Online material
Appendix A: Preliminary best-fit solutions
The parameter sets listed in Table A.1 represent the preliminary, coarse model fits to our four observing epochs of LkCa 15 obtained through an iterative search during the early phase of this work. They are used as a starting point for the studies presented in Sects. 5.2 and 5.5. Our final, optimized solutions and their confidence intervals are described in Sect. 5.3.
Description of the preliminary best-fit (PBF) solutions to the four datasets.
Appendix B: Best-fit solutions under the restriction of y = 0
Our analysis clearly favors a significant offset y of the disk center that is perpendicular to the line of nodes (cf. Sect. 5.9). However, this offset is yet unconfirmed, and could therefore represent an unknown bias in our modeling approach. For this reason, we here provide an overview of how the imposed restriction of y = 0 would affect our results.
Since some covariances are found between the parameters r, i, g, w and y (cf. Sect. 5.10), the χ2 plots for those parameters undergo significant changes. Figures B.1–B.4 show the corresponding plots for the y = 0 parameter sub-space.
In the unrestricted analysis, a range of y values are included in the well fitting family, each of which contributes a narrow valley to the χ2 landscape. For parameters that covary with y, the χ2 valleys change their positions with varying y; thus, the final χ2 valley calculated over all y is broadened. For this reason, imposing the restriction of y = 0 results in steeper χ2 curves than in the unrestricted case.
Furthermore, since the natural best-fit value of y is negative, the restriction of y = 0 causes a negative [positive] shift in the best-fit value of parameters that exhibit positive [negative] covariation with y. The gap radius r decreases from 56 AU to 50 AU, whereas the inclination i rises from 50° to 54°.
 |
Fig. B.1
Constraints on the outer disk wall radius r under the restriction of y = 0. The plot shows the excess of the best-fit χ2 for a given r with respect to the global minimum |
| Open with DEXTER | |
 |
Fig. B.2
Constraints on the inclination i of the disk plane under the restriction of y = 0. The plot shows the excess of the best-fit χ2 for a given i with respect to the global minimum |
| Open with DEXTER | |
 |
Fig. B.3
Constraints on the Henyey-Greenstein parameter g under the restriction of y = 0. The plot shows the excess of the best-fit χ2 for a given g with respect to the global minimum |
| Open with DEXTER | |
 |
Fig. B.4
Constraints on wall shape parameter w under the restriction of y = 0. The plot shows the excess of the best-fit χ2 for a given w with respect to the global minimum |
| Open with DEXTER | |
Appendix C: Exploration of disk wall scale height h as an additional free parameter
We ran a small-scale version of the brute-force parameter grid with outer disk scale heights of h = [1,2] to test whether the observed y offset could be an aliasing effect of an inaccurate assumption on h. Since h = 1 represents the hydrostatic equilibrium value, the test value of h = 2 is an extreme case that is intended to probe the possible codependence of h and y with high sensitivity.
The analysis was run only for the best epoch, K3. We used the following parametric grid listed in Table C.1. Its irregularity occurs because it was assembled in two stages after it was found that the first stage did not fully encompass the best-fit solution.
Parameter grid for the h = 2 analysis.
The best-fit solution was achieved for g = 0.70, s = 0, w = 0.05, i = 44°, f = 1.067, and y = −90 mas. The minimum χ2 achieved was 601, which is 2.8 Δχ2 above the 
of the best-fit solution with h = 1. While some of the best-fit parameters for h = 2 deviate significantly from their h = 1 counterparts (most notably the wall shape parameter w), we note that the best-fit value for y is still in excellent agreement with the results for h = 1 (y = −70 [ − 115, − 45] mas). This implies that there is no significant covariance between y and h.
This behavior can be understood in conjunction with the observation that the best-fit models do not include a shadow from the inner disk on the wall of the outer disk (s = 0), and thus, the wall appears as a single bright crescent rather than two distinct thin arcs. Increasing the outer disk scale height h makes the crescent wider (thus, perhaps, explaining the reduction in the wall shape parameter w, which is responsible for widening the crescent in the global best fit with h = 1) but does not affect its overall position.
Thus, we conclude that the observed offset in y is a robust result of our analysis within the framework of our disk model and does not reflect an underlying error in the outer disk scale height h. We continue to use h = 1 as a fixed internal parameter for this work.
© ESO, 2014