ALMA observations are underestimated, perhaps in part due to unaccounted covariance associated with large scale emission. By contrast, modeling the SMA and ALMA observations simultaneously does not require strong priors on the disk parameters to obtain meaningful constraints. Figure \[fig:cornerplot\] shows the posterior probability distributions for the model parameters that result from fitting the SMA and ALMA observations together. For these combined fits, the small proper motion of HR 8799 between SMA and ALMA observing epochs ($0\farcs20$) was ignored, given its insignificance at the low angular resolution of the SMA observations.

![image](fig5.eps)

\[fig:cornerplot\]

![image](fig6.eps)

\[fig:datmodres\]

Figure \[fig:datmodres\] shows the combined SMA and ALMA image from Figure \[fig:cont\] together with images of the best-fit model at full resolution, the best-fit model imaged in the same way as the data, and an image made from the observed visibilities after subtracting the best-fit model visibilities. This broad ($\Delta R/R\gtrsim 1$) inclined belt model reproduces very well the main features of the observations, including the inner depression and limb-brightened regions in the northeast and southwest. The goodness-of-fit is demonstrated by the noise-like residual image. Notably, the imaged residuals reveal no significant azimuthal brightness asymmetries, as might arise from the presence of resonant clumps, or 