the properties of the two point sources. The best-fit disk parameters are basically the same as the ones without fixing the two point sources (Section 3.2). The residual maps are shown in Figures \[residual\_disk\]a and \[residual\_disk\]b. Compared to Figures \[mcmc\_model\]a and \[mcmc\_model\]b, the fits with the fixed point source properties have no over subtraction at the position of the bright source, but the residual around the bright source is higher.

We performed similar searches using the image plane approach by masking out the pixels that have fluxes $>$0.1 mJy beam$^{-1}$ (the region around the bright source and the center of the faint one). To explore whether allowing a slight offset between the star and the disk center can improve the results, we also allow offsets in the MCMC parameters. The best-fit disk parameters are given in Table \[tab4\_disk\]. Interestingly, the disk size parameters are slightly smaller than the ones derived in Section 3.3, but still within uncertainties. The residual maps are shown in Figures \[residual\_disk\]c and \[residual\_disk\]d. The derived disk fluxes is also smaller, reducing the over-subtraction in the east side of the disk. The presence of the bright source is undoubtedly affecting the derived disk parameters. Unfortunately, there is 