Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 64 references

New Spatially Resolved Imaging of the SR 21 Transition Disk and Constraints on the Small-Grain Disk Geometry

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Multi-epoch near-infrared interferometric imaging of the SR 21 transition disk shows that its inner small-grain dust disk is truncated at roughly 4–7 AU, exhibits a warp or spiral, and contains grains grown to about 2–5 µm.

desk verdict New NRM data genuinely break the old degeneracy on SR 21's inner small-grain disk and the warp evidence is credible, but the few-AU truncation rests on a single dust mixture and should be framed as model-dependent. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07427 v2 pith:QY77KV6Q submitted 2019-08-20 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IM

Steph Sallum , Andy Skemer , Josh Eisner , Nienke van der Marel , Patrick Sheehan , Laird Close , Mike Ireland , Jared Males
show 4 more authors
Katie Morzinski Vanessa Bailey Runa Briguglio Alfio Puglisi
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EPastro-ph.IM
keywords transitiondisksprotoplanetarynon-redundantmaskinginfraredinterferometryradiativetransfermodelinggraingrowthdiskwarpSR21
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

The paper claims that the inner small-grain dust disk of the transition disk SR 21 does not extend to the dust sublimation radius but is truncated at roughly 4–7 AU, and that this inner disk is warped or spiral rather than a simple aligned rim. The claim rests on new multi-epoch Ks- and L'-band interferometric images, which resolve the emission into a compact stellar component plus extended asymmetric disk light, together with radiative transfer models and the system's spectral energy distribution. If right, the dust inside SR 21's millimeter cavity has undergone grain growth to about 2–5 µm, and the combination of a truncated, warped inner disk and grown grains points to dynamical shaping by a giant planet orbiting within a few AU. A sympathetic reader would care because SR 21 is a test case for how young planets carve transition disks.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a parametric radiative transfer model of a two-component flared disk, in which a large-grain outer disk with inner radius 36 AU is joined by a puffy small-grain disk whose density follows $\rho(r,z) = \rho_0 (r/r_0)^{-\alpha} \exp\left(-z^2/2h(r)^2\right)$ with $h(r) = h_0 (r/r_0)^\beta$, and whose inner radius, scale height, flaring index, and minimum grain size are fit against the imaging and SED. In the warped variant, the inner small-grain disk's inclination and position angle change linearly with stellocentric radius from inner values ($i_0$, PA$_0$) to the millimeter-disk orientation ($i = 15°$, PA = 194°) by 7 AU, matching the CO truncation radius. The observables that discriminate among models are the squared visibilities, which penalize too much unresolved hot dust and therefore rule out an inner disk at the sublimation radius, and the kernel phases, which encode the asymmetric scattered-light pattern that requires the warp or spiral. A weighted goodness-of-fit metric combining kernel-phase, visibility, and SED $\chi^2$ values selects the best model, and Bayesian image reconstruction confirms the northeast arc and fainter southwest component seen in the warped model.

What would settle it

Imaging of SR 21 at ~5 mas resolution at L' that places the brightest inner-disk emission inside ~4 AU, or a 10 µm spectrum whose silicate feature requires abundant sub-micron grains, would contradict the claimed few-AU truncation and 2–5 µm grain sizes; likewise, a clear measurement of Keplerian orbital motion of a point-like companion in the outer disk plane would refute the static-warp interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the near-infrared emission from SR 21 is inconsistent both with a single orbiting companion and with an axisymmetric small-grain disk that reaches the sublimation radius. The squared visibilities drop with baseline in a way that demands resolved, roughly centro-symmetric structure, while the kernel phases demand an asymmetry whose position angle is not that of the millimeter disk and shifts between Ks and L'. A parametric radiative transfer model with a puffy, flared small-grain disk whose inner regions are truncated at a few AU and whose orientation twists linearly until it matches the millimeter disk at 7 AU reproduces the visibilities, the kernel phases, and the spectral energy distribution. The same fit requires minimum grain sizes of about 2–5 µm and a large flaring index, so the paper concludes that the small-grain disk is a truncated, warped, puffed-up structure with grown grains, most plausibly shaped by a giant-planet-mass companion.

Load-bearing premise

The derived truncation radius of a few AU and the 2–5 µm minimum grain size rest on assumed dust composition (65% silicates, 35% graphite), a fixed grain-size distribution index $p = 3.5$, and a parametric flared, warped density structure; if the true opacities or inner rim geometry differ, models with small grains reaching the sublimation radius could also fit the images.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The inner small-grain disk of SR 21 must be truncated at a few AU, so models that place the inner rim at the dust sublimation radius are excluded by these data.
  • The small-grain disk is not an aligned rim: its orientation changes with radius, so any successful model of SR 21 must include a warp or spiral structure in the inner few AU.
  • Minimum grain sizes of 2–5 µm inside the millimeter clearing imply that dust has grown in the clearing, consistent with pressure maxima produced by an embedded companion.
  • The data do not rule out the previously proposed ~700 K companion; disk-plus-companion models with L' and Ks contrasts of about 3.5 and 6.0 magnitudes fit the observations as well as or better than the disk alone.
  • Multi-epoch kernel phases from four epochs are inconsistent with a companion orbiting in the outer disk plane, so the asymmetric signal is more likely static scattered light than an orbiting point source.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the few-AU truncation holds up, the ratio of the small-grain truncation (~4–7 AU) to the CO truncation (~7 AU) becomes a quantitative probe of the planet mass and gap-opening physics, a comparison the paper discusses only qualitatively.
  • The warp-versus-spiral ambiguity could be settled by polarimetric imaging at H band with sub-10 AU resolution: a coherent warp would produce a brightness peak that rotates smoothly with radius, while a spiral would show a fixed azimuthal phase offset that winds inward.
  • The inferred 2–5 µm minimum grain size is tied to the assumed 65/35 silicate-graphite mixture and the $p = 3.5$ size distribution; spatially resolved spectroscopy of the 10 µm silicate feature inside the clearing would directly test whether sub-micron grains are truly absent.
  • The same multi-epoch kernel-phase strategy used here—rejecting a companion orbit in favor of static disk structure—could be applied to other transition disks with claimed point-source detections, since spurious companion signals from disk scattered light are a known hazard.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper presents new multi-epoch near-infrared interferometric imaging of the transition disk SR 21, using MagAO/Clio2 NRM at L', Keck/NIRC2 NRM at Ks and L', and MagAO/VisAO H-alpha imaging. After calibrating closure/kernel phases and squared visibilities, the authors fit single-companion models, geometric Gaussian disk models, and radiative transfer disk models (RADMC-3D) to the imaging together with a literature SED. They find that single-companion models cannot reproduce the squared visibilities or the multi-epoch position angles, and that aligned small-grain disk models fail to match the kernel phases. A parametric warped small-grain disk model reproduces the data better. The authors conclude that the small-grain disk is truncated at a few AU (4-7 AU), has a large scale height/flaring, and contains grains with minimum sizes of 2-5 microns, and they discuss a giant-planet companion as a possible dynamical origin.

Significance. The data themselves are new and valuable: the Ks/L' NRM observations resolve the inner few AU of a transition disk, a region that previous scattered-light imaging could not distinguish. The paper is carefully executed in several respects: the companion-model false-positive calculations are Monte-Carlo based; the calibrators are vetted; the final radiative transfer models are checked against the H-band radial profile from Follette et al. (2013); and the SQUEEZE reconstructions are compared to simulated observations of the disk models. If the main claims hold, the paper provides one of the first direct NIR constraints on the inner small-grain disk truncation radius in this system, with implications for companion-driven clearing.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3.1, Table 5; §4.3.2] The stated central constraint that the small-grain disk is truncated at a few AU rests on a single adopted dust composition (65% silicates, 35% graphite; Weingartner & Draine 2001) and a fixed grain size index p = 3.5. The only exploration at ri,s = 0.07 AU, described at the end of §4.3.2, uses this same opacity model. Because the near-IR opacity per unit mass of small grains depends strongly on composition and the grain size distribution, a carbon-rich mixture or a different p could reduce the unresolved flux at the sublimation radius enough to bring the 0.07 AU models into agreement with the squared visibilities. I would like to see either a small grid of alternate compositions and p values at ri,s = 0.07 AU, or a quantitative statement (e.g., the factor by which the near-IR opacity would have to change) to justify replacing 'preferred under the adopted opacity model' with 'require' in the abstract.
  2. [§5.2, Figures 8 and 9] The paper acknowledges that the best-fitting disk models cannot reproduce SR 21's near-infrared excess while simultaneously matching the imaging and without over-predicting the 10 micron silicate feature. This residual SED mismatch weakens the abstract's claim that the images are reconciled with the spectral energy distribution, and it directly affects the inferred minimum grain size of 2-5 microns because that inference comes from the joint imaging+SED fit. The revision should state the best-fit (weighted and unweighted) chi-square values for the models in Figures 8 and 9 and show how amin,s changes when the near-IR excess is excluded from or reweighted in the fit.
  3. [§4.3, Eq. (4)] The combined goodness-of-fit X^2 in Eq. (4) uses relative weights wKP, wV2, and wSED that the text itself describes as arbitrary. While the paper explores a wide range of weights, it does not report the normalized chi-square components for the specific best-fit aligned and warped models, nor for the 0.07 AU models that are the basis for the truncation claim. As written, the reader cannot judge whether the warp or the truncation is preferred at a statistically meaningful level or by a marginal improvement. Please add a table with chi2_KP, chi2_V2, chi2_SED, and X^2 for the models shown in Figures 8 and 9 and for the 0.07 AU variants, and state the criterion used to pick the final weights.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§5.1, Table 6] The grid allows h0,rin values as large as 5 AU, while the text quotes typical scale heights of 0.05-0.2 AU at 1 AU; the relation between the two quantities should be stated explicitly to avoid an apparent inconsistency.
  2. [§3.2, Figure 2] The Gaussian error model is a poor description of the most affected datasets (e.g., the squared visibilities of 2018-06-28 and the closure phases of 2013-04-05). Since these fitted Gaussians set the error bars used in all subsequent fits, the paper should briefly state whether the main conclusions persist when the worst nights are down-weighted by an additional factor or removed.
  3. [§4.4] The reconstructed images depend more strongly on the choice of model components (delta function plus symmetric disk) than on the regularizer, and the paper does not show the L-curves used to choose the hyperparameters; adding them, or at least a statement of the systematic uncertainty in f*, d, and fd, would make the comparison with the radiative transfer models easier to evaluate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the disk geometry and grain-size constraints come from fitting new interferometric data plus an external SED; no prediction reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are that SR 21's small-grain disk is truncated at a few AU, has warp- or spiral-like structure, and contains grains grown to roughly 2-5 microns. These claims are supported by comparing new multi-epoch Keck/NIRC2 and Magellan/MagAO kernel phases and squared visibilities, plus a literature SED, against a grid of RADMC-3D radiative transfer models. The parameters such as inner radius, scale height, flaring index, and minimum grain size are model inputs that are varied and then selected by goodness of fit; they are not derived from one another, and the best-fit values are not claimed to be first-principles predictions. The key rejection of the 0.07 AU sublimation-radius models is empirical: 'The disk models with inner radii at the sublimation radius over-predict the squared visibilities; the hot dust close to the star creates too much unresolved flux.' This is a comparison between model predictions and independent measured visibilities, not an identity between input and output. The paper explicitly acknowledges that the X^2 weighting in Eq. (4) is an 'arbitrary choice' and that the near-infrared excess is not fully reproduced, which further shows that the modeling is a fitting exercise with admitted limitations rather than a circular derivation. Self-citations appear (Sallum & Eisner 2017 for the reduction pipeline; Sheehan & Eisner 2017 for the X^2 weighting scheme), but neither is load-bearing for the geometric conclusions, and neither is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as a substitute for fitting the new data. The dependence of the inferred truncation radius on the assumed dust composition, grain size index p=3.5, and parametric density structure is a real model-dependence and correctness risk, but it is not circularity: alternative opacity laws or density structures could change the conclusion, but the paper's own derivation does not reduce to its own inputs. No step satisfies the required standard of Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a grid-based radiative transfer fitting exercise. The key fitted parameters (inner radius, scale height, grain size, warp angles) are introduced by the model and constrained by the data, not derived from first principles. The dust composition, size distribution, and density parameterization are imported from the prior literature and are not independently verified here.

free parameters (8)
  • Small-grain disk inner radius (ri,s) = 5.0 AU (warped best fit; grid 3 to 6 AU)
    Controls the location of the inner edge; models at 0.07 AU over-predict squared visibilities.
  • Small-grain disk minimum grain size (amin,s) = 5.0 micrometers (warped) or 2.0 micrometers (aligned)
    Grain size that best matches imaging plus SED; underpins the grain growth claim.
  • Small-grain disk flaring index (beta_s) = 1.35 (warped) or 1.9 (aligned)
    High flaring is required to scatter enough light to match the angular size; non-hydrostatic values are allowed.
  • Small-grain disk scale height at inner radius (h0,rin) = 5.0 AU (warped best fit; grid 0.3 to 5.0 AU)
    Puffy inner wall needed to match the kernel phase amplitudes.
  • Small-grain disk mass (Md,s) = 9.0e-6 solar masses (warped)
    Allowed to vary in warped grid because it affects optical depth and SED.
  • Warp initial position angle (PA0) = 330 degrees (fine grid) or 280 degrees (coarse grid)
    Orientation of inner disk before it twists into the outer disk plane.
  • Warp initial inclination (i0) = 25 degrees (fine grid) or 20 degrees (coarse grid)
    Inclination of inner disk relative to outer disk.
  • Relative data weights in X^2 (wKP, wV2, wSED) = 5, 1, 0.5 in the shown best fit
    The combined goodness-of-fit metric (Eq. 4) requires relative weights; the authors explore a wide range but the displayed best fit uses one arbitrary choice.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption RADMC-3D and pdspy correctly model scattered light and thermal emission from the disk with the adopted density profile.
    The synthetic images and SEDs are generated with these tools; any systematic error in the radiative transfer propagates into the inferred geometry and grain sizes (Section 4.3).
  • domain assumption Dust composition is 65% silicates and 35% graphite (Weingartner & Draine 2001).
    The opacity model is imported from the literature; the grain size constraint depends on this composition (Section 4.3.1).
  • domain assumption The grain size distribution is a power law with p = 3.5.
    Fixed to a typical value from the literature; the inferred minimum grain size is relative to this distribution (Table 5).
  • ad hoc to paper The small-grain disk is forced to align with the millimeter disk by 7 AU.
    The warp model assumes the inner disk twists to the CO gas position angle at 7 AU; this is a modeling choice, not an independent measurement (Section 4.3.2).
  • domain assumption The large-grain disk inner radius is 36 AU.
    Fixed to an intermediate value between 34 and 41 AU from different millimeter observations; the authors checked that changing it does not alter results (Section 4.3.1).
  • domain assumption Distance to SR 21 is 138 pc (Gaia).
    All angular sizes are converted to physical units using this distance (Section 1).
  • domain assumption The source does not vary significantly over the multi-epoch datasets except for tested Keplerian companions.
    The disk models are static; variability would change closure phases and visibilities (Section 4.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of New Spatially Resolved Imaging of the SR 21 Transition Disk and Constraints on the Small-Grain Disk Geometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QY77KV6Q

@misc{pith2026190807427,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: New Spatially Resolved Imaging of the SR 21 Transition Disk and Constraints on the Small-Grain Disk Geometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QY77KV6Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07427}
}
abstract

We present new 0.6 - 4 $\mu$m imaging of the SR 21 transition disk from Keck/NIRC2 and Magellan/MagAO. The protoplanetary disk around SR 21 has a large (~ 30 - 40 AU) clearing first inferred from its spectral energy distribution and later detected in sub-millimeter imaging. Both the gas and small dust grains are known to have a different morphology, with an inner truncation in CO at ~7 AU, and micron-sized dust detected within the millimeter clearing. Previous near-infrared imaging could not distinguish between an inner dust disk with a truncation at ~7 AU or one that extended to the sublimation radius. The imaging data presented here require an inner dust disk radius of a few AU, and complex structure such as a warp or spiral. We present a parametric warped disk model that can reproduce the observations. Reconciling the images with the spectral energy distribution gathered from the literature suggests grain growth to ~2 - 5 $\mu$m within the sub-millimeter clearing. The complex disk structure and possible grain growth can be connected to dynamical shaping by a giant-planet mass companion, a scenario supported by previous observational and theoretical studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07427 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. MagAO Hα + continuum (top), and SDI (bottom) reductions. The left panels show KLIP images for each dataset, the middle panels show mean bootstrapped images for each dataset, and the right panels show SNR maps created from the bootstrapping tests. The grey shading shows regions that have been masked in the reduction: radii less than 7 pixels, and an annulus from 27-42 pixels corresponding to the AO control radius. 3.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Histograms for squared visibilities (top), closure phases (middle), and kernel phases (bottom) for each night of NRM observations, after subtracting the mean for that night. Black lines show the data, purple dashed lines show Gaussian fits to the black distributions, and green thin lines show histograms for simulated datasets drawn from the purple distributions. from the observed closure phases and squared visibili￾… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Observed kernel phases with error bars, versus single companion model kernel phases for each observational epoch. The dashed line indicates a 1:1 scaling. transfer models to the imaging data and to a spectral energy distribution gathered from the literature. We in￾clude the same photometry as Follette et al. (2013), from the Spitzer Infrared Array Camera (IRAC) and Multi￾band Imaging Photometer (MIPS), AKARI, Infrar… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Individual panels show χ 2 slices at the best fit contrast ratio for MagAO NRM observations (top left), and Keck NRM observations (all other panels). The filled contours show 1 − 5σ significance levels (e.g. yellow regions are within 1σ of the best fit companion model)…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: Scattered points in the large panels show single companion fits to Gaussian noise realizations drawn from the distributions shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Shaded regions show 1σ allowed positions for the four NRM datasets with kernel phase companion fits that are inconsistent with noise. The scattered x’s show predicted orbital positions during each epoch, for Keplerian orbits aligned with the millimeter disk starting ro…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Black points with error bars show the observed squared visibilities for each epoch. Green scattered circles show the model squared visibilities for the single companion fit to the kernel phases. Blue scattered squares show the model squared visibilities for a single co…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: Example radiative transfer images for models with a small-grain disk that is aligned with the millimeter disk. The top and bottom panels show Ks and L0 , respectively. White crosses mark the position of the star, and the white dotted line shows the orientation of…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: Example radiative transfer images for models with a small-grain disk that has a changing orientation relative to the millimeter disk. The top and bottom panels show Ks and L0 , respectively. Center left: observed versus disk model kernel phases for the 2018 July …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Reconstructed images for each epoch (left), which include a central compact component with fractional flux f∗ and an extended uniform disk with diameter d and fractional flux fd. The center and right panels, respectively, show the observed closure phases and squared v…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Images reconstructed from the combined L0 observations (left), and simulated multi-epoch observations of the disk model shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., Wilner, D

    Andrews, S. M., Wilner, D. J., Espaillat, C., et al. 2011, ApJ, 732, 42

    2011

  2. [2]

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

    Ansdell, M., Williams, J. P., van der Marel, N., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 46

    2016

  3. [3]

    D., & Kloppenborg, B

    Baron, F., Monnier, J. D., & Kloppenborg, B. 2010, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 7734, Optical and Infrared Interferometry II, 77342I

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    2003, ApJ, 591, 1064

    Barsony, M., Koresko, C., & Matthews, K. 2003, ApJ, 591, 1064

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    2012, ApJL, 753, L38

    Biller, B., Lacour, S., Juh´ asz, A., et al. 2012, ApJL, 753, L38

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    A., Close, L

    Biller, B. A., Close, L. M., Masciadri, E., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6272, 62722D

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    M., Blake, G

    Brown, J. M., Blake, G. A., Qi, C., et al. 2009, ApJ, 704, 496

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    M., Blake, G

    Brown, J. M., Blake, G. A., Dullemond, C. P., et al. 2007, ApJL, 664, L107

    work page 2007

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Papaloizou, J. C. B. 1999, ApJ, 514, 344

    1999

  2. [10]

    2018, MNRAS, 477, 5104

    Casassus, S., Avenhaus, H., P´ erez, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 5104

    2018

  3. [11]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, L1

    Gregorio-Monsalvo, I., & Tuthill, P. 2015, MNRAS, 450, L1

    2015

  4. [12]

    2016, A&A, 589, A112

    Chelli, A., Duvert, G., Bourg` es, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 589, A112

    2016

  5. [13]

    2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Close, L., Males, J., Kopon, D., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8447, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 0X1–0X16

    2012

  6. [14]

    M., Males, J

    Close, L. M., Males, J. R., Morzinski, K., et al. 2013, ApJ, 774, 94

    2013

  7. [15]

    M., Males, J

    Close, L. M., Males, J. R., Morzinski, K. M., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10703, Adaptive Optics Systems VI, 107030L

    2018

  8. [16]

    2004, in SF2A-2004: Semaine de l’Astrophysique Francaise, ed

    Delfosse, X., & Bonneau, D. 2004, in SF2A-2004: Semaine de l’Astrophysique Francaise, ed. F. Combes, D. Barret, T. Contini, F. Meynadier, & L. Pagani, 181

    2004

  9. [17]

    2018, ApJ, 866, 110

    Dong, R., Li, S., Chiang, E., & Li, H. 2018, ApJ, 866, 110

    2018

  10. [18]

    R., & Stone, J

    Dong, R., Zhu, Z., Rafikov, R. R., & Stone, J. M. 2015, ApJL, 809, L5 21

    2015

  11. [19]

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

    2012

  12. [20]

    Eisner, J. A. 2015, ApJL, 803, L4

    2015

  13. [21]

    A., Monnier, J

    Eisner, J. A., Monnier, J. D., Tuthill, P., & Lacour, S. 2009, ApJL, 698, L169

    2009

  14. [22]

    B., Tamura, M., Hashimoto, J., et al

    Follette, K. B., Tamura, M., Hashimoto, J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 10

    2013

  15. [23]

    B., Rameau, J., Dong, R., et al

    Follette, K. B., Rameau, J., Dong, R., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 264

    2017

  16. [24]

    J., Marley, M

    Fortney, J. J., Marley, M. S., Saumon, D., & Lodders, K. 2008, ApJ, 683, 1104

    2008

  17. [25]

    Frieden, B. R. 1972, Journal of the Optical Society of America (1917-1983), 62, 511 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1

    1972

  18. [26]

    2014, ApJ, 780, 171

    Martinache, F. 2014, ApJ, 780, 171

    2014

  19. [27]

    A., & Lada, C

    Haisch, Karl E., J., Lada, E. A., & Lada, C. J. 2001, ApJ, 553, L153 H¨ ogbom, J. A. 1974, A&AS, 15, 417 Hu´ elamo, N., Lacour, S., Tuthill, P., et al. 2011, A&A, 528, L7

    2001

  20. [28]

    J., & Kraus, A

    Ireland, M. J., & Kraus, A. L. 2008, ApJL, 678, L59

    2008

  21. [29]

    M., Carpenter, J

    Isella, A., P´ erez, L. M., Carpenter, J. M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 775, 30

    2013

  22. [30]

    2018, A&A, 617, A44

    Keppler, M., Benisty, M., M¨ uller, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A44

    2018

  23. [31]

    L., & Ireland, M

    Kraus, A. L., & Ireland, M. J. 2012, ApJ, 745, 5

    2012

  24. [32]

    L., Ireland, M

    Kraus, A. L., Ireland, M. J., Martinache, F., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2011, ApJ, 731, 8

    2011

  25. [33]

    F., Testi, L., Natta, A., et al

    Manara, C. F., Testi, L., Natta, A., et al. 2014, A&A, 568, A18

    2014

  26. [34]

    2015, ApJ, 798, L44

    Marino, S., Perez, S., & Casassus, S. 2015, ApJ, 798, L44

    2015

  27. [35]

    2006, ApJ, 641, 556

    Nadeau, D. 2006, ApJ, 641, 556

    2006

  28. [36]

    2010, ApJ, 724, 464

    Martinache, F. 2010, ApJ, 724, 464

    2010

  29. [37]

    2014, ApJ, 792, 97

    Mawet, D., Milli, J., Wahhaj, Z., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 97

    2014

  30. [38]

    Monnier, J. D. 1999, PhD thesis, UNIVERSITY OF

    1999

  31. [39]

    D., Harries, T

    Monnier, J. D., Harries, T. J., Bae, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 122

    2019

  32. [40]

    M., Close, L

    Morzinski, K. M., Close, L. M., Males, J. R., et al. 2014, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 9148, Adaptive Optics Systems IV, 914804

    2014

  33. [41]

    M., Males, J

    Morzinski, K. M., Males, J. R., Skemer, A. J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 815, 108 M¨ uller, A., Keppler, M., Henning, T., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, L2

    2015

  34. [42]

    A., Hashimoto, J., et al

    Muto, T., Grady, C. A., Hashimoto, J., et al. 2012, ApJL, 748, L22

    2012

  35. [43]

    R., Strom, S

    Najita, J. R., Strom, S. E., & Muzerolle, J. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 369 P´ erez, L. M., Isella, A., Carpenter, J. M., & Chandler, C. J. 2014, ApJL, 783, L13

    2007

  36. [44]

    M., Blake, G

    Pontoppidan, K. M., Blake, G. A., van Dishoeck, E. F., et al. 2008, ApJ, 684, 1323

    2008

  37. [45]

    P., & Simon, M

    Prato, L., Greene, T. P., & Simon, M. 2003, ApJ, 584, 853

    2003

  38. [46]

    A., Connors, A., Kashyap, V

    Protassov, R., van Dyk, D. A., Connors, A., Kashyap, V. L., & Siemiginowska, A. 2002, ApJ, 571, 545 Ribas, ´A., Espaillat, C. C., Mac´ ıas, E., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 63

    2002

  39. [47]

    2012, A&A, 548, A56

    Rigliaco, E., Natta, A., Testi, L., et al. 2012, A&A, 548, A56

    2012

  40. [48]

    2010, AJ, 139, 2440

    Roeser, S., Demleitner, M., & Schilbach, E. 2010, AJ, 139, 2440

    2010

  41. [49]

    I., Osher, S., & Fatemi, E

    Rudin, L. I., Osher, S., & Fatemi, E. 1992, Physica D Nonlinear Phenomena, 60, 259

    1992

  42. [50]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 233, 9

    Sallum, S., & Eisner, J. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 233, 9

    2017

  43. [51]

    A., Hinz, P

    Sallum, S., Eisner, J. A., Hinz, P. M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 844, 22

    2017

  44. [52]

    M., et al

    Sallum, S., Eisner, J., Close, L. M., et al. 2016, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 9907, Optical and Infrared Interferometry and Imaging V, 99070D

    2016

  45. [53]

    2018, psheehan/pdspy: pdspy: A MCMC Tool for Continuum and Spectral Line Radiative Transfer Modeling, , , doi:10.5281/zenodo.2455079

    Sheehan, P. 2018, psheehan/pdspy: pdspy: A MCMC Tool for Continuum and Spectral Line Radiative Transfer Modeling, , , doi:10.5281/zenodo.2455079

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    D., & Eisner, J

    Sheehan, P. D., & Eisner, J. A. 2017, ApJ, 851, 45

    2017

  47. [55]

    D., Wu, Y.-L., Eisner, J

    Sheehan, P. D., Wu, Y.-L., Eisner, J. A., & Tobin, J. J. 2019, ApJ, 874, 136

    2019

  48. [56]

    2012, ApJL, 755, L28

    Soummer, R., Pueyo, L., & Larkin, J. 2012, ApJL, 755, L28

    2012

  49. [57]

    S., & Burrows, A

    Spiegel, D. S., & Burrows, A. 2012, ApJ, 745, 174

    2012

  50. [58]

    Skrutskie, M. F. 1989, AJ, 97, 1451 Thi´ ebaut,´E., & Young, J. 2017, Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 34, 904

    1989

  51. [59]

    M., Loinard, L., Mioduszewski, A

    Torres, R. M., Loinard, L., Mioduszewski, A. J., & Rodr´ ıguez, L. F. 2007, ApJ, 671, 1813 22

    2007

  52. [60]

    G., Monnier, J

    Tuthill, P. G., Monnier, J. D., Danchi, W. C., Wishnow, E. H., & Haniff, C. A. 2000b, PASP, 112, 555 van der Marel, N., van Dishoeck, E. F., Bruderer, S., et al. 2016, A&A, 585, A58 —. 2013, Science, 340, 1199

    2016

  53. [61]

    B., Close, L

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

    2018

  54. [62]

    J., Ruffio, J.-B., De Rosa, R

    Wang, J. J., Ruffio, J.-B., De Rosa, R. J., et al. 2015, pyKLIP: PSF Subtraction for Exoplanets and Disks, Astrophysics Source Code Library, , , ascl:1506.001

    2015

  55. [63]

    C., & Draine, B

    Weingartner, J. C., & Draine, B. T. 2001, ApJ, 548, 296

    2001

  56. [64]

    2019, A&A, 621, A7

    Willson, M., Kraus, S., Kluska, J., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A7

    2019

Pith tools

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