tokens: at PA = 259o as the distance to the source increases. Table 8. Parameters of the continuum and CH 3 CN line best-fitting model, which consists of an Ulrich envelope and a flared disc. Parameters in bold under the last column are the 10 free parameters that can be constrained by the observations. The inner radius depends on the stellar luminosity. a Defined at a height z = 10 4 au. b 2 models had the same best overall ranking value. The parameters of the best-fitting model during the visual inspection step are listed in Table 8 and the ranking and reduced χ 2 values for each observation are listed in Table 9 . The best-fitting model has a type A density distribution (Ulrich 1976 envelope and a flared disc). The envelope radius was well-fitted during this step and has a value roughly a factor of 1.4 smaller than the initial visual inspection model and has a similar size to the model with disc of Johnston et al. ( 2013 ). The disc scale height is smaller by roughly one order of magnitude than those in Johnston et al. ( 2013 ), but this parameter cannot be constrained by our observations, thus it was less explored. The shape of the cavity changed from the initial exponent of 1.5 to 2.0, and its reference density decreased an ∼15 per cent from its initial value and its density exponent did not change. Table 9. Overall ranking and reduced χ 2 values for the continuum best-fitting models of each type. a Average weighted ranking as described in Appendix A1.2 (online). Similarly, in Table 8 and 9 , we list the results for the overall best-fitting model after the grid-fitting step. The disc mass and radius increased with respect to the visual inspection best-fitting model. The former is roughly a third of the disc mass in the control model of Johnston et al. ( 2013 ), but the disc radii are similar. This difference is explained by the difference in the disc scale height. The cavity opening angle is equal to the one from the visual inspection best-fitting model, and the inclination angles differ by 15o. The luminosities are the same between the best-fitting models at each step, whilst the envelope infall rate is ∼1.8 times higher in the overall best-fitting model. The model SED agrees reasonably well with the observations as shown in Fig. 10 . The total mass of the model, M = 2.1 × 10 3 M ⊙ , is enough to fit the 10- μ m silicate feature relatively well at an inclination of 25o and closely fit the submm points. This is 900 M ⊙ more massive than the model with disc of Johnston et al. ( 2013 ), but 600 M ⊙ less massive than their envelope only model. Models with WD01 dust can also fit in the submm with lower masses, however, they underestimate the fluxes between 3 and 8 μ m by a factor of ∼10. The near-IR maps in Fig. 7(a)–(c) show that the near-IR band images are well reproduced. However, Fig. 8 shows that the small scales closer to the star position probed by the speckle observation are not well reproduced. In general, most models with a cavity
ner_tags: O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O