warm bubble around accreting protoplanets and its observability},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NSEAZK3Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03370}
}
abstract

The cold outer regions of protoplanetary disks are expected to contain a midplane-centered layer where gas-phase CO molecules freeze out and their overall abundance is low. The layer then manifests itself as a void in the channel maps of CO rotational emission lines. We explore whether the frozen-out layer can expose the circumplanetary environment of embedded accreting protoplanets to observations. To this end, we performed 3D radiative gas-dust hydrodynamic simulations with opacities determined by the redistribution of submicron- and millimeter-sized dust grains. A Jupiter-mass planet with an accretion luminosity of $\sim$$10^{-3}\,L_{\odot}$ was considered as the nominal case. The accretion heating sustains a warm bubble around the planet, which locally increases the abundance of gas-phase CO molecules. Radiative transfer predictions of the emergent sky images show that the bubble becomes a conspicuous CO emission source in channel maps. It appears as a low-intensity optically thick spot located in between the so-called dragonfly wings that trace the fore- and backside line-forming surfaces. The emission intensity of the bubble is nearly independent of the tracing isotopolog, suggesting a very rich observable chemistry, as long as its signal can be deblended from the extended disk emission. This can be achieved with isotopologs that are optically thin or weakly thermally stratified across the planet-induced gap, such as C$^{18}$O. For these, the bubble stands out as the brightest residual in synthetic ALMA observations after subtraction of axially averaged channel maps inferred from the disk kinematics, enabling new automatic detections of forming protoplanets. By contrast, the horseshoe flow steadily depletes large dust grains from the circumplanetary environment, which becomes unobservable in the submillimeter continuum, in accordance with the scarcity of ALMA detections.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.03370 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Absorption opacities as a function of the wavelength (top) and mean opacities as a function of the temperature (bottom) for popula￾tions of small (red; a small d = 0.1 µm) and large (blue; a large d = 1 mm) dust grains. In the bottom panel, the Planck and Rosseland opacities are shown as solid and dashed curves, respectively. where λlim is the flux limiter (Levermore & Pomraning 1981; Kley 1989), and κR is the Rosse… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Surface density distribution of gas (top) and large dust grains (bottom) at the end of our nominal simulation. The width of the inset in the top panel is 30 au. namic equilibrium using the molecular data from the LAMDA8 database (Schöier et al. 2005). We ignored the effects of micro￾turbulence (which might affect the line profiles) and photodisso￾ciation (which might affect the molecular abundances in the up￾per dis… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Meridional profile of the disk temperature (left) and the volume density of small (right, bottom half) and large dust grains (right, upper half). The displayed plane coincides with the location of the planet. The temperature map also shows the isosurfaces at which T = …
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: In addition to showing the structure of the gas gap and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Synthetic Radmc-3D images based on our nominal simulation. The disk inclination is 45◦ , and the angular position of the planet is 45◦ clockwise from the disk major axis. (a) Example channel map of C18O. The inset shows the CO bubble in detail. (b) As in the first pane…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Analysis of synthetic ALMA data cubes. Top row: Filtered sky images in C18O(2-1) for selected channels. Second row: Axially symmetric model data cube obtained with disckin. Third row: Residuals. Fourth row: Point-source residuals after median filtering (see text), with…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: As panel (a) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Synthetic ALMA observation of the 220 GHz continuum in our nominal simulation with thermal noise, but without uv-plane filtering. The inset is centered on the circumplanetary environment, which is barely recognizable (at 8σ, but confused with structures along the plan￾…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: Logarithm of the midplane density of large dust ρ large d in the vicinity of the planet at t = 375 orbits. The dust streamlines (red arrows) and the Hill sphere of the planet (dotted gray circle) are overlaid. Dust leakage is apparent along the downstream horsesh…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Logarithm of the vertical dust-to-gas ratio ρ large d /ρg in the vicin￾ity of the planet at t = 375 orbits (same t as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Andrews , S. M. 2020, , 58, 483

    2020

  2. [2]

    Ayliffe , B. A. & Bate , M. R. 2009, , 397, 657

    2009

  3. [3]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bae , J., Isella , A., Zhu , Z., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 423

    2023

  4. [4]

    M., et al

    Bae , J., Teague , R., Andrews , S. M., et al. 2022, , 934, L20

    2022

  5. [5]

    2024, , 683, A16

    Barraza-Alfaro , M., Flock , M., & Henning , T. 2024, , 683, A16

    2024

  6. [6]

    2021, , 916, L2

    Benisty , M., Bae , J., Facchini , S., et al. 2021, , 916, L2

    2021

  7. [7]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Benisty , M., Dominik , C., Follette , K., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 605

    2023

  8. [8]

    Ben \' tez-Llambay , P., Krapp , L., & Pessah , M. E. 2019, , 241, 25

    2019

Show all 100 references
  1. [9]

    2015, , 520, 63

    Ben \' tez-Llambay , P., Masset , F., Koenigsberger , G., & Szul \'a gyi , J. 2015, , 520, 63

    2015

  2. [10]

    & Masset , F

    Ben \' tez-Llambay , P. & Masset , F. S. 2016, , 223, 11

    2016

  3. [11]

    P., Zhu , Z., et al

    Birnstiel , T., Dullemond , C. P., Zhu , Z., et al. 2018, , 869, L45

    2018

  4. [12]

    2013, , 549, A124

    Bitsch , B., Crida , A., Morbidelli , A., Kley , W., & Dobbs-Dixon , I. 2013, , 549, A124

    2013

  5. [13]

    2018, , 612, A30

    Bitsch , B., Morbidelli , A., Johansen , A., et al. 2018, , 612, A30

    2018

  6. [14]

    & C \'a rcamo , M

    Casassus , S. & C \'a rcamo , M. 2022, , 513, 5790

    2022

  7. [15]

    2021, , 507, 3789

    Casassus , S., Christiaens , V., C \'a rcamo , M., et al. 2021, , 507, 3789

    2021

  8. [16]

    & P \'e rez , S

    Casassus , S. & P \'e rez , S. 2019, , 883, L41

    2019

  9. [17]

    & Dong , R

    Chen , K. & Dong , R. 2024, , 976, 49

    2024

  10. [18]

    Chiang , E. I. & Goldreich , P. 1997, , 490, 368

    1997

  11. [19]

    & Chametla , R

    Chrenko , O. & Chametla , R. O. 2023, , 524, 2705

    2023

  12. [20]

    O., Masset , F

    Chrenko , O., Chametla , R. O., Masset , F. S., Baruteau , C., & Bro z , M. 2024 a , , 690, A41

    2024

  13. [21]

    2024 b , , 167, 124

    Chrenko , O., Flock , M., Ueda , T., et al. 2024 b , , 167, 124

    2024

  14. [22]

    & Lambrechts , M

    Chrenko , O. & Lambrechts , M. 2019, , 626, A109

    2019

  15. [23]

    & Nesvorn \'y , D

    Chrenko , O. & Nesvorn \'y , D. 2020, , 642, A219

    2020

  16. [24]

    2024, , 685, L1

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

    2024

  17. [25]

    I., Bergin , E

    Cleeves , L. I., Bergin , E. A., & Harries , T. J. 2015, , 807, 2

    2015

  18. [26]

    2011, , 529, A35

    Commer c on , B., Teyssier , R., Audit , E., Hennebelle , P., & Chabrier , G. 2011, , 529, A35

    2011

  19. [27]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 751

    Currie , T., Lawson , K., Schneider , G., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 751

    2022

  20. [28]

    N., Dobrovolskis , A

    Cuzzi , J. N., Dobrovolskis , A. R., & Champney , J. M. 1993, , 106, 102

    1993

  21. [29]

    G., Artymowicz , P., et al

    de Val-Borro , M., Edgar , R. G., Artymowicz , P., et al. 2006, , 370, 529

    2006

  22. [30]

    J., & Lodato , G

    Dipierro , G., Laibe , G., Price , D. J., & Lodato , G. 2016, , 459, L1

    2016

  23. [31]

    2021, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:2104.010

    Dominik , C., Min , M., & Tazaki , R. 2021, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:2104.010

    2021

  24. [32]

    1995, , 114, 237

    Dubrulle , B., Morfill , G., & Sterzik , M. 1995, , 114, 237

    1995

  25. [33]

    P., Birnstiel , T., Huang , J., et al

    Dullemond , C. P., Birnstiel , T., Huang , J., et al. 2018, , 869, L46

    2018

  26. [34]

    P., Isella , A., Andrews , S

    Dullemond , C. P., Isella , A., Andrews , S. M., Skobleva , I., & Dzyurkevich , N. 2020, , 633, A137

    2020

  27. [35]

    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

    2012

  28. [36]

    2023, , 672, A125

    Fedele , D., Bollati , F., & Lodato , G. 2023, , 672, A125

    2023

  29. [37]

    2013, , 560, A43

    Flock , M., Fromang , S., Gonz \'a lez , M., & Commer c on , B. 2013, , 560, A43

    2013

  30. [38]

    J., & Benisty , M

    Flock , M., Fromang , S., Turner , N. J., & Benisty , M. 2016, , 827, 144

    2016

  31. [39]

    & Rafikov , R

    Goodman , J. & Rafikov , R. R. 2001, , 552, 793

    2001

  32. [40]

    Y., Bohn , A

    Haffert , S. Y., Bohn , A. J., de Boer , J., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 749

    2019

  33. [41]

    J., et al

    Hammond , I., Christiaens , V., Price , D. J., et al. 2023, , 522, L51

    2023

  34. [42]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    2020

  35. [43]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  36. [44]

    2019, , 879, L25

    Isella , A., Benisty , M., Teague , R., et al. 2019, , 879, L25

    2019

  37. [45]

    & Ormel , C

    Jiang , H. & Ormel , C. W. 2023, , 518, 3877

    2023

  38. [46]

    W., Krijt , S., & Dong , R

    Jiang , H., Wang , Y., Ormel , C. W., Krijt , S., & Dong , R. 2023, , 678, A33

    2023

  39. [47]

    2018, , 617, A44

    Keppler , M., Benisty , M., M \"u ller , A., et al. 2018, , 617, A44

    2018

  40. [48]

    & Kley , W

    Klahr , H. & Kley , W. 2006, , 445, 747

    2006

  41. [49]

    1989, , 208, 98

    Kley , W. 1989, , 208, 98

    1989

  42. [50]

    M., Stute , M., Kley , W., & Mignone , A

    Kolb , S. M., Stute , M., Kley , W., & Mignone , A. 2013, , 559, A80

    2013

  43. [51]

    M., Youdin , A

    Krapp , L., Kratter , K. M., Youdin , A. N., et al. 2024, , 973, 153

    2024

  44. [52]

    Lau , T. C. H., Dr a \.z kowska , J., Stammler , S. M., Birnstiel , T., & Dullemond , C. P. 2022, , 668, A170

    2022

  45. [53]

    J., Crystian , S., Teague , R., et al

    Law , C. J., Crystian , S., Teague , R., et al. 2022, , 932, 114

    2022

  46. [54]

    Levermore , C. D. & Pomraning , G. C. 1981, , 248, 321

    1981

  47. [55]

    2019, , 486, 453

    Lodato , G., Dipierro , G., Ragusa , E., et al. 2019, , 486, 453

    2019

  48. [56]

    Melon Fuksman , J. D. & Klahr , H. 2022, , 936, 16

    2022

  49. [57]

    & Weibel Mihalas , B

    Mihalas , D. & Weibel Mihalas , B. 1984, Foundations of radiation hydrodynamics (Oxford University Press, New York)

    1984

  50. [58]

    2015, , 806, 253

    Montesinos , M., Cuadra , J., Perez , S., Baruteau , C., & Casassus , S. 2015, , 806, 253

    2015

  51. [59]

    Morfill , G. E. & Voelk , H. J. 1984, , 287, 371

    1984

  52. [60]

    D., & Klahr , H

    Muley , D., Melon Fuksman , J. D., & Klahr , H. 2024, , 687, A213

    2024

  53. [61]

    1986, , 67, 375

    Nakagawa , Y., Sekiya , M., & Hayashi , C. 1986, , 67, 375

    1986

  54. [62]

    I., Murray-Clay , R., & Bergin , E

    \"O berg , K. I., Murray-Clay , R., & Bergin , E. A. 2011, , 743, L16

    2011

  55. [63]

    & Mellema , G

    Paardekooper , S.-J. & Mellema , G. 2006, , 459, L17

    2006

  56. [64]

    M., Benisty , M., Andrews , S

    P \'e rez , L. M., Benisty , M., Andrews , S. M., et al. 2018, , 869, L50

    2018

  57. [65]

    2020, , 889, L24

    P \'e rez , S., Casassus , S., Hales , A., et al. 2020, , 889, L24

    2020

  58. [66]

    2015, , 811, L5

    Perez , S., Dunhill , A., Casassus , S., et al. 2015, , 811, L5

    2015

  59. [67]

    J., Booth , R

    Petrovic , H. J., Booth , R. A., & Clarke , C. J. 2024, , 534, 2412

    2024

  60. [68]

    2012, , 538, A114

    Pinilla , P., Birnstiel , T., Ricci , L., et al. 2012, , 538, A114

    2012

  61. [69]

    & Youdin , A

    Pinilla , P. & Youdin , A. 2017, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 445, Formation, Evolution, and Dynamics of Young Solar Systems, ed. M. Pessah & O. Gressel , 91

    2017

  62. [70]

    J., et al

    Pinte , C., Hammond , I., Price , D. J., et al. 2023, , 526, L41

    2023

  63. [71]

    2018 a , , 609, A47

    Pinte , C., M \'e nard , F., Duch \^e ne , G., et al. 2018 a , , 609, A47

    2018

  64. [72]

    J., M \'e nard , F., et al

    Pinte , C., Price , D. J., M \'e nard , F., et al. 2018 b , , 860, L13

    2018

  65. [73]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 1109

    Pinte , C., van der Plas , G., M \'e nard , F., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 1109

    2019

  66. [74]

    I., Wilner , D

    Qi , C., \"O berg , K. I., Wilner , D. J., et al. 2013, Science, 341, 630

    2013

  67. [75]

    & Wilner , D

    Qi , C. & Wilner , D. J. 2024, , 977, 60

    2024

  68. [76]

    A., et al

    Remijan , A., Biggs , A., Cortes , P. A., et al. 2019, ALMA Technical Handbook,ALMA Doc. 7.3, ver. 1.1 , 2019, ALMA Technical Handbook,ALMA Doc. 7.3, ver. 1.1ISBN 978-3-923524-66-2

    2019

  69. [77]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.14896

    Sagynbayeva , S., Li , R., Kuznetsova , A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.14896

    2024 arXiv

  70. [78]

    L., van der Tak , F

    Sch \"o ier , F. L., van der Tak , F. F. S., van Dishoeck , E. F., & Black , J. H. 2005, , 432, 369

    2005

  71. [79]

    R., Bergin , E

    Schwarz , K. R., Bergin , E. A., Cleeves , L. I., et al. 2016, , 823, 91

    2016

  72. [80]

    Shakura , N. I. & Sunyaev , R. A. 1973, , 500, 33

    1973

  73. [81]

    Stone , J. M. & Norman , M. L. 1992, , 80, 753

    1992

  74. [82]

    2017, , 842, 103

    Szul \'a gyi , J. 2017, , 842, 103

    2017

  75. [83]

    2016, , 460, 2853

    Szul \'a gyi , J., Masset , F., Lega , E., et al. 2016, , 460, 2853

    2016

  76. [84]

    Szul \'a gyi , J., Plas , G. v. d., Meyer , M. R., et al. 2018, , 473, 3573

    2018

  77. [85]

    A., Birnstiel , T., & Foreman-Mackey , D

    Teague , R., Bae , J., Bergin , E. A., Birnstiel , T., & Foreman-Mackey , D. 2018, , 860, L12

    2018

  78. [86]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1148

    Ueda , T., Tazaki , R., Okuzumi , S., Flock , M., & Sudarshan , P. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1148

    2024

  79. [87]

    B., Close , L

    Wagner , K., Follete , K. B., Close , L. M., et al. 2018, , 863, L8

    2018

  80. [88]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1208

    Wagner , K., Stone , J., Skemer , A., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1208

    2023

  81. [89]

    2019, , 884, 178

    Weber , P., P \'e rez , S., Ben \' tez-Llambay , P., et al. 2019, , 884, 178

    2019

  82. [90]

    Wilson , T. L. & Rood , R. 1994, , 32, 191

    1994

  83. [91]

    & D'Angelo , G

    Wolf , S. & D'Angelo , G. 2005, , 619, 1114

    2005

  84. [92]

    2018, , 869, L47

    Zhang , S., Zhu , Z., Huang , J., et al. 2018, , 869, L47

    2018

  85. [93]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 953, 96

    Zhang, S., Zhu, Z., Ueda, T., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 953, 96

    2023

  86. [94]

    P., Sanghi , A., et al

    Zhou , Y., Bowler , B. P., Sanghi , A., et al. 2025, , 980, L39

    2025

  87. [95]

    P., Wagner , K

    Zhou , Y., Bowler , B. P., Wagner , K. R., et al. 2021, , 161, 244

    2021

  88. [96]

    M., & Isella , A

    Zhu , Z., Andrews , S. M., & Isella , A. 2018, , 479, 1850

    2018

  89. [97]

    P., Dong , R., Espaillat , C., & Hartmann , L

    Zhu , Z., Nelson , R. P., Dong , R., Espaillat , C., & Hartmann , L. 2012, , 755, 6

    2012

  90. [98]

    P., et al

    Ziampras , A., Sudarshan , P., Dullemond , C. P., et al. 2025, , 536, 3322

    2025

  91. [99]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sent...

  92. [100]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

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