Close-in giant-planet formation via in-situ gas accretion and their natal disk properties

Bradley M. S. Hansen; Tze Yeung Mathew Yu; Yasuhiro Hasegawa

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

Close-in giant-planet formation via in-situ gas accretion and their natal disk properties

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The distribution of close-in giant planets can be inverted, under in-situ gas accretion, to recover the gas surface density and magnetic-field structure of their natal disks.

desk verdict A transparent but ultimately circular inversion of giant-planet occurrence rates into inner-disk gas and magnetic-field profiles; the authors flag the key assumption, but it undermines the period-valley connection. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.00647 v1 pith:FLBM2Y2D submitted 2019-08-01 astro-ph.EP

Yasuhiro Hasegawa , Tze Yeung Mathew Yu , Bradley M. S. Hansen This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.EP

keywords close-ingiantplanetsin-situgasaccretionoccurrencerateinversionsurfacedensitymagneticfieldsperiodvalleyminimum-massextrasolarnebulaprotoplanetarydisks

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that exoplanet occurrence-rate surveys can be read as a map of the inner regions of planet-forming disks. Under the in-situ gas-accretion scenario, close-in giant planets form where they are observed, so the rate at which they appear at a given orbital radius should trace how efficiently roughly ten-Earth-mass cores accrete local disk gas. Inverting the observed occurrence rates this way yields a gas surface density that increases with distance from the star and has a feature near 0.1 au, in contrast to the standard minimum-mass solar nebula, which decreases outward. The same inversion reconstructs magnetic-field profiles that switch from a stellar-dipole scaling ($\propto r^{-3}$) close to the star to a large-scale-field scaling ($\propto r^{-2}$) farther out, with the switch at about 0.1 au, the period valley of giant exoplanets. If the claim is right, planet-occurrence statistics become a probe of the gas and magnetic environment of inner disks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is equation (3), $f_{\rm OR}(r) \equiv k_{\rm OR}\,\dot{M}_p/\dot{M}_d$, which says the occurrence rate tracks the disk-limited gas-accretion efficiency onto planetary cores. The gas-accretion rate $\dot{M}_p$ uses the Tanigawa-Ikoma formula; the disk accretion rate uses the steady-state relation $\dot{M}_d = 3\pi\nu\Sigma_g$ with Shakura-Sunyaev viscosity $\nu=\alpha c_s H_g$. A self-consistent temperature from viscous heating (equation 4) and Bell et al. opacities closes the system, so the shape of $f_{\rm OR}$ is imprinted directly on $\Sigma_g$, $\alpha$, and $T_d$. The magnetic-field reconstruction then runs through two published scalings: Salvesen et al. for ideal-MHD turbulence and Bai for nonideal-MHD disk winds, both of which relate $\alpha$ to the vertical magnetic flux $B_z$; the resulting $B_z$ profiles carry the same 0.1 au transition.

What would settle it

A finer-binned occurrence-rate survey, or a direct measurement of inner-disk gas that showed the surface density decreasing with radius between 0.05 and 1 au, would contradict the reconstructed profile and undermine the inversion; likewise, showing that the formation frequency of ten-Earth-mass cores varies strongly within 0.1 au would remove the basis for equation (3).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the occurrence-rate distribution $f_{\rm OR}(r)$ of close-in Jovian planets, taken from Kepler transit data with radial-velocity follow-up, can be inverted to recover the properties of the disks in which they formed. The inversion assumes that $f_{\rm OR}(r)$ is proportional to the disk-limited gas-accretion efficiency onto $10\,M_\oplus$ cores; combining this with steady-state viscous disk accretion and self-consistent viscous heating gives the gas surface density $\Sigma_g(r)$, effective viscosity $\alpha(r)$, and disk temperature $T_d(r)$. The reconstructed $\Sigma_g$ increases with radius and carries a feature at $r \simeq 0.1$ au, unlike the $r^{-3/2}$ decline of the minimum-mass solar nebula. Converting the $\alpha$ profile into magnetic fields through published ideal-MHD and nonideal-MHD scalings, the paper finds vertical fields that follow a stellar dipole ($B_z \propto r^{-3}$) close to the star and large-scale fields ($B_z \propto r^{-2}$) farther out, with the transition again at about 0.1 au, coincident with the period valley. The paper concludes that the in-situ scenario is testable against disk quantities and that occurrence data can constrain the gas distribution of the minimum-mass extrasolar nebula.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands or falls on the assumption that the occurrence rate of close-in giant planets at each radius is proportional to the gas-accretion efficiency of uniformly formed ten-Earth-mass cores, so that every bump and dip in the occurrence rate reflects gas properties rather than where cores happen to form.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Occurrence-rate surveys of close-in giants become a direct empirical constraint on inner-disk gas surface density and temperature, effectively building a minimum-mass extrasolar nebula for $r \lesssim 1$ au.
The predicted change from stellar-dipole to large-scale-field scaling at about 0.1 au links the hot-Jupiter period valley to a magnetic transition, implying stellar fields shape hot-Jupiter formation while large-scale fields matter for giant planets beyond 0.1 au.
The increasing surface-density profile supports earlier work showing that such a profile reproduces the observed close-in super-Earth population better than the decreasing minimum-mass solar nebula profile.
In-situ gas accretion appears viable for planets forming beyond 0.1 au; inside that radius the model needs very massive cores or very high viscosity, so other mechanisms such as high-eccentricity migration and tidal circularization may explain the innermost hot Jupiters.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A direct test of the core-uniformity assumption would compare the occurrence rates of close-in super-Earths and sub-Neptunes, which trace where cores form, with the reconstructed gas profile; if cores are scarce inside 10 days, the recovered $\Sigma_g$ is biased.
The same inversion applied to independent occurrence-rate data sets, such as pure radial-velocity surveys, would tell whether the rising $\Sigma_g$ and the 0.1 au break are robust features or artifacts of the Kepler sample.
Future observations of inner-disk gas, for example line or continuum emission probing 0.05-1 au, could check directly whether the gas surface density really increases outward as predicted.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Here's my read on Hasegawa et al. 1908.00647. The paper inverts the occurrence rate of close-in giant planets, under the in-situ gas accretion scenario, to reconstruct natal disk properties: gas surface density, effective alpha, and vertical magnetic field. The algebra is straightforward and the writing is honest.

What's new: the explicit reconstruction of Bz from the occurrence rate is new, and the suggestion that the r^-3 to r^-2 magnetic-field transition falls at the giant-planet period valley is a striking idea. The rising Sigma_g profile was already proposed by Ogihara et al. 2015, and the authors say so. Credit where due: they use standard disk physics, two opacity regimes, and published MHD alpha relations, and they clearly state the fundamental hypothesis.

The soft spots are not hidden. The load-bearing premise is that fOR(r) is proportional to the gas accretion efficiency onto 10-M_Earth cores, with the formation frequency of such cores radially uniform. The paper itself labels this the most critical issue, and notes that Kepler data show super-Earth/sub-Neptune occurrence rising from 1 to 10 days, so the assumption is only justified at longer periods. But the period valley sits around 0.1 au, inside the region where the assumption is weakest. Since fOR is the input, and the paper says the switch in Bz profiles originates from fOR, the claimed coincidence with the period valley is inherited from the data, not an independent test. That is circular in effect: the valley is in the input occurrence rate, and it appears in the output fields.

Also, the error bars are not propagated, so the derived shapes are qualitative. The absolute normalizations depend on kOR, Mdot_d, and Mp, all set without calibration; the authors admit kOR is unknown. For a letter, these are not fatal if the claims are framed as a reconstruction rather than a prediction.

Who should read this: researchers in planet formation and inner disk physics. It is a useful illustration of how occurrence-rate inversions might constrain disk structure, but it should be read with the circularity in mind.

My recommendation: engage with the paper. It deserves a serious referee who will probe the uniformity assumption and the error propagation. I would not desk-reject it, but I would insist that the abstract and conclusions stop treating the period-valley match as confirmation. Conditional acceptance, not a clean endorsement.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the observed occurrence-rate distribution of close-in giant planets (Santerne et al. 2016) can be inverted, under the in-situ gas-accretion hypothesis, to recover the properties of the natal protoplanetary disk. The authors assume fOR(r) = kOR * Mdot_p/Mdot_d, where Mdot_p is the disk-limited gas accretion rate onto a 10 M_Earth core (Eq. 1) and Mdot_d is the steady-state disk accretion rate (Eq. 2). Solving Eqs. (1)-(4) self-consistently with viscous heating and two opacity regimes, they obtain T_d(r), Sigma_g(r), and alpha(r); they then convert alpha into B_z(r) using published ideal-MHD and nonideal-MHD alpha-beta relations. They find that Sigma_g increases with r with structure near 0.1 au, that alpha decreases with r, and that B_z can be represented by r^-3 and r^-2 power laws with a transition at roughly 0.1 au, which they associate with the giant-planet period valley. They conclude that occurrence-rate surveys can constrain inner-disk gas distributions and magnetic field geometries and provide a test of the in-situ scenario.

Significance. If valid, the inversion would provide a novel, observationally grounded route to inner-disk quantities (Sigma_g, alpha, B_z) that are otherwise largely unconstrained, and the explicit connection to the period valley is appealing. The paper is commendably transparent: the input data and formulas are clearly stated, the algebra is simple enough to check, and the most critical caveat (uniform core formation frequency) is acknowledged in Section 3. The strength of the paper is this clarity: a reader can immediately see that the derived Sigma_g profile "traces the shape of fOR" (Section 2.3) and that the B_z switch "originates from fOR" (Section 2.4). However, this transparency also reveals that the main results are inherited from the input occurrence-rate distribution through the assumed proportionality, and that the inversion is degenerate with the radial dependence of the formation frequency of 10 M_Earth cores. The significance is therefore conditional; the paper is best read as an illustrative inversion under a stated hypothesis rather than a demonstrated empirical reconstruction.

major comments (3)

[Section 2.1, Eqs. (1) and (3)] There is an apparent factor-of-100 normalization inconsistency between Eq. (1) and Eq. (3). Using the steady-state relation Mdot_d = 3*pi*nu*Sigma_g with nu = alpha*c_s*H_g, Eq. (1) can be rewritten as Mdot_p/Mdot_d = [0.29/(3*pi)] * (M_p/M_*)^(4/3) * (H_g/r_p)^(-4) * alpha^(-1). For the canonical parameters quoted in the text (alpha = 10^-2, H_g/r_p = 0.05, M_p = 10 M_Earth, M_* = M_Sun), this ratio equals 0.46, not 4.6*10^-3. Therefore Eq. (3), which states fOR = 0.46 kOR ... %, is too small by a factor of 100 unless kOR is correspondingly reduced. With kOR = 1 the predicted occurrence rate is about 46%, whereas the observed values in Fig. 1 are at the percent level. The absolute normalization enters alpha, Sigma_g, and B_z through Eqs. (3)-(8); in particular, the B_z values in Fig. 3 and their comparison with the dipole and large-scale field estimates in Eqs. (9) and (10) would shift by a large factor if the normalization is corrected. Please check the numerical coefficient and either correct Eq. (3) or specify the effective kOR that makes the normalization consistent with the observed rates.
[Section 3 and Eq. (3)] The main inference is degenerate with the radial dependence of the formation frequency of ~10 M_Earth cores. Equation (3) should formally be fOR = kOR * f_core(r) * Mdot_p/Mdot_d, where f_core(r) is the local formation frequency of cores; any radial variation in f_core enters the equation in exactly the same way as a variation in disk properties. The manuscript itself states (Section 3) that Kepler super-Earth and sub-Neptune occurrence rates increase from 1 to 10 days and flatten only beyond 10 days, so the assumption of uniform core formation is "justified only for longer periods." Since r ~ 0.1 au corresponds to orbital periods of about 10-11 days for a solar-mass star, the region that produces the claimed break in Sigma_g and B_z is precisely where the uniformity assumption is least secure. This is not merely a formal caveat: without an independent model for f_core(r), the reconstruction cannot distinguish low Sigma_g from a low core abundance inside 10 days. The abstract and Section 2.4 should be qualified accordingly, or the analysis should be repeated with an explicit f_core(r) term to show which conclusions are robust.
[Section 2.3, Fig. 2] The paper does not propagate the observational uncertainties of the occurrence-rate measurements into the derived disk quantities. Figure 1 shows substantial error bars, and while the right panel of Fig. 2 displays error bars for alpha, no confidence intervals are given for Sigma_g or B_z, and the text does not discuss how the error bars were computed. The central claim of a "structure" at r ~ 0.1 au and a magnetic-field transition at the same location is therefore not yet supported against the noise in the input data. Please add a propagation of the fOR uncertainties (or a sensitivity analysis in which the bin values are varied within their error bars) and state explicitly whether the 0.1 au feature survives.

minor comments (5)

[Section 2.4, Eq. (6)] The displayed equation contains an extra comma after W_zphi; please remove it.
[Figure 2 caption] The right-panel axis label appears truncated ("Effective "); it should read "Effective alpha", and the caption should define alpha for completeness.
[Section 2.1, footnote 1] The footnote states that the sample covers radii 4-24 R_Earth, "equivalently 3 M_Earth - 80 M_Jupiter"; this equivalence is dimensionally unclear and should be reworded or supported by a citation.
[Section 3] The r-to-P conversion in the discussion of the period valley assumes a solar-mass host star, but the Santerne et al. (2016) sample includes a range of stellar masses; please state this assumption explicitly.
[References] The reference to Mayor et al. (2011) is given as an arXiv preprint; please update to the published version if one exists.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Core disk-property profiles are the input occurrence-rate shape rescaled; the 0.1 au 'transition' is inherited from the same fOR data, though the MHD power-law slopes add independent content.

self definitional [Section 2.1, Eq. (3); Section 2.3, Fig. 2 (central panel)]
"fOR(r)≡ kOR ˙Mp/˙Md ≃ 0.46kOR (α/10−2)^−1 (Hg/rp/0.05)^−4 (Mp/10M⊕)^4/3 %, ... Our results also show that Σg traces the shape of fOR for all cases considered here (see Figure 1)."

Equation (3) defines fOR as proportional to Mdot_p/Mdot_d, and with the steady-state disk relation Mdot_d=3πνΣg the inversion makes Σg essentially a function of fOR. Section 2.3 then states that Σg traces the shape of fOR. Consequently the abstract's 'resulting gas surface density profile becomes an increasing function of the distance from the central star with some structure at r≃0.1 au' is a rescaled copy of the Santerne et al. (2016) occurrence-rate bins used as input, not an independent derivation. Setting kOR=1, Mdot_d=10^-8 M☉/yr, and Mp=10 M⊕ only fixes the normalization; the radial shape, including the 0.1 au structure, is fixed by the input data through Eq. (3) by construction.
other [Section 2.4, Fig. 3; also Section 3]
"It is clear that the switch in profiles originates from fOR."

The magnetic-field profile Bz is constructed from the α profile using Eqs. (5) and (8), and α is given as 1/Σg under the steady-state model while Σg traces fOR. Therefore the r≃0.1 au transition in Bz is inherited from the input fOR distribution rather than being a new prediction. Since the same fOR data define the hot-Jupiter/period-valley separation, the statement that the Bz transition 'corresponds to the period valley' is a restatement of the input feature, not an independent check. The r^-3 and r^-2 power-law slopes do come from the adopted MHD scalings (Salvesen et al. 2016; Bai 2013), so only the location of the slope change reduces to the input.

full rationale

The paper is transparent about its method: it assumes fOR(r) ∝ Mdot_p/Mdot_d (Eq. 3), inverts to find disk properties, and explicitly notes that 'Σg traces the shape of fOR' and that 'the switch in profiles originates from fOR.' This makes the central reconstructed profiles—increasing Σg, α∝1/Σg, and the 0.1 au Bz transition—equivalent, up to normalization and self-consistent temperature corrections, to the input occurrence-rate distribution. The period-valley correspondence is therefore a renaming of the input data feature rather than an independent prediction. However, this is not a fully circular paper: the temperature computation in Eq. (4) is self-consistent, the conversion from α to Bz uses external MHD simulation relations, the r^-3/r^-2 slopes are not prescribed by fOR, and the comparison to stellar dipole/large-scale field upper limits is external. The paper also candidly flags the main degeneracy in Section 3, noting that uniform 10-M⊕ core formation frequency is assumed and that low fOR inside 10 days could be due to low core abundance rather than low Σg. Hence the circularity is partial: the shape claims and the 0.1 au break reduce by construction, while some derived content (e.g., the Bz power-law slopes) is independent. Score 6 reflects this partial reduction rather than full circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The inversion rests on one explicit but unverified link between planet occurrence and gas accretion efficiency (kOR), plus standard disk physics and MHD scaling relations taken from the literature. There are no new physical entities. The shape of the derived profiles is set almost entirely by the input fOR; the model parameters only set absolute normalization.

free parameters (3)

kOR = 1 (assumed, unknown)
Unknown conversion factor between occurrence rate and gas accretion efficiency; set to unity; shifts absolute magnitudes of Σg, α, and Bz but not their radial shapes.
Mdot_d (disk accretion rate) = 1e-8 M_sun/yr
Adopted from disk observations; variation only shifts absolute magnitudes, not profile shapes.
Mp (core mass) = 10 M_earth
Assumed typical core mass; variation only shifts absolute magnitudes, not profile shapes.

assumptions (8)

ad hoc to paper The occurrence rate fOR(r) is proportional to the gas accretion efficiency onto cores: fOR = kOR Mdot_p/Mdot_d.
Fundamental hypothesis stated in Section 2.1, eq (3); it is the link between planet occurrence statistics and disk properties, and is not independently verified.
ad hoc to paper The formation frequency of ~10 M⊕ cores is uniform in the inner disk.
Acknowledged in Section 3 as an implicit assumption of equation (3); if false, low fOR near the star could be due to missing cores rather than low gas supply.
domain assumption Disk-limited gas accretion is the stage that sets fOR; earlier envelope contraction is unimportant.
Section 2.1 argues the Kelvin-Helmholtz stage ends quickly and gap-opening later stages do not reflect local disk properties.
domain assumption Steady-state alpha-disk accretion model, Mdot_d = 3πνΣg with ν = α c_s H_g.
Used in equations (1)-(3); standard but not valid in the presence of strong disk winds or unsteady accretion.
domain assumption Viscous heating in the optically thick limit with constant vertical heat flux determines T_d in the inner disk.
Section 2.2, equation (4), following Ruden & Lin and Nakamoto & Nakagawa; ignores stellar irradiation in the inner region.
domain assumption Bell et al. opacity regimes n=7 and n=8 bracket the inner-disk opacity.
Section 2.2 states results for all regimes are bracketed by these two within the water snow line.
domain assumption The MHD scaling relations for α (Salvesen et al. 2016; Bai 2013) apply to the reconstructed disk.
Section 2.4 uses equations (5) and (7) from these simulations to convert alpha into B_z; these relations were not derived for the specific reconstructed disk conditions.
domain assumption After self-consistent computation, the isothermal and flat-disk temperature approximations suffice.
Section 2.3 restricts the analysis to these two cases, motivated by the similarity of sublimation-case T_d to isothermal and metal-grain-case T_d to flat disk.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Close-in giant-planet formation via in-situ gas accretion and their natal disk properties." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FLBM2Y2D

@misc{pith2026190800647,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Close-in giant-planet formation via in-situ gas accretion and their natal disk properties},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FLBM2Y2D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00647}
}

abstract

The origin of close-in Jovian planets is still elusive. We examine the in-situ gas accretion scenario as a formation mechanism of these planets. We reconstruct natal disk properties from the occurrence rate distribution of close-in giant planets, under the assumption that the occurrence rate may reflect the gas accretion efficiency onto cores of these planets. We find that the resulting gas surface density profile becomes an increasing function of the distance from the central star with some structure at $r \simeq 0.1$ au. This profile is quite different from the standard minimum-mass solar nebula model, while our profile leads to better reproduction of the population of observed close-in super-Earths based on previous studies. We compute the resulting magnetic field profiles and find that our profiles can be fitted by stellar dipole fields ($\propto r^{-3}$) in the vicinity of the central star and large-scale fields ($\propto r^{-2}$) at the inner disk regions, either if the isothermal assumption breaks down or if nonideal MHD effects become important. For both cases, the transition between these two profiles occurs at $r \simeq 0.1$ au, which corresponds to the period valley of giant exoplanets. Our work provides an opportunity to test the in-situ gas accretion scenario against disk quantities, which may constrain the gas distribution of the minimum-mass {\it extra}solar nebula.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.00647 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Occurrence rates of close-in giant planets as a function of orbital period. The horizontal bars represent the bin sizes used in estimating the occurrence rates, while the vertical ones denote the error bars. The data are taken from Santerne et al. (2016). The lack of migration in the in-situ scenario implies that the formation efficiency of giant planets must be determined by the local properties of their natal disk… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Resulting structures of Td, Σg, and α as a function of the distance from the central star in the left, central, and right panels, respectively. The results for the isothermal case are denoted by the red solid line, those for the sublimation case by the green dotted line, those for the flat disk case by the black dashed line, and those for the metal grain case by the orange dash-dotted line. As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:f… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Resulting magnetic field profiles as a function of r, as in the right panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[1]

Armitage, P. J. 2011, ARA&A, 49, 195

work page 2011
[2]

Armitage, P. J. 2016, ApJ, 833, L15

work page 2016
[3]

2014, ApJ, 791, 137

Bai, X.-N. 2014, ApJ, 791, 137

work page 2014
[4]

& Stone, J

Bai, X.-N. & Stone, J. M. 2013, ApJ, 769, 76

2013
[5]

Balbus, S. A. & Hawley, J. F. 1998, Reviews of Modern Physics, 70, 1

1998
[6]

H., & Laughlin, G

Batygin, K., Bodenheimer, P. H., & Laughlin, G. P. 2016, ApJ, 829, 114

work page 2016
[7]

R., Cassen, P

Bell, K. R., Cassen, P. M., Klahr, H. H., & Henning, T. 1997, ApJ, 486, 372

1997
[8]

Bodenheimer, P., Hubickyj, O., & Lissauer, J. J. 2000, Icarus, 143, 2

work page 2000

Show all 52 references

[9]

C., Granados Contreras, A

Boley, A. C., Granados Contreras, A. P., & Gladman, B. 2016, ApJ, 817, L17

2016
[10]

& Laughlin, G

Chiang, E. & Laughlin, G. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 3444

2013
[11]

Chiang, E. I. & Goldreich, P. 1997, ApJ, 490, 368 D’Alessio, P., Cantó, J., Calvet, N., & Lizano, S. 1998, ApJ, 500, 411

1997
[12]

Dawson, R. I. & Johnson, J. A. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 175

2018
[13]

F., Morin, J., Petit, P., et al

Donati, J. F., Morin, J., Petit, P., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 545

2008
[14]

B., Mulders, G

Fernandes, R. B., Mulders, G. D., Pascucci, I., Mordasini, C., & Emsenhuber, A. 2019, ApJ, 874, 81

2019
[15]

Frank, J., King, A., & Raine, D. J. 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics: Third Edition

2002
[16]

Gammie, C. F. 1996, ApJ, 457, 355

1996
[17]

& Lamb, F

Ghosh, P. & Lamb, F. K. 1979, ApJ, 232, 259

1979
[18]

2016, ARA&A, 54, 135

Hartmann, L., Herczeg, G., & Calvet, N. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 135

2016
[19]

2018, ApJ, 865, 32

Hasegawa, Y ., Bryden, G., Ikoma, M., Vasisht, G., & Swain, M. 2018, ApJ, 865, 32

2018
[20]

Hasegawa, Y ., Hansen, B. M. S., & Vasisht, G. 2019, ApJ, 876, L32

2019
[21]

& Ida, S

Hasegawa, Y . & Ida, S. 2013, ApJ, 774, 146

2013
[22]

Hasegawa, Y ., Okuzumi, S., Flock, M., & Turner, N. J. 2017, ApJ, 845, 31

2017
[23]

& Pudritz, R

Hasegawa, Y . & Pudritz, R. E. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 1236

2011
[24]

1981, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 70, 35

Hayashi, C. 1981, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 70, 35

1981
[25]

Johns-Krull, C. M. 2007, ApJ, 664, 975

2007
[26]

& Nelson, R

Kley, W. & Nelson, R. P. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 211

2012
[27]

1991, ApJ, 370, L39

Koenigl, A. 1991, ApJ, 370, L39

1991
[28]

W., & Fromang, S

Lesur, G., Kunz, M. W., & Fromang, S. 2014, A&A, 566, A56

2014
[29]

Lin, D. N. C., Bodenheimer, P., & Richardson, D. C. 1996, Nature, 380, 606

1996
[30]

H., Papaloizou, J

Lubow, S. H., Papaloizou, J. C. B., & Pringle, J. E. 1994, MNRAS, 267, 235

1994
[31]

S., Morbidelli, A., Crida, A., & Ferreira, J

Masset, F. S., Morbidelli, A., Crida, A., & Ferreira, J. 2006, ApJ, 642, 478

2006
[32]

J., & Rasio, F

Matsumura, S., Peale, S. J., & Rasio, F. A. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1995

2010
[33]

& Queloz, D

Mayor, M. & Queloz, D. 1995, Nature, 378, 355

1995
[34]

Mayor, M. et al. 2011, preprint (astro-ph/arXiv:1109.2497v1)

2011 arXiv
[35]

2014, Icarus, 232, 266

Morbidelli, A., Szulágyi, J., Crida, A., et al. 2014, Icarus, 232, 266

2014
[36]

2012, A&A, 547, A111

Mordasini, C., Alibert, Y ., Klahr, H., & Henning, T. 2012, A&A, 547, A111

2012
[37]

& Nakagawa, Y

Nakamoto, T. & Nakagawa, Y . 1994, ApJ, 421, 640

1994
[38]

2015, A&A, 584, L1

Ogihara, M., Morbidelli, A., & Guillot, T. 2015, A&A, 584, L1

2015
[39]

2014, ApJ, 785, 127

Okuzumi, S., Takeuchi, T., & Muto, T. 2014, ApJ, 785, 127

2014
[40]

A., Marcy, G

Petigura, E. A., Marcy, G. W., Winn, J. N., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 89

2018
[41]

B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al

Pollack, J. B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., et al. 1996, Icarus, 124, 62

1996
[42]

Rasio, F. A. & Ford, E. B. 1996, Science, 274, 954

1996
[43]

Ruden, S. P. & Lin, D. N. C. 1986, ApJ, 308, 883

1986
[44]

B., Armitage, P

Salvesen, G., Simon, J. B., Armitage, P. J., & Begelman, M. C. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 857

2016
[45]

2016, A&A, 587, A64

Santerne, A., Moutou, C., Tsantaki, M., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A64

2016
[46]

Shakura, N. I. & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337

1973
[47]

& Ikoma, M

Tanigawa, T. & Ikoma, M. 2007, ApJ, 667, 557

2007
[48]

& Watanabe, S.-i

Tanigawa, T. & Watanabe, S.-i. 2002, ApJ, 580, 506

2002
[49]

J., Fromang, S., Gammie, C., et al

Turner, N. J., Fromang, S., Gammie, C., et al. 2014, Protostars and Planets VI, 411

2014
[50]

Williams, J. P. & Cieza, L. A. 2011, ARA&A, 49, 67

2011
[51]

Winn, J. N. & Fabrycky, D. C. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 409

2015
[52]

& Lithwick, Y

Wu, Y . & Lithwick, Y . 2011, ApJ, 735, 109 Article number, page 5 of 5

2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Armitage, P. J. 2011, ARA&A, 49, 195

work page 2011

[2] [2]

Armitage, P. J. 2016, ApJ, 833, L15

work page 2016

[3] [3]

2014, ApJ, 791, 137

Bai, X.-N. 2014, ApJ, 791, 137

work page 2014

[4] [4]

& Stone, J

Bai, X.-N. & Stone, J. M. 2013, ApJ, 769, 76

2013

[5] [5]

Balbus, S. A. & Hawley, J. F. 1998, Reviews of Modern Physics, 70, 1

1998

[6] [6]

H., & Laughlin, G

Batygin, K., Bodenheimer, P. H., & Laughlin, G. P. 2016, ApJ, 829, 114

work page 2016

[7] [7]

R., Cassen, P

Bell, K. R., Cassen, P. M., Klahr, H. H., & Henning, T. 1997, ApJ, 486, 372

1997

[8] [8]

Bodenheimer, P., Hubickyj, O., & Lissauer, J. J. 2000, Icarus, 143, 2

work page 2000