Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Particle fragmentation inside planet-induced spiral waves

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Planet-launched spiral waves drive dust collisions fast enough to fragment pebbles.

desk verdict A clean, honest proof-of-concept that planet-induced spiral waves can fragment dust; the 3D caveat is real but already flagged. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11742 v1 pith:CLXZIUB4 submitted 2024-11-18 astro-ph.EP

Linn E.J. Eriksson , Chao-Chin Yang , Philip J. Armitage This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords protoplanetarydiscsplanet-discinteractionsdustfragmentationspiraldensitywavespebbledynamicsshearingsheetsimulationsplanetesimalformation
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

The paper argues that the spiral density waves a growing planet excites in its protoplanetary disk are sites where dust pebbles collide fast enough to fragment, not just stick. Using local 2D shearing-sheet hydrodynamical simulations with a gap-opening planet, the authors track particles of different sizes and find that their trajectories bend sharply where they cross the spiral. Collisional velocities at those crossings far exceed the typical fragmentation threshold of $1$–$10\,\mathrm{m\,s^{-1}}$, even for collisions between nearly equal-sized particles and for planet masses below the pebble isolation mass. If such collisions occur often enough, they would grind particles into progressively smaller sizes closer to the planet, with consequences for dust crossing gaps, pebble accretion, and planetesimal formation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the planet-induced spiral wave in a razor-thin local shearing-sheet model. The wave is a bending of gas streamlines driven by the planet's gravitational potential; particles with different Stokes numbers (a dimensionless measure of drag coupling to the gas) respond differently to that bend, so their trajectories cross. At each crossing the paper computes a collisional velocity from the difference in particle velocities and compares it with the fragmentation threshold $v_{\rm frag}$. The Stokes-number difference is the lever: larger $\Delta\mathrm{St}$ means more divergent trajectories and faster collisions.

What would settle it

A 3D local or global simulation of the same planet masses ($M_{\rm p}/M_{\rm th}=0.25$–$1$) measuring the gas velocity jump across the spiral and the resulting particle collisional velocities would settle the claim: if peak collisional velocities inside the spiral drop below about 1–10 m/s for a Stokes-number difference of 0.025, the central claim would fail. A laboratory measurement showing the fragmentation threshold is substantially higher than 10 m/s for the relevant pebbles would also remove the effect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that planet-induced spiral waves are a fragmentation site: the velocity perturbation across the spiral bends gas streamlines and particle trajectories, and intersections between trajectories of particles with different Stokes numbers occur at high relative velocity inside the spiral. In the simulations, collisional velocities there reach up to 20–35% of the sound speed near the gap edge, and even for a Stokes-number difference of only $\Delta\mathrm{St}=0.025$ they exceed 5–10% of the sound speed, above typical fragmentation thresholds in most of the disk. The effect increases with planetary mass and local gas density, and it is driven by the gas velocity field rather than by density enhancements: holding the Stokes number constant changes collision velocities by only about 20%. The authors conclude that with sufficiently frequent collisions, the spiral produces progressively smaller particles with decreasing distance from the planet.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the spiral-wave velocity perturbations seen in the 2D shearing sheet are representative of real 3D disks; if 3D effects weaken the velocity jumps as much as they weaken density contrasts, collision speeds could fall below the fragmentation threshold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Inside the spiral, collision speeds computed from turbulence alone would be at most a few percent of the sound speed for typical $\alpha_{\rm turb}$, so the spiral adds a fragmentation channel that standard dust-growth models miss.
  • Collisional velocities increase with planetary mass and local gas density and decrease with distance from the planet, so the spiral acts as a radial grinder that makes particle sizes decrease inward.
  • Smaller particles cross planetary gaps more easily, so the result supports leaky gap models and weakens the case that Jupiter's early core isolated the inner and outer Solar System reservoirs.
  • Smaller particles drift more slowly and are less efficiently accreted by pebble accretion, and they are poorer streaming-instability planetesimal precursors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: a direct 3D simulation test is the natural next step; the paper notes 3D spirals have roughly halved density contrasts, but if the velocity perturbation stays high, the fragmentation claim could survive in 3D disks.
  • Editorial extension: coupling these trajectory crossings to a collision clock (orbital-phase information) would convert the velocity map into a fragmentation rate, the missing ingredient for coagulation models.
  • Editorial extension: dust back-reaction is neglected here; in dust-rich regions, feedback on the gas could alter the spiral's velocity field and either moderate or amplify the collision speeds.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper uses local 2D shearing-sheet hydrodynamical simulations of a gap-opening planet to study how planet-induced spiral waves affect the collisional velocities of dust particles. The gas field is evolved with the PENCIL CODE, and particle trajectories for Stokes numbers 0.01-0.1 are integrated in the post-processed equilibrium state. Collisional velocities are computed at spatial intersections of trajectories of particles with different Stokes numbers, ignoring the time dimension and assuming continuous streams of particles. The authors find that collisions occurring inside the spiral wave have much higher relative velocities than collisions elsewhere, with values increasing with planet mass, local gas density, and Stokes-number difference, reaching up to 35% of the sound speed near the gap edge and 5-10% of the sound speed even for small Stokes-number differences. They interpret these velocities as likely to exceed typical fragmentation thresholds and discuss implications for gap filtering, pebble accretion, and planetesimal formation. The paper is concise, the numerical checks (gap-depth comparison with Kanagawa et al. 2015, comparison of post-processed trajectories with PENCIL runs, validation of radial drift against analytical estimates) are appropriate, and the limitations of the 2D model are openly acknowledged in Section 4.

Significance. If the reported velocity enhancement carries over to more realistic 3D disks, the paper identifies a previously underappreciated fragmentation channel inside planet-induced spiral waves, with consequences for the size distribution of solids near growing planets and for the leakiness of planetary gaps. The study's strengths include the use of an independent hydrodynamic simulation, external calibration against published gap-depth fits, explicit comparison with analytical drift velocities, and the demonstration that the gas velocity field, rather than density variations, is the dominant driver of the enhanced collision velocities. The central qualitative trend is robust within the 2D model. The main weakness is that the quantitative 'far exceed' claim in the abstract is tied to the amplitude of 2D, razor-thin spiral waves, and the paper's own Section 4 acknowledges that 3D density contrasts can be reduced by roughly a factor of two without establishing whether the velocity perturbations (and hence the derived collision velocities) are similarly reduced for the specific parameter range explored.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4 and Fig. 3] The abstract's central quantitative claim that collision velocities 'far exceed' the fragmentation threshold is not robust to the 3D uncertainty that the authors themselves acknowledge. The text states that the 3D density contrast can be reduced by about a half (Tanaka et al. 2002) and that it is 'unclear' whether the velocity perturbation is reduced by as much. For the smallest Stokes-number difference considered, ΔSt=0.025, the reported collision velocities are 5-10% of the sound speed; when converted to SI units in Fig. 3, these values are comparable only to the upper end of the 1-10 m/s fragmentation threshold in the outer disk. A factor-of-two reduction of the velocity perturbation in 3D would place a substantial fraction of these collisions below the threshold, directly undermining the unsupported 'far exceed' wording. Please provide a quantitative estimate from existing 3D simulations (Zhu et al. 2015; Rabago & Zhu 2021) specifically for the M_p/M_th and St values used here, or perform a targeted 3D test, or alternatively qualify the claim throughout the abstract and conclusions as applying to the 2D razor-thin model and soften 'far exceed' accordingly.
  2. [Sections 2.2 and 3] The entire quantitative analysis rests on a single deterministic trajectory per Stokes number per planetary mass. The statement 'we limit our study to one integrated particle trajectory per combination of St and M_p' means that all intersection-based collisional velocities are drawn from one pair of streamlines. The trajectory shape depends on the initial radial and azimuthal position (particles are introduced just interior of the radial damping zone with random azimuthal positions), and a different starting azimuth would lead to a different crossing geometry through the spiral wave and potentially different collision velocities. Because the paper describes velocities as 'commonly obtained' rather than as properties of a single path, please demonstrate robustness by integrating a small ensemble of trajectories with different initial azimuthal positions for at least one representative case, or otherwise justify that the chosen trajectory is representative of the particle population.
  3. [Section 2.1 and Figs 2-4] No numerical convergence test is presented for the velocity field that drives the particle collisions. The paper fixes the resolution at 32 cells per H_g and does not compare against a coarser or finer run. The highest collision velocities (exceeding 35% of the sound speed near the gap edge) occur in regions where the spiral perturbation is strong and potentially shock-like, and the amplitude of such perturbations can be resolution-dependent even with high-order schemes. A resolution study with, e.g., 16 and 64 cells per H_g for one planetary mass would establish whether the quantitative collision velocities reported in Figs 2-4 are converged, and whether the 'far exceed' conclusion is stable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, Fig. 3 caption] The caption states that the colored areas indicate the region between the 10th and 90th percentiles, but the figure legend simply labels 'collisional velocity'; please add a sentence in the caption clarifying that the shaded band is a percentile range, not a measurement uncertainty.
  2. [Section 4, text after Eq. (7)] The sentence 'Observations of protoplanetary disks generally suggest turbulent parameters on the order of α_turb ~ 10^-5 - 10^-3' would benefit from a brief mention that the corresponding turbulent collision velocities are for the specific particle sizes/Stokes numbers considered here, since Eq. (7) depends on St.
  3. [Introduction, first paragraph] The keyword list includes 'planets and satellites: general'; given the paper's focus on dust evolution, consider adding 'protoplanetary discs' as a keyword.
  4. [Section 2.2, Eq. (5)] The gravitational potential term is written as -∇Φ without a subscript; for clarity, please denote the planetary potential as Φ_p or state explicitly that Φ is the smoothed planetary potential from Eq. (1).
  5. [Reference list] The name 'Kruijer' in the reference list uses a ligature that may not render correctly in all bibliographic styles; 'Kruijer' is the standard ASCII rendering.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: collisional velocities are measured directly from a new hydrodynamic simulation and compared against external laboratory fragmentation thresholds.

full rationale

The central claim is a direct measurement rather than a derived prediction. Collisional velocities are computed from particle trajectories integrated in a self-consistently evolved gas field (PENCIL CODE shearing-sheet simulation), and the enhancement inside the spiral is identified by geometric selection ("limited to collisions occurring within y = ±0.5 H_g of the spiral center"), not by the measured velocity itself. The fragmentation threshold (1-10 m/s) is imported from external laboratory experiments (Blum & Wurm 2008; Gundlach & Blum 2015; Musiolik & Wurm 2019; Musiolik 2021), which is independent, falsifiable evidence. No parameter is fitted to any data; the stated inputs (alpha = 0.01, planet mass in units of thermal mass, Stokes numbers, sound speed profile from Chiang & Goldreich 1997) are all explicit assumptions. The only self-citation, to Yang & Zhu (2020), is methodological (numerical setup and damping-zone prescription) and is independently verified in the text: "We compared post-processed results using constant Stokes number against particle trajectories evolved with the Pencil Code and found excellent agreement," so it does not load the circularity burden. The Section 4 concession that "Spiral waves are in general weaker in 3D than in 2D, and the density contrast can be reduced by about a half" is a transparent model limitation flagged for future work ("future studies addressing all of the above considerations are necessary"), not a step that reduces the result to its own inputs. No equation in the paper defines the predicted quantity in terms of itself or of a fitted parameter, so no circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The simulation depends on standard disk modeling choices and external physical assumptions, but no free parameters are fit to the collision velocities and no new entities are introduced. The comparison to fragmentation thresholds uses published laboratory ranges of 1 to 10 m/s.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha_viscosity = 0.01
    Constant Shakura-Sunyaev viscosity parameter; chosen to allow gap opening equilibrium, not fitted to the target result.
  • radial_pressure_gradient_du_over_cs = 0.05
    Assumed sub-Keplerian reduction of gas azimuthal velocity; a standard disk condition, not fitted.
  • planet_smoothing_length_rs = 0.8 R_H
    Planet potential smoothing length following Dong et al. (2011) and Zhu et al. (2012); not fitted.
  • stokes_numbers_sampled = 0.01, 0.025, 0.05, 0.075, 0.1
    Discrete particle sizes chosen to sample the drift-peak regime; not fitted.
  • planet_masses_sampled = Mp/Mth = 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1
    Planet masses chosen to bracket the gap-opening regime and remain below the pebble isolation mass; not fitted.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The local shearing-sheet approximation captures the relevant planet-disk interaction.
    Invoked in Section 2.1; the box is small enough that curvature and global gradients are ignored.
  • domain assumption The disk is isothermal, non-self-gravitating, non-magnetized, and razor-thin.
    Section 2.1; these simplifications set the spiral wave structure and strength.
  • domain assumption Gas reaches a viscous quasi-equilibrium by t=200P and the flow is steady for post-processing.
    Section 2.1; all systems are said to have reached equilibrium, but no quantitative convergence criterion is given.
  • domain assumption Dust back-reaction on the gas is negligible.
    Post-processing approach, stated in Section 2.2; dust-to-gas ratio is low.
  • domain assumption Particle trajectories are deterministic in the fixed gas field, with no turbulent diffusion.
    Section 2.2; this makes the intersection analysis well-defined but neglects stochastic collisions.
  • domain assumption The stopping time rescaling t_s = t_s,0/(Sigma_g/Sigma_0) captures the density dependence of drag.
    Section 2.2; from Weidenschilling (1977), with t_s,0 inherited from the constant-St case.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Particle fragmentation inside planet-induced spiral waves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CLXZIUB4

@misc{pith2026241111742,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Particle fragmentation inside planet-induced spiral waves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CLXZIUB4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11742}
}
read the original abstract

Growing planets interact with their surrounding protoplanetary disk, generating feedback effects that may promote or suppress nearby planet formation. We study how spiral waves launched by planets affect the motion and collisional evolution of particles in the disk. To this end, we perform local 2D hydrodynamical simulations that include a gap-opening planet and integrate particle trajectories within the gas field. Our results show that particle trajectories bend at the location of the spiral wave, and collisions occurring within the spiral exhibit significantly enhanced collisional velocities compared to elsewhere. To quantify this effect, we ran simulations with varying planetary masses and particle sizes. The resulting collisional velocities within the spiral far exceed the typical fragmentation threshold, even for collisions between particles of relatively similar sizes and for planetary masses below the pebble isolation mass. If collisions within the spiral are frequent, this effect could lead to progressively smaller particle sizes as the radial distance from the planet decreases, impacting processes such as gap filtering, pebble accretion, and planetesimal formation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11742 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Gas surface density at 𝑡 = 200 𝑃 from our simulation with 𝑀p/𝑀th = 0.5, with gas streamlines overlaid. The azimuthally averaged gas surface density profile is shown in the top right corner. Right: Same as the left panel, but zoomed in on a small radial portion of the domain. Trajectories for particles with St = 0.1 and St = 0.05 are shown with black and red lines, respectively. Scatter points mark the location… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The scatter points show the locations and collisional velocities at all intersection points between the trajectories of particles with St = 0.05 and St = 0.01, for all considered planetary masses. The gas surface density is shown in the background, using the same color scale as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The colored areas indicate the region between the 10th and 90th percentiles of the same collision velocities shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Collisional velocity as a function of local gas surface density for collisions between all particle pairs with different St considered in this work. The colors represent the difference in St between the colliding particles. The collisional velocity increases with ΔSt, …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Dust Growth in Binary Systems: Inhibition of dust settling and growth in circumbinary discs

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Dust grains in circumbinary discs end up five times smaller than in single-star discs, and the conditions for streaming-instability clumping are not met, arguing against in-situ planet formation there.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    Adachi I., Hayashi C., Nakazawa K., 1976, @doi [Progress of Theoretical Physics] 10.1143/PTP.56.1756 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976PThPh..56.1756A 56, 1756

    doi:10.1143/ptp.56.1756 1976

  3. [3]

    Birnstiel T., Klahr H., Ercolano B., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...539A.148B 539, A148

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118136 2012

  4. [4]

    Birnstiel T., Fang M., Johansen A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-016-0256-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016SSRv..205...41B 205, 41

    doi:10.1007/s11214-016-0256-1 2016

  5. [5]

    Blum J., Wurm G., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ARA&A..46...21B 46, 21

    arXiv 2008

  6. [6]

    Brandenburg A., 2003, in Ferriz-Mas A., N \'u \ n ez M., eds, , Advances in Nonlinear Dynamics. p. 269, @doi 10.1201/9780203493137.ch9

    doi:10.1201/9780203493137.ch9 2003

  7. [7]

    Brandenburg A., Dobler W., 2002, @doi [Computer Physics Communications] 10.1016/S0010-4655(02)00334-X , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002CoPhC.147..471B 147, 471

    doi:10.1016/s0010-4655(02)00334-x 2002

  8. [8]

    F., Torkelsson U., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175831 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...446..741B 446, 741

    Brandenburg A., Nordlund A., Stein R. F., Torkelsson U., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175831 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...446..741B 446, 741

    doi:10.1086/175831 1995

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    I., Goldreich P., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304869 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1997ApJ...490..368C 490, 368

    Chiang E. I., Goldreich P., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304869 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1997ApJ...490..368C 490, 368

    1997 doi

  2. [10]

    Dipierro G., Price D., Laibe G., Hirsh K., Cerioli A., Lodato G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slv105 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453L..73D 453, L73

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    R., Stone J

    Dong R., Rafikov R. R., Stone J. M., Petrovich C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/56 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...741...56D 741, 56

    2011 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Li H., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab46b7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...885...91D 885, 91

    Dr a \.z kowska J., Li S., Birnstiel T., Stammler S. M., Li H., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab46b7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...885...91D 885, 91

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    Goldreich P., Lynden-Bell D., 1965, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/130.2.125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965MNRAS.130..125G 130, 125

    1965 doi

  6. [14]

    Gundlach B., Blum J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/34 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...798...34G 798, 34

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    F., Gammie C

    Hawley J. F., Gammie C. F., Balbus S. A., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175311 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...440..742H 440, 742

    1995 doi

  8. [16]

    Hayashi C., 1981, @doi [Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement] 10.1143/PTPS.70.35 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981PThPS..70...35H 70, 35

    1981 doi

  9. [17]

    Johansen A., Lambrechts M., 2017, @doi [Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences] 10.1146/annurev-earth-063016-020226 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AREPS..45..359J 45, 359

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    S., Dullemond C

    Johansen A., Blum J., Tanaka H., Ormel C., Bizzarro M., Rickman H., 2014, in Beuther H., Klessen R. S., Dullemond C. P., Henning T., eds, Protostars and Planets VI. pp 547--570 ( @eprint arXiv 1402.1344 ), @doi 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch024

    2014 arXiv

  11. [19]

    D., Tanaka H., Muto T., Tanigawa T., Takeuchi T., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv025 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448..994K 448, 994

    Kanagawa K. D., Tanaka H., Muto T., Tanigawa T., Takeuchi T., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv025 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448..994K 448, 994

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    Kruijer T. S., Burkhardt C., Budde G., Kleine T., 2017, @doi [Proceedings of the National Academy of Science] 10.1073/pnas.1704461114 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PNAS..114.6712K 114, 6712

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    N., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0e9f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...919..107L 919, 107

    Li R., Youdin A. N., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0e9f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...919..107L 919, 107

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    Meisner T., Wurm G., Teiser J., Schywek M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322083 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...559A.123M 559, A123

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    Musiolik G., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1963 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506.5153M 506, 5153

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    Musiolik G., Wurm G., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0428 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...873...58M 873, 58

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    W., Cuzzi J

    Ormel C. W., Cuzzi J. N., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066899 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...466..413O 466, 413

    2007 doi

  18. [26]

    S., Ogilvie G., Tanaka H., 2023, in Inutsuka S., Aikawa Y., Muto T., Tomida K., Tamura M., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol

    Paardekooper S., Dong R., Duffell P., Fung J., Masset F. S., Ogilvie G., Tanaka H., 2023, in Inutsuka S., Aikawa Y., Muto T., Tomida K., Tamura M., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII. p. 685 ( @eprint arXiv 2203.0959...

    2023 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    Pencil Code Collaboration et al., 2021, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.02807 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021JOSS....6.2807P 6, 2807

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    534, Protostars and Planets VII

    Pinte C., Teague R., Flaherty K., Hall C., Facchini S., Casassus S., 2023, in Inutsuka S., Aikawa Y., Muto T., Tomida K., Tamura M., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII. p. 645 ( @eprint arXiv 2203.09528 ), @doi 10.48...

    2023 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    Rabago I., Zhu Z., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab447 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.5325R 502, 5325

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    I., Sunyaev R

    Shakura N. I., Sunyaev R. A., 1973, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1973A&A....24..337S 500, 33

    1973

  23. [31]

    M., Lichtenberg T., Dr a \.z kowska J., Birnstiel T., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245512 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670L...5S 670, L5

    Stammler S. M., Lichtenberg T., Dr a \.z kowska J., Birnstiel T., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245512 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670L...5S 670, L5

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    R., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324713 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...565.1257T 565, 1257

    Tanaka H., Takeuchi T., Ward W. R., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324713 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...565.1257T 565, 1257

    2002 doi

  25. [33]

    J., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/180.2.57 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977MNRAS.180...57W 180, 57

    Weidenschilling S. J., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/180.2.57 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977MNRAS.180...57W 180, 57

    1977 doi

  26. [34]

    Yang C.-C., Zhu Z., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3232 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.4702Y 491, 4702

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    Yang C.-C., Johansen A., Carrera D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201630106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...606A..80Y 606, A80

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    N., Lithwick Y., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.07.012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Icar..192..588Y 192, 588

    Youdin A. N., Lithwick Y., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.07.012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Icar..192..588Y 192, 588

    2007 doi

  29. [37]

    Zhang S., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf744 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...869L..47Z 869, L47

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    M., Rafikov R

    Zhu Z., Stone J. M., Rafikov R. R., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/758/2/L42 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...758L..42Z 758, L42

    2012 doi

  31. [39]

    M., Rafikov R

    Zhu Z., Dong R., Stone J. M., Rafikov R. R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/88 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...813...88Z 813, 88

    2015 doi

  32. [40]

    N., 2013, Journal of Improbable Astronomy, 1, 1

    Author A. N., 2013, Journal of Improbable Astronomy, 1, 1

    2013

  33. [41]

    D., 2015, Journal of Interesting Stuff, 17, 198

    Jones C. D., 2015, Journal of Interesting Stuff, 17, 198

    2015

  34. [42]

    B., 2014, The Example Journal, 12, 345 (Paper I)

    Smith A. B., 2014, The Example Journal, 12, 345 (Paper I)

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.