Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 83 references

A fast thick-disk model turns continuum SEDs of forming giant planets into quantitative constraints on luminosity, accretion timescale, and envelope extinction.

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

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-10 13:28 UTC pith:RSH3NINQ

load-bearing objection Usable thick-disk CPD retrieval that cleanly maps wavelength bands onto L_tot, τ_acc, and τ_env, with the sparse RBF calibration as a real but not fatal soft spot. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.08026 v1 pith:RSH3NINQ submitted 2026-07-09 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM

A Retrieval Framework for Observationally Constraining the Parameters of Circumplanetary Disks

Aster Taylor , Fred Adams This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM
keywords circumplanetary disksplanet formationspectral energy distributionsparameter retrievalMCMC fittingprotoplanetsPDS 70GQ Lup b
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Giant planets form while still surrounded by thick disks of gas and dust drawn from the larger circumstellar disk. Because even the next generation of telescopes cannot spatially resolve these systems, their spectral energy distributions are the only practical observables. This paper builds a calibrated semianalytic model of geometrically thick circumplanetary disks that reproduces the SEDs of expensive two-dimensional radiative-transfer calculations, then uses Markov-chain Monte Carlo fits to synthetic and real data to measure how tightly those SEDs constrain the underlying parameters. Multiband continuum photometry can pin down the total system luminosity to better than 0.1 dex; for optically thick disks the far-infrared further separates planet mass from accretion rate, while near- plus mid-infrared slopes diagnose envelope optical depth when the planet is still embedded. Applied to PDS 70 b/c and GQ Lup b, the same machinery recovers luminosities, rough masses and accretion rates, and upper limits on local extinction that are consistent with independent dynamical and H-alpha estimates. The result is a practical retrieval tool that turns future ELT and JWST detections into quantitative statements about how and how fast giant planets grow.

Core claim

A calibrated semianalytic model of geometrically thick circumplanetary disks, when fit by MCMC to continuum SEDs, recovers the total system luminosity to ≲0.1 dex and, for optically thick disks, the accretion timescale (hence Mp and Ṁ separately) to roughly 0.35–0.8 dex, while joint near- and mid-infrared data constrain the line-of-sight envelope optical depth of embedded systems.

What carries the argument

The thick-disk semianalytic model (SAM): three structure parameters (α_d, q, f_L) interpolated from a RAD+ training grid fully determine the disk photosphere, self-shadowing, and emergent SEDs, enabling 10^8-fold speed-up over full radiative-transfer calculations so that MCMC retrieval becomes practical.

Load-bearing premise

The three structure parameters that set the entire disk temperature and self-shadowing are assumed to remain accurate when interpolated from a sparse grid of only forty numerical training models.

What would settle it

Obtain simultaneous high-resolution NIR+MIR+FIR photometry of a known CPD system (or a high-fidelity RAD+ synthetic SED outside the training set) and check whether the SAM posterior recovers the true Mp and Ṁ within the claimed 0.35–0.8 dex; systematic failure outside those bounds would falsify the calibration.

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

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a calibrated semianalytic model (SAM) for the continuum SEDs of geometrically thick circumplanetary disks (CPDs) and their host protoplanets, then uses MCMC retrievals on synthetic RAD+ SEDs and on real photometry of PDS 70 b/c and GQ Lup b to quantify which system parameters can be constrained. Structure parameters α_d, q and f_L are interpolated from a 40-model RAD+ training grid so that the SAM matches RAD+ SEDs to ~20 % RMS (Fig. 4). For optically thick disks the full SED (especially FIR) is claimed to constrain total luminosity to ≲0.1 dex and the accretion timescale to ~0.35–0.8 dex; for embedded systems NIR+MIR constrain envelope optical depth. Applications to PDS 70 and GQ Lup b recover luminosities tightly and masses/accretion rates consistent with independent estimates once modest extinction is allowed.

Significance. If the claimed posterior widths hold under the stated assumptions, the work supplies a practical, computationally cheap retrieval framework for the next generation of unresolved CPD detections (JWST, ELT/METIS, and any future FIR capability). The explicit mapping of wavelength bands onto derived quantities (L_tot, τ_acc, M_dust, τ_env) and the demonstration that FIR continuum can break the M_p–Ṁ degeneracy for optically thick CPDs are useful, falsifiable predictions. The real-system applications already give concrete numbers for PDS 70 and GQ Lup b and motivate MIR follow-up. Strengths include the direct RAD+ validation set, energy-conserving construction of T_X and T_C, and transparent discussion of model limitations (opacity, fixed R_p/λ_d, continuum-only).

major comments (3)
  1. Sec. 2.2 and Appendix A: the three structure parameters (α_d, q, f_L) that fully set the constant-aspect-ratio photosphere, T(R) and self-shadowing are obtained by multiquadric RBF interpolation on only 40 RAD+ training models. The paper reports only a global ~20 % RMS SED error on 40 random test models (Fig. 4) and that injected parameters lie inside 1σ. That is necessary but not sufficient for the dex-level posterior widths claimed in Secs. 3.1–3.3 (Figs. 7–9). The FIR τ_acc and NIR+MIR τ_env constraints are controlled by the high-M_p/low-Ṁ and high-Ṁ/large-a corners where optical-depth transitions and outer-disk emission change. Without leave-one-out or denser-grid tests that quantify local interpolation error in those corners, the reported posterior widths may be systematically optimistic. A short appendix quantifying RBF residuals versus M_p, Ṁ and a (or a denser training set) is ne
  2. Sec. 2.2 and Eqs. (7)–(8), (15)–(16): the constant-aspect-ratio conical photosphere and the step-function cutoff ψ_c used for energy conservation are strong geometric assumptions. The paper never shows that RAD+ τ=1 surfaces are well approximated by a single α_d, nor how much flaring/warping residual remains after the median α_d is taken. Because the FIR outer-disk emission and the self-shadowing factor f_L both depend on this geometry, residual mismatch can bias the very quantities (q, R_C temperature, τ_acc) that the paper uses to claim that FIR breaks the M_p–Ṁ degeneracy. A direct comparison of SAM versus RAD+ surface shapes (or of the resulting FIR SEDs when α_d is forced to the RAD+ median) would make this load-bearing step transparent.
  3. Sec. 3 (opening paragraphs) and Table 2: R_p and λ_d are fixed a priori while the text acknowledges that plausible ranges (ΔR_p ~0.5 dex, λ_d down to 0.3) shift L_tot and the outer radius. The synthetic-retrieval experiments that produce the headline 0.05–0.15 dex L_tot and 0.35–0.8 dex τ_acc widths never re-run with these parameters free or marginalized. Because the real-system applications (Sec. 4) also fix R_p=2 R_J, the quoted uncertainties on M_p and Ṁ for PDS 70 and GQ Lup b are conditional on that choice. At minimum the paper should show one set of synthetic posteriors with R_p (and preferably λ_d) free so that readers can judge how much the claimed precisions degrade.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: SAM is calibrated on an independent RAD+ training grid then validated on hold-out test SEDs; MCMC retrievals recover injected parameters without forcing outputs to equal inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper builds a thick-disk SAM whose three structure parameters (α_d, q, f_L) are obtained once by multiquadric RBF interpolation on a 40-model RAD+ training grid (Sec. 2.2, Appendix A) and then held fixed (or re-interpolated) during subsequent MCMC fits. Synthetic SEDs are generated from an independent set of 40 RAD+ test models; the SAM is fitted to those SEDs and recovers the injected parameters inside 1σ (Fig. 4 and Sec. 3). Energy-conservation closures for T_X and T_C (Eqs. 7–8, 15–16, A.1) are ordinary bookkeeping once the structure parameters are supplied; they do not redefine the target quantities (L_tot, τ_acc, τ_env) in terms of themselves. Self-citations point to earlier thin-disk models that the present work explicitly supersedes, not to a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that forces the new results. Real-object fits (PDS 70, GQ Lup b) are ordinary Bayesian retrievals whose posteriors are compared to external literature values. The claimed posterior widths are therefore empirical outcomes of the retrieval experiments, not tautologies. Minor residual model error (~20 % RMS) is reported and folded into the likelihood; it does not constitute circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The retrieval framework rests on a chain of standard disk-physics assumptions plus three structure parameters that are not derived from first principles but interpolated from a numerical grid. Free parameters include those structure coefficients and several dust and viscosity quantities that are either fixed or only weakly constrained. No new physical entities are invented; the model re-uses existing concepts (Hill sphere, centrifugal radius, α-viscosity, ballistic Ulrich envelope).

free parameters (6)
  • α_d (disk aspect ratio)
    Median z_surf/R from RAD+; interpolated and treated as fixed for each MCMC evaluation.
  • q (temperature power-law index)
    Best-fit slope of RAD+ photospheric temperature; forced into [0.5,0.75] and interpolated.
  • f_L (pole-to-total luminosity ratio)
    Self-shadowing factor calibrated so that polar luminosity matches RAD+; sets TX via energy conservation.
  • κ0, γ (opacity normalization and slope)
    Power-law opacity fixed to γ=0.5 and κ0 values for silicate/graphite; not varied in MCMC.
  • α (viscosity), η (dust-to-gas), f_Si (silicate fraction)
    Free in MCMC but only weakly constrained; priors uniform over large domains.
  • Bp,0 (surface magnetic field)
    Free parameter that sets truncation radius RX; poorly constrained by continuum SEDs.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Infall is ballistic and isotropic; density follows the Ulrich (1976) streamlines.
    Sec. 2; used to set envelope density everywhere inside the Hill sphere.
  • ad hoc to paper Disk photosphere is a constant-aspect-ratio cone that emits as a plane-parallel slab; outer wall emission is negligible for q>0.5.
    Sec. 2.2 and Appendix A; enables analytic SEDs but is an idealization of the RAD+ surface.
  • domain assumption Internal planetary luminosity is negligible compared with accretion luminosity; planet is a single-temperature blackbody (or SONORA Bobcat).
    Eqs. 5–6; explicitly stated and later relaxed only for entropy upper limits.
  • domain assumption Dust opacity is a pure power law with fixed size distribution (0.005–100 µm, n∝a^−3.5); no gas lines or settling.
    Sec. 2.3; acknowledged as a limitation for MIR silicate feature and sub-mm.
  • ad hoc to paper Structure parameters (α_d,q,f_L) can be accurately interpolated from a 40-point RAD+ grid via multiquadric RBF.
    Sec. 2.2; the 20 % model error is measured on a separate test set but not folded into posteriors.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 42366 in / 3180 out tokens · 34979 ms · 2026-07-10T13:28:18.819825+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

As they form, giant planets are surrounded by disks of gas and dust sourced from the background circumstellar disk. Although there have been few detections to date, upcoming instruments are likely to discover many more of these systems in the coming decades. Accurate spectral modeling will enable these observations to constrain the properties of these forming systems. Towards this end, we have constructed a semianalytic model for the structure and radiative signatures of geometrically thick circumplanetary disks and their planet hosts. Fitting these radiative signatures to synthetic observations of a two-dimensional disk model then quantifies the parameter constraints that can be derived (subject to model assumptions). This machinery provides estimates of the values and uncertainties in system parameters, and some combinations of parameters have significantly smaller uncertainties than others. This model is then used to fit observations of real protoplanets, with good results. The derived parameters provide useful context about the local extinction, formation history, and initial entropy of these objects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08026 by Aster Taylor, Fred Adams.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: System Schematic. A schematic of the circumplanetary system, shown as a meridional cross-section. This figure is not to scale. The planet orbits the star within a circumstellar disk, which may or may not have a gap at the planet’s location (hashed region). The Hill sphere forms the boundary between the circumstellar disk and the circumplanetary environment. Material is accreted through the Hill sphere onto… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Opacity Comparison. A comparison of the wavelength-dependent dust opacity used in RAD+ and the SAM. The RAD+ dust opacity is composed of a weighted average of silicates (olivine and pyroxene, red and green respectively, with the combination shown in black) and graphite (blue). The SAM opacity is assumed to be a power law with a slope of 𝜅 ∝ 𝜆 −0.5 (purple, dashed). Except for the 10 µm silicate feature, th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Model SEDs Comparison. A comparison of the SEDs calculated for a geometrically thick disk (solid) and the numerical RAD+ model (dashed). The effects of planet mass, mass accretion rate, orbital semimajor axis, and viewing angle are shown in different panels. Unless otherwise specified, all system parameters are set to their fiducial values ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: SED Comparison. Comparing the synthetic RAD+ (orange), true-parameter SAM (green), and MCMC (blue) SEDs for a grid of models. The model parameters are all randomized, but the mass accretion rate increases in the vertical direction and the planet mass increases horizontally. In general, these SEDs are in good agreement. Even in cases where the SEDs disagree slightly, the optimal parameters are within 1 𝜎 of… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Model SED Comparison. The SEDs as calculated by RAD+ (solid) and the SAM (dashed) for the three fiducial models. The top panel shows the SEDs when there is no circumplanetary envelope (e.g., when the planet is in a deep gap or accreting via a streamer). The bottom panel shows the SEDs when the envelope is included and the planet is embedded in the circumstellar disk. The RAD+ and SAM SEDs generally agree r… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cornerplots of the Full SED. The cornerplots resulting from using an MCMC to fit the SAM to the entire synthetic SED of a young Jupiter and its circumplanetary disk. The upper right corner shows the cornerplot for a revealed planet and the bottom left corner shows the cornerplot for an embedded planet. The colors show the probability distribution and the red lines show the true values of the parameters. Al… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Young Jupiter Derived Parameters. Posteriors of several important parameters for observations of a revealed and an embedded young Jupiter over a range of wavelengths. The total luminosity 𝐿tot and the accretion timescale 𝜏acc are linearly independent and jointly define 𝑀𝑝 and 𝑀̇ , while 𝑀dust and 𝑀disk∕𝜂 jointly define 𝛼 and 𝜂. For a revealed system, observations are capable of putting tighter constraints … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Young Super-Jupiter Derived Parameters. Posteriors of several important parameters for observations of a revealed and an embedded young super-Jupiter over a range of wavelengths. The total luminosity 𝐿tot and the accretion timescale 𝜏acc are linearly independent and jointly define 𝑀𝑝 and 𝑀̇ and 𝑀dust and 𝑀disk∕𝜂 jointly define 𝛼 and 𝜂. For a revealed system, observations are capable of putting tighter cons… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mature Super-Jupiter Derived Parameters. Posteriors of several important parameters for observations of a revealed and an embedded mature super-Jupiter over a range of wavelengths. The total luminosity 𝐿tot and the accretion timescale 𝜏acc are linearly independent and jointly define 𝑀𝑝 and 𝑀̇ and 𝑀dust and 𝑀disk∕𝜂 jointly define 𝛼 and 𝜂. For a revealed system, observations are capable of putting tighter co… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparing Circumstellar Disk SEDs. A comparison of the SEDs that emerge from the Hill sphere of the example protoplanet models (solid) versus the SEDs of the background circumstellar disk (dashed). The protoplanet SEDs are calcu￾lated by RAD+, while the circumstellar disk SEDs are calculated using Eqs. (13) and (14). In this equation, 𝑇𝑋,CSD is the dust destruction temperature at 1500 K, while 𝑅𝑋,CSD = 0.… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: PDS 70 SEDs. The observed NIR SEDs and photometry of PDS 70 planets b and c (points) along with fit SEDs. The solid lines are the maximum-likelihood SEDs while the transparent lines are sampled from the posterior distribution. are not absolute but rather are specific to the assumptions of this model. 4.1. PDS 70 Protoplanets PDS 70 itself is a 0.76 M⊙ K dwarf and T Tauri system located 112 pc away (Kepple… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: GQ Lup b SEDs. The observed NIR and MIR SEDs and photometry of GQ Lup b (points) along with fit SEDs. The solid lines are the maximum-likelihood SEDs while the transparent lines are sampled from the posterior distribution. The MCMC is run both including and excluding the circumplanetary envelope, and both SED posteriors are shown. b formed through turbulent fragmentation of the protostellar cloud. The det… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Angles of the Disk System. The various angles defined for the disk system. The planet (bottom left) and the disk are not to scale. The half-opening angle 𝜃𝑑 , the viewing angle 𝜓, the critical viewing angle 𝜓𝑐 , the azimuthal angle 𝜙, and the angle normal to the surface 𝜆 are all shown. Acknowledgments We thank Nuria Calvet, Maria Jose Colmenares, Gabriele Cugno, Michael Meyer, and William Meynardie for h… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: SED Effects of Maximum Dust Size. The SEDs as calculated by RAD+ for the three fiducial models assuming a maximum dust size of 10 µm (dotted), 100 µm (solid), and 1 mm (dashed). The envelope is not included in any of these models. The SED posterior from fitting the SAM to these models are also shown. The dust size has little impact on the SEDs, except for the mature super-Jupiter at long wavelengths where… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 83 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    C., & Batygin, K

    Adams, F. C., & Batygin, K. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 934, 111, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7a3e —. 2025, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 137, 054401, doi:10.1088/1538-3873/adcf57

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7a3e 2022

  2. [2]

    C., & Shu, F

    Adams, F. C., & Shu, F. H. 1985, The Astrophysical Journal, 296, 655, doi:10.1086/163483 Alcalá, J. M., Majidi, F. Z., Desidera, S., et al. 2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 635, L1, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937309

    work page doi:10.1086/163483 1985

  3. [3]

    M., Elder, W., Zhang, S., et al

    Andrews, S. M., Elder, W., Zhang, S., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 916, 51, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac00b9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac00b9 2021

  4. [4]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 885, L29, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab5062

    Aoyama, Y., & Ikoma, M. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 885, L29, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab5062

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab5062 2019

  5. [5]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 917, L30, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac19bd

    Aoyama, Y., Marleau, G.-D., Ikoma, M., & Mordasini, C. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 917, L30, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac19bd

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac19bd 2021

  6. [6]

    2009, title Clustering of luminous red galaxies - III

    Ayliffe, B. A., & Bate, M. R. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society, 397, 657, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15002.x Bae,J.,Teague,R.,Andrews,S.M.,etal.2022,TheAstrophysicalJournal Letters, 934, L20, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac7fa3 Batygin,K.,&Adams,F.C.2025,NatureAstronomy,9,835,doi:10.1038/ s41550-025-02512-y

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15002.x 2009

  7. [7]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 916, L2, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f83

    Benisty, M., Bae, J., Facchini, S., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 916, L2, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f83

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f83 2021

  8. [8]

    Bezanson, J., Edelman, A., Karpinski, S., & Shah, V. B. 2017, SIAM Review, 59, 65, doi:10.1137/141000671

    work page doi:10.1137/141000671 2017

  9. [9]

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-astro-081817-051948

    Blandford, R. D., & Payne, D. G. 1982, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 199, 883, doi:10.1093/mnras/199.4.883

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/199.4.883 1982

  10. [10]

    MIRAC-5: A ground-based mid-IR instrumentwith the potential to detect ammonia in gas giants

    Bowens, R., Leisenring, J., Meyer, M., et al. 2022, in Proceedings of the SPIE,Vol.12184,Astronomicaltelescopesandinstrumentation,eprint: arXiv:2206.12682, 121841U, doi:10.1117/12.2628953

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1117/12.2628953 2022

  11. [11]

    2021, The Messenger, 182, 22, doi:10.18727/0722-6691/5218

    Brandl, B., Bettonvil, F., van Boekel, R., et al. 2021, The Messenger, 182, 22, doi:10.18727/0722-6691/5218

    work page doi:10.18727/0722-6691/5218 2021

  12. [12]

    M., & Ward, W

    Canup, R. M., & Ward, W. R. 2002, The Astronomical Journal, 124, 3404, doi:10.1086/344684

    work page doi:10.1086/344684 2002

  13. [13]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, The Astrophysical Journal, 345, 245, doi:10.1086/167900

    work page doi:10.1086/167900 1989

  14. [14]

    1981, Icarus, 48, 353, doi:10.1016/ 0019-1035(81)90051-8 Chen,X.,&Szulágyi,J.2022,MonthlyNoticesoftheRoyalAstronomical Society, 516, 506, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1976

    Cassen, P., & Moosman, A. 1981, Icarus, 48, 353, doi:10.1016/ 0019-1035(81)90051-8 Chen,X.,&Szulágyi,J.2022,MonthlyNoticesoftheRoyalAstronomical Society, 516, 506, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1976

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1976 1981

  15. [15]

    Chevalier, R. A. 1983, The Astrophysical Journal, 268, 753, doi:10.1086/ 160997 Choksi,N.,&Chiang,E.2025,MonthlyNoticesoftheRoyalAstronomical Society, 537, 2945, doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2530

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2530 1983

  16. [16]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 2806, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2269

    Choksi, N., Chiang, E., Fung, J., & Zhu, Z. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 2806, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2269

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2269 2023

  17. [17]

    Christiaens, V., Samland, M., Henning, T., et al. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 685, L1, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202349089 Cimerman,N.P.,Kuiper,R.,&Ormel,C.W.2017,MonthlyNoticesofthe Royal Astronomical Society, 471, 4662, doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1924

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202349089 2024

  18. [18]

    M., van Capelleveen, R

    Close, L. M., van Capelleveen, R. F., Weible, G., et al. 2025a, The Astro- physical Journal, 990, L9, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf7a5

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf7a5 2041

  19. [19]

    M., Males, J

    Close, L. M., Males, J. R., Li, J., et al. 2025b, The Astronomical Journal, 169, 35, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad8648 Cugno,G.,Patapis,P.,Banzatti,A.,etal.2024,TheAstrophysicalJournal, 966, L21, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad3cbc Cugno,G.,Facchini,S.,Alarcon,F.,etal.2025,TheAstronomicalJournal, Volume 170, Issue 6, id.317, 16 pp., 170, 317, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ a...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad8648 2024

  20. [20]

    2021, Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3349, doi:10.21105/joss.03349

    Danisch, S., & Krumbiegel, J. 2021, Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3349, doi:10.21105/joss.03349

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.03349 2021

  21. [21]

    2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 676, A123, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346221

    Demars, D., Bonnefoy, M., Dougados, C., et al. 2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 676, A123, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346221

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346221 2023

  22. [22]

    B., et al

    Dominguez-Jamett, O., Casassus, S., Liu, H. B., et al. 2025, Multi- frequency observations of PDS 70c: Radio emission mechanisms in the circum-planetary environment, arXiv, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2507.21970

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.21970 2025

  23. [23]

    P., Juhasz, A., Pohl, A., et al

    Dullemond, C. P., Juhasz, A., Pohl, A., et al. 2012, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1202.015.https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/ 2012ascl.soft02015D Fasano,D.,Benisty,M.,Curone,P.,etal.2025,Innerdiscandcircumplan- etary material in the PDS 70 system, arXiv, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2506. 11709

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506 2012

  24. [24]

    Ultraviolet Imaging of SR 12 c with HST/WFC3: Accretion and Variability of a Giant Planet at the End Stages of Growth

    Finley, C. O., Bowler, B. P., Wu, Y.-L., et al. 2026, Ultraviolet Imaging of SR12cwithHST/WFC3:AccretionandVariabilityofaGiantPlanetat the End Stages of Growth, arXiv, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2606.12862 Fung,J.,Zhu,Z.,&Chiang,E.2019,TheAstrophysicalJournal,887,152, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab53da

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.12862 2026

  25. [25]

    Ghosh, P., & Lamb, F. K. 1978, The Astrophysical Journal, 223, L83, doi:10.1086/182734

    work page doi:10.1086/182734 1978

  26. [26]

    M., et al

    Glenn, J., Meixner, M., Bradford, C. M., et al. 2025, Journal of Astronom- ical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 11, 031628, doi:10.1117/1. JATIS.11.3.031628 González Picos, D., Snellen, I. A. G., de Regt, S., et al. 2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 693, A298, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451936

    work page doi:10.1117/1 2025

  27. [27]

    Y., Bohn, A

    Haffert, S. Y., Bohn, A. J., de Boer, J., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 749, doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0780-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0780-5 2019

  28. [28]

    2020, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 222, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab811e

    Hashimoto, J., Aoyama, Y., Konishi, M., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 222, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab811e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab811e 2020

  29. [29]

    1981, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 70, 35, doi:10.1143/PTPS.70.35

    Hayashi, C. 1981, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 70, 35, doi:10.1143/PTPS.70.35

    work page doi:10.1143/ptps.70.35 1981

  30. [30]

    Giant Planet Formation, Evolution, and Internal Structure

    Helled, R., Bodenheimer, P., Podolak, M., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, eprint: arXiv:1311.1142, 643–665, doi:10.2458/azu_ uapress_9780816531240-ch028

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.2458/azu_ 2014

  31. [31]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 879, L25, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab2a12

    Isella, A., Benisty, M., Teague, R., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 879, L25, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab2a12

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab2a12 2019

  32. [32]

    F., Bae, J., Galloway-Sprietsma, M., et al

    Izquierdo, A. F., Bae, J., Galloway-Sprietsma, M., et al. 2026, The Astro- physical Journal, 997, L2, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae2f59

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae2f59 2026

  33. [33]

    2024b, A&A, 691, A148, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451589

    Jang, H., Waters, R., Kaeufer, T., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 691, A148, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451589

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451589 2024

  34. [34]

    2018, Astronomy and Astro- physics, 617, A44, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832957

    Keppler, M., Benisty, M., Müller, A., et al. 2018, Astronomy and Astro- physics, 617, A44, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832957

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832957 2018

  35. [35]

    2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 625, A118, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935034

    Keppler, M., Teague, R., Bae, J., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 625, A118, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935034

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935034 2019

  36. [36]

    Knierim, H., Batygin, K., Helled, R., Morf, L., & Adams, F. C. 2026, As- tronomy and Astrophysics, 706, A51, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556984 Krapp,L.,Kratter,K.M.,&Youdin,A.N.2022,TheAstrophysicalJournal, 928, 156, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5899

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556984 2026

  37. [37]

    M., Youdin, A

    Krapp, L., Kratter, K. M., Youdin, A. N., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 973, 153, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad644a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad644a 2024

  38. [38]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 662, A99, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142652

    Krieger, A., & Wolf, S. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 662, A99, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142652

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142652 2022

  39. [39]

    2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 682, A14, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347530

    Kuwahara, A., & Kurokawa, H. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 682, A14, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347530

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347530 2024

  40. [40]

    2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 606, A146, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731014

    Lambrechts, M., & Lega, E. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 606, A146, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731014

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731014 2017

  41. [41]

    P., Crida, A., & Morbidelli, A

    Lambrechts, M., Lega, E., Nelson, R. P., Crida, A., & Morbidelli, A. 2019, Astronomy&Astrophysics,630,A82,doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834413

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834413 2019

  42. [42]

    Lega, E., Benisty, M., Cridland, A., et al. 2024, Astronomy and Astro- physics, 690, A183, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450899 Li,Y.-P.,Chen,Y.-X.,&Lin,D.N.C.2023,MonthlyNoticesoftheRoyal Astronomical Society, 526, 5346, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3049

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450899 2024

  43. [43]

    H., Seibert, M., & Artymowicz, P

    Lubow, S. H., Seibert, M., & Artymowicz, P. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 526, 1001, doi:10.1086/308045

    work page doi:10.1086/308045 1999

  44. [44]

    I., & Stevenson, D

    Lunine, J. I., & Stevenson, D. J. 1982, Icarus, 52, 14, doi:10.1016/ 0019-1035(82)90166-X MacGregor,M.A.,Wilner,D.J.,Czekala,I.,etal.2017,TheAstrophysical Journal, 835, 17, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/17 Taylor & Adams:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 25 of 26 Constraining CPD Parameters

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/17 1982

  45. [45]

    N., Kokubo, E., Inutsuka, S.-i., & Matsumoto, T

    Machida, M. N., Kokubo, E., Inutsuka, S.-i., & Matsumoto, T. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 685, 1220, doi:10.1086/590421

    work page doi:10.1086/590421 2008

  46. [46]

    N., & Suetsugu, R

    Maeda, N., Ohtsuki, K., Tanigawa, T., Machida, M. N., & Suetsugu, R. 2022,TheAstrophysicalJournal,935,56,doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7ddf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7ddf 2022

  47. [47]

    2025, Semianalytical Accretion-Tracer Emission: Forming Planets Are Intrinsically Faint, arXiv, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2510.00138

    Marleau, G.-D. 2025, Semianalytical Accretion-Tracer Emission: Forming Planets Are Intrinsically Faint, arXiv, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2510.00138

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.00138 2025

  48. [48]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 437, 1378, doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1967

    Marleau, G.-D., & Cumming, A. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 437, 1378, doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1967

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1967 2014

  49. [49]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 952, 89, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/accf12

    Marleau, G.-D., Kuiper, R., Béthune, W., & Mordasini, C. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 952, 89, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/accf12

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/accf12 2023

  50. [50]

    D., Aoyama, Y., Kuiper, R., et al

    Marleau, G. D., Aoyama, Y., Kuiper, R., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 657, A38, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037494

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037494 2022

  51. [51]

    S., Saumon, D., Visscher, C., et al

    Marley, M. S., Saumon, D., Visscher, C., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 920, 85, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac141d Marois,C.,Macintosh,B.,&Barman,T.2006,TheAstrophysicalJournal, 654, L151, doi:10.1086/511071

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac141d 2021

  52. [52]

    , keywords =

    Martin, R. G., & Lubow, S. H. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society, 413, 1447, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18228.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18228.x 2011

  53. [53]

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

    Mathis, J. S., Rumpl, W., & Nordsieck, K. H. 1977, The Astrophysical Journal, 217, 425, doi:10.1086/155591

    work page doi:10.1086/155591 1977

  54. [54]

    K., van’t Hoff, M., Francis, L., et al

    McClure, M. K., van’t Hoff, M., Francis, L., et al. 2025, Nature, 643, 649, doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09163-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09163-z 2025

  55. [55]

    2019, Astronomy and Astro- physics, 632, A25, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936764

    Mesa, D., Keppler, M., Cantalloube, F., et al. 2019, Astronomy and Astro- physics, 632, A25, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936764

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936764 2019

  56. [56]

    1953, The Journal of Chemical Physics, 21, 1087, doi:10

    Teller, E. 1953, The Journal of Chemical Physics, 21, 1087, doi:10. 1063/1.1699114

    work page 1953

  57. [57]

    Gas Giant and Brown Dwarf Companions: Mass Ratio and Orbital Distributions From A stars to M dwarfs

    Meyer, M. R., Li, Y., Calissendorf, P., & Amara, A. 2025, Gas Giant and Brown Dwarf Companions: Mass Ratio and Orbital Distributions From A stars to M dwarfs, arXiv, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2508.05122

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.05122 2025

  58. [58]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 976, 251, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8884

    Micolta, M., Calvet, N., Thanathibodee, T., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 976, 251, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8884

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8884 2024

  59. [59]

    Mosqueira, I., & Estrada, P. R. 2003a, Icarus, 163, 198, doi:10.1016/ S0019-1035(03)00076-9 —. 2003b, Icarus, 163, 232, doi:10.1016/S0019-1035(03)00077-0 Müller, A., Keppler, M., Henning, T., et al. 2018, Astronomy and Astro- physics, 617, L2, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833584 Neuhaeuser,R.2005,Homogeneouscomparisonofdirectlydetectedplanet candidates: GQ Lu...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/s0019-1035(03)00077-0 2018

  60. [60]

    2023, Nature, 620, 516, doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06317-9 Pittman,C.V.,Espaillat,C.C.,Robinson,C.E.,etal.2025,TheAstrophys- ical Journal, 992, 134, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adef35

    Perotti, G., Christiaens, V., Henning, T., et al. 2023, Nature, 620, 516, doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06317-9 Pittman,C.V.,Espaillat,C.C.,Robinson,C.E.,etal.2025,TheAstrophys- ical Journal, 992, 134, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adef35

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06317-9 2023

  61. [61]

    , year = 1996, month = nov, volume =

    Pollack, J. B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al. 1996, Icarus, 124, 62, doi:10.1006/icar.1996.0190 Quillen,A.C.,&Trilling,D.E.1998,TheAstrophysicalJournal,508,707, doi:10.1086/306421

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1996.0190 1996

  62. [62]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 987, 216, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add934

    Sagynbayeva, S., Li, R., Kuznetsova, A., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 987, 216, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add934

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add934 2025

  63. [63]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 337.https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973A&A....24..337S

    work page 1973

  64. [64]

    2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 687, A166, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449522

    Shibaike, Y., & Mordasini, C. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 687, A166, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449522

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449522 2024

  65. [65]

    S., & Burrows, A

    Spiegel, D. S., & Burrows, A. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 745, 174, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/174

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/745/2/174 2012

  66. [66]

    2020, Astronomy and Astro- physics, 644, A13, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038878

    Stolker, T., Marleau, G.-D., Cugno, G., et al. 2020, Astronomy and Astro- physics, 644, A13, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038878

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038878 2020

  67. [67]

    Y., Kesseli, A

    Stolker, T., Haffert, S. Y., Kesseli, A. Y., et al. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 162, 286, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac2c7f Sun,X.,Huang,P.,Dong,R.,&Liu,S.-F.2024,TheAstrophysicalJournal, 972, 25, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad57c2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac2c7f 2021

  68. [68]

    Parameter Effects in Circumplanetary Disk Spectra and Prospects for Spectral Fitting

    Sun, X., Marleau, G.-D., & Liu, S.-F. 2026, Parameter Effects in Cir- cumplanetary Disk Spectra and Prospects for Spectral Fitting, arXiv, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2606.08996 Szulágyi, J., Dullemond, C. P., Pohl, A., & Quanz, S. P. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 1248, doi:10.1093/ mnras/stz1326 Szulágyi,J.,Masset,F.,Lega,E.,etal.2...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.08996 2026

  69. [69]

    Takata, T., & Stevenson, D. J. 1996, Icarus, 123, 404, doi:10.1006/icar. 1996.0167

    work page doi:10.1006/icar 1996

  70. [70]

    Tanigawa, T., Ohtsuki, K., & Machida, M. N. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 747, 47, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/47

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/747/1/47 2012

  71. [71]

    Lipiecki, K

    Taylor, A. G., & Adams, F. C. 2024, Icarus, 415, 116044, doi:10.1016/j. icarus.2024.116044 —. 2025, Icarus, 425, 116327, doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116327

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2024

  72. [72]

    G., Adams, F

    Taylor, A. G., Adams, F. C., & Calvet, N. 2026, Icarus, 447, 116913, doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2025.116913

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2025.116913 2026

  73. [73]

    Thanathibodee, T., Calvet, N., Bae, J., Muzerolle, J., & Hernández, R. F. 2019,TheAstrophysicalJournal,885,94,doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab44c1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab44c1 2019

  74. [74]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 944, 90, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acac84

    Thanathibodee, T., Molina, B., Serna, J., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 944, 90, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acac84

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acac84 2023

  75. [75]

    2025, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 698, A19, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202553936 Turner,N.J.,Lee,M.H.,&Sano,T.2014,TheAstrophysicalJournal,783, 14, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/14

    Trevascus, D., Blunt, S., Christiaens, V., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 698, A19, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202553936 Turner,N.J.,Lee,M.H.,&Sano,T.2014,TheAstrophysicalJournal,783, 14, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/14

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202553936 2025

  76. [76]

    Ulrich, R. K. 1976, The Astrophysical Journal, 210, 377, doi:10.1086/ 154840 van Capelleveen, R. F., Ginski, C., Kenworthy, M. A., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 990, L8, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf721 Venkatesan,V.,Blunt,S.,Wang,J.J.,etal.2025,TheAstrophysicalJournal, 993, 69, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae0c15

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf721 1976

  77. [77]

    B., Close, L

    Wagner, K., Follete, K. B., Close, L. M., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 863, L8, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aad695

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aad695 2018

  78. [78]

    J., Ginzburg, S., Ren, B., et al

    Wang, J. J., Ginzburg, S., Ren, B., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 263, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab8aef

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab8aef 2020

  79. [79]

    J., Vigan, A., Lacour, S., et al

    Wang, J. J., Vigan, A., Lacour, S., et al. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 148, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abdb2d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abdb2d 2021

  80. [80]

    D., Males, J

    Wu, Y.-L., Sheehan, P. D., Males, J. R., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 836, 223, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5b96 Xuan,J.W.,Hsu,C.-C.,Finnerty,L.,etal.2024,TheAstrophysicalJournal, 970, 71, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4796 Zhou,Y.,Herczeg,G.J.,Kraus,A.L.,Metchev,S.,&Cruz,K.L.2014,The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 783, L17, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/ L17

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5b96 2017

Showing first 80 references.