Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Impact of Jupiter's heating and self-shadowing on the Jovian circumplanetary disk structure

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 Jupiter's circumplanetary disk cast shadows that chilled gas by 100 K, creating a cold trap that could set the Galilean moons' icy compositions.

desk verdict Self-shadowing is a sensible new idea for Jovian CPDs, but an extra q_s factor in the vertical temperature equations puts the 100 K cold trap on shaky ground. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13351 v2 pith:PSTQMPJV submitted 2024-11-20 astro-ph.EP

Antoine Schneeberger , Olivier Mousis This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords Galileanmoonscircumplanetarydiskself-shadowingcoldtrapvolatileicesgreyatmosphereradiativetransferJupiterformationsatellite
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 argues that Jupiter's circumplanetary disk cast its own shadow: the opaque photosurface of the hot inner disk blocked the young planet's radiation from a ring of outer disk gas, lowering the temperature there by roughly 100 K. Using a two-dimensional, quasi-stationary disk model with grey atmosphere radiative transfer, the authors find the shadowed annulus around 10 Jupiter radii persists for tens of thousands of years during the disk's early depletion. That cold, higher-pressure zone could act as a cold trap, letting volatiles such as NH3, CO2, and H2S condense closer to Jupiter than their normal ice lines. The result matters because it offers a concrete physical route by which the building blocks of the Galilean moons acquired their icy compositions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the photosurface of the circumplanetary disk: the altitude at which the optical depth reaches tau = 2/3 and the disk becomes opaque to Jupiter's radiation. The model splits the disk into an inner, optically thick adiabatic zone and an outer, optically thin isothermal zone; the surface temperature at the photosurface is set by a balance of viscous heating, accretion heating, and Jupiter's radiative flux, and the vertical temperature profile is then propagated to the midplane with a grey atmosphere Eddington approximation. Self-shadowing is decided by a geometric condition (Eq. 33): a disk patch is in shadow if any inner patch's photosurface altitude projects an opaque wall over it. The whole structure is integrated quasi-statically in time, following an exponentially decaying accretion rate and luminosity fit to a Jupiter formation model, until the photosurface disappears.

What would settle it

Observations of the Galilean moons' surface and subsurface ices by upcoming spacecraft: if Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto show no radial enrichment pattern for NH3, CO2, or H2S ices, the cold-trap scenario for moon building blocks is contradicted. Alternatively, a measurement or simulation establishing that Jupiter's post-formation CPD accretion rate decayed on a roughly million-year timescale, rather than the rapid decay, would remove the shadowed cold trap, as the paper itself demonstrates.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that self-shadowing, not just radiative heating, sets the thermal structure of Jupiter's post-formation circumplanetary disk. When the disk becomes optically thin in its outer parts, the optically thick inner region's photosurface acts as an opaque wall that projects a shadow onto the annulus between roughly 9 and 15 Jupiter radii. In the nominal model, this shadowed zone is about 100 K colder than the surrounding gas for the interval from about 100 to 160 kyr after the disk formed, while pressure and density are locally enhanced. The authors show that at 150 kyr this region pulls the condensation fronts of H2O, NH3, CO2, and H2S inward, so these species can form ices at 9-12 RJ rather than at their normal, more distant ice lines. They identify the effect as a cold trap that could seed the Galilean moons with volatile-rich building blocks, with the inner moons potentially enriched relative to the outer ones.

Load-bearing premise

The cold trap appears only if Jupiter's circumplanetary disk drained its gas on the rapid timescale the paper adopts from a Jupiter formation model; with the slower, million-year depletion prescription the paper also tests, the shadowed zone stops being cold enough to trap volatiles.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • During roughly 127-160 kyr after the circumplanetary disk formed, the annulus near 10 Jupiter radii was a cold trap that let NH3, CO2, and H2S condense closer to Jupiter than their normal ice lines.
  • The inner Galilean moons, forming in or near this shadowed region, could have accreted a larger share of volatile ices than the outer moons, opposite to a simple radial temperature gradient expectation.
  • With higher CPD metallicity the shadow lasts longer, up to about 120 kyr for a tenfold enrichment, so the cold trap's influence scales with how dusty the infalling gas was.
  • If the disk's gas depleted on a slower, roughly million-year timescale, the shadowed zone no longer produces a significant temperature drop, so the cold-trap scenario is specific to a rapidly draining disk.
  • Local rises in pressure and density inside the shadow could act as dust traps, concentrating solids where proto-moons could form via streaming instability.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension follows for the Galilean moons: if the cold trap operated, Europa and Ganymede's surface and subsurface ices should show a measurable enrichment of NH3, CO2, and H2S relative to Callisto, a pattern upcoming spacecraft observations could look for.
  • The same self-shadowing mechanism should operate in the circumplanetary disks of other young giant planets; their disks may show the same roughly 100 K annular cold spots, observable as brightness or molecular-abundance dips at a few planetary radii.
  • The cold, high-pressure annulus is a natural site for pebble concentration; coupling the thermal model to a dust evolution code would predict whether the shadowed ring seeds a preferred moon-formation radius near 10 Jupiter radii, linking the model to the present-day Galilean satellite architecture.
  • Because the cold trap's existence hinges on the accretion-rate decay, the model effectively constrains Jupiter's post-formation gas depletion history: if future observations of the moon system's volatile distribution require the cold trap, then the circumplanetary disk must have drained on the fast depletion timescale rather than the slower one.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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. The manuscript develops a 2D, quasi-stationary model of Jupiter's circumplanetary disk (CPD) combining an alpha-viscosity surface density profile, Gaussian vertical structure, grey atmosphere radiative transfer, and a geometric self-shadowing prescription. Using analytic fits to the Mordasini (2013) post-runaway accretion and luminosity histories, the authors find that after about 100 kyr Jupiter's radiative heating dominates and the opaque photosurface casts a shadow between roughly 9 and 15 Jupiter radii, producing a ~100 K colder annulus that persists for tens of kyr. They argue that this shadowed zone acts as a cold trap for NH3, CO2, and H2S, with consequences for the composition of the Galilean moons' building blocks. The paper includes sensitivity tests over metallicity, alpha viscosity, and the accretion-rate decay timescale.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper identifies a new and physically plausible mechanism—self-shadowing of a rapidly depleting circumplanetary disk—that can create a persistent cold annulus at ~10 RJ during the epoch of Galilean moon formation. The claimed cold trap is a derived output of the model, not imposed by construction, and the authors test a reasonable range of metallicity and alpha values. They also honestly report that the cold trap disappears when a slower, 1 Myr accretion decay is used, which is an important external limitation but not an internal circularity. A particular strength is that the model makes falsifiable predictions (volatile ice condensation closer than canonical icelines, C/O and N/O enhancements, possible inner/outer moon compositional differences) that can be confronted with JUICE and Europa Clipper data. Reproducibility is currently limited, however, because the key vertical-gradient equation is dimensionally inconsistent as printed and no derivation or code is provided.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3, Eq. (24)] I checked the normalization step leading to Eq. (26): with q' = q/q_s, one has dT^4/dq' = q_s dT^4/dq, so the right-hand side of Eq. (26) should indeed contain q_s^2; the earlier reviewer concern about an 'extra factor' in Eq. (26) is therefore not valid. The real problem is Eq. (24) itself: dT^4/dq has units K^4 cm^2 g^-1, whereas the right-hand side ν(q) Σ_g^2 Ω_K^2 κ_R(q) q has units g^2 cm^-2 s^-3, so a Stefan-Boltzmann factor and possibly additional terms from the moment equations are missing. No derivation of Eq. (24) from the Eddington moments is supplied, and no code is released. Since the midplane temperature, the photosurface altitude, and the shadow location all follow from Eq. (24), the published equations as written cannot reproduce Figures 3–6. Please provide the full derivation, correct the equation, and make the numerical implementation available or tabulate enough vertical temperature profiles to allow independent reproduction.
  2. [§2.5, Eq. (33)] The shadow condition is not typeset correctly: 'zs(r) > RJ + zs(r′− RJ) r′ r, ∀r′ < r' is missing parentheses and an operator, and as printed it is not a well-formed inequality. The intended condition appears to be a comparison involving RJ + [zs(r') - RJ] r'/r, but this needs to be written in standard notation. Please also state explicitly that zs = 0 is used when the disk is optically thin, since that convention is invoked in the sentence following Eq. (33).
  3. [§4.1, Fig. 8] The abstract and conclusion present the ~100 K cold trap as the main finding, but Section 4.1 shows that with the slower Sasaki et al. (2010) accretion decay the shadowed regions exhibit no significant temperature drop. This dependence is acknowledged in the text, which is commendable, but the central claim is therefore conditional on the rapidly decaying Mordasini (2013) prescription. I recommend that the abstract and Summary/Conclusion explicitly state 'for a CPD with a rapidly decaying accretion rate' whenever the cold trap is described, so that readers do not overgeneralize the result to all CPD evolutionary scenarios.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.1] The word 'axisymetric' should be 'axisymmetric'.
  2. [§2.2, Table 1] Equation (13) uses κ_R = χ κ_0 T^β, but Table 1 quotes κ_0 in cm^2 g^-1 without specifying that its units depend on β; please state the units as cm^2 g^-1 K^-β or provide κ_0 values in a consistent unit system.
  3. [§2.6, Eqs. (34)–(35)] The exponential fits to the Mordasini (2013) accretion and luminosity histories are quoted without any comparison to the underlying model data or fit residuals; please provide a small figure or state the fit range and typical accuracy so readers can judge the quality of the fits.
  4. [§3.2] The word 'metalicity' appears twice and should be 'metallicity'.
  5. [§4.4] The sentence 'which building blocks have to form before 1 Myr of CPD evolution, otherwise, the shadows’ influence are weaker' is grammatically unclear and should be rephrased.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the shadowed cold trap is a derived output of a closed radiative-transfer model, not an input refit as a prediction.

full rationale

The central claim (a ~100 K temperature drop in a shadowed annulus near 10 RJ, acting as a cold trap) is not obtained by fitting or renaming an input. The model's inputs are the gas-starved surface-density profile (Eq. 1), the opacity table (Eq. 13), the adopted planet luminosity and accretion-rate histories (Eqs. 34-35), and the geometric shadow condition (Eq. 33). The shadow location, radial extent, duration, and temperature contrast are outputs of the radiative-transfer and hydrostatic equations (Eqs. 15, 18, 24-28), so the central result is not equivalent to its inputs by construction. The paper explicitly tests the sensitivity to the accretion-rate prescription in Sec. 4.1 and finds that a slower depletion timescale removes the effect; this is a stated model limitation rather than a circular step. The manuscript also acknowledges in Sec. 4.3 that cosmic-ray and X-ray heating are neglected and in Sec. 4.4 that the moon-formation timing bounds the effect, which further indicates the claim is contingent rather than tautological. The citations to works by coauthor Mousis (e.g., Mousis & Gautier 2004; Mousis et al. 2023) are contextual or provide alternative accretion prescriptions, not the evidence that establishes the cold-trap result, so there is no load-bearing self-citation. The printed Eq. 26 normalization raises an internal-consistency/reproducibility concern (the q' substitution appears to contain an extra q_s factor), but that is a correctness issue, not a circularity issue, and it does not make the prediction equivalent to the model's inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model relies on standard disk physics plus a geometric shadowing prescription. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The cold trap is a derived thermal feature, not an invented entity. The main burden is the chain of chosen parameters: alpha, ks, chi, Rc, the Mordasini accretion and luminosity fits, and the opacity table.

free parameters (8)
  • alpha viscosity parameter = 1e-3 (varied 1e-4 to 1e-2)
    Chosen from protoplanetary disk observations, not constrained for the Jovian CPD; controls disk mass, photosurface altitude, and shadow lifetime (Section 3.3).
  • ks = 0.2
    Fraction of Jupiter's light absorbed at the photosurface, adopted from Makalkin & Dorofeeva (1995); the rest is reflected or scattered.
  • dust enrichment factor chi = 0.1, 1, 10 relative to protosolar
    Explored metallicities from subsolar to supersolar; no first-principles value, drives opacity and shadow longevity (Section 3.2).
  • centrifugal radius Rc = 50 RJ
    Input parameter chosen beyond Callisto's 26.9 RJ orbit to allow moon formation; shadow position depends on disk extent.
  • accretion rate fit coefficients (Eq. 34) = Mdot = exp(-61.5 t/Myr - 12.0) MJ/yr
    Exponential fit to the Mordasini (2013) Jupiter formation model, not directly measured; this rapid depletion is what makes shadowing visible.
  • luminosity fit coefficients (Eq. 35) = Lp = 1/(79285.7 t/Myr - 12.442) L_sun
    Exponential fit to Mordasini (2013); Jupiter's radiative heating scales with this and controls the shadow temperature contrast.
  • opacity table kappa0, beta per regime = Four regimes from Pollack et al. (1994), fitted by Makalkin & Dorofeeva (2006)
    Rosseland opacity as a piecewise power law; drives optical depth, photosurface location, and shadow geometry.
  • ambient temperature Tamb = 40 K
    Minimum CPD temperature set to the PSN temperature 1 Myr after CAIs (Aguichine et al. 2020).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The CPD is axisymmetric, vertically isothermal above the photosurface, and in hydrostatic equilibrium with a Gaussian vertical density profile at every time step.
    Used in Section 2.2 to derive Eq. 8 and the photosurface altitude Eq. 15; excludes 3D meridional flows and time-dependent vertical structure.
  • domain assumption The gas surface density follows the Canup & Ward (2002) viscous accretion solution with uniform infall inside Rc and ejection outside Rc (Eqs. 1-6).
    Basis of the entire disk model; assumes a gas-starved CPD with no significant circumplanetary envelope.
  • domain assumption Radiative transfer is treated in the grey Eddington approximation with viscous and accretion heating balanced by radiation, and Jupiter's light is absorbed only at the photosurface (Eqs. 18, 24).
    Adapted from Makalkin & Dorofeeva (1995, 2014); Eq. 24 as printed is dimensionally suspect and no derivation is provided.
  • domain assumption Rosseland opacity follows the Pollack/Makalkin piecewise power law with dust enrichment chi (Eq. 13, Table 1).
    Opacity drives the photosurface location and the transition radius; assumes dust grains dominate opacity and no scattering treatment.
  • ad hoc to paper The photosurface is perfectly opaque and casts straight-line shadows according to Eq. 33, with Jupiter treated as a sphere of radius RJ.
    The shadow condition in Eq. 33 is ambiguous as printed (the argument zs(r'-RJ) appears to be a typo) and is a geometric prescription, not derived from radiative transfer.
  • domain assumption Heating by cosmic rays, stellar X-rays, and MRI turbulence is neglected in the shadowed optically thin regions.
    Acknowledged in Section 4.3 as potentially adding up to 50% of the heat budget; if significant, it would reduce the temperature drop in shadows.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impact of Jupiter's heating and self-shadowing on the Jovian circumplanetary disk structure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PSTQMPJV

@misc{pith2026241113351,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impact of Jupiter's heating and self-shadowing on the Jovian circumplanetary disk structure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PSTQMPJV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13351}
}
abstract

Deciphering the structure of the circumplanetary disk that surrounded Jupiter at the end of its formation is key to understanding how the Galilean moons formed. Three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations have shown that this disk was optically thick and significantly heated to very high temperatures due to the intense radiation emitted by the hot, young planet. Analyzing the impact of Jupiter's radiative heating and shadowing on the structure of the circumplanetary disk can provide valuable insights into the conditions that shaped the formation of the Galilean moons. To assess the impact of Jupiter's radiative heating and shadowing, we have developed a two-dimensional quasi-stationary circumplanetary disk model and used a grey atmosphere radiative transfer method to determine the thermal structure of the disk. We find that the circumplanetary disk self-shadowing has a significant effect, with a temperature drop of approximately 100 K in the shadowed zone compared to the surrounding areas. This shadowed zone, located around 10 Jupiter radii, can act as a cold trap for volatile species such as NH$_3$, CO$_2$ and H$_2$S. The existence of these shadows in Jupiter's circumplanetary disk may have influenced the composition of the building blocks of the Galilean moons, potentially shaping their formation and characteristics. Our study suggests that the thermal structure of Jupiter's circumplanetary disk, particularly the presence of cold traps due to self-shadowing, may have played a crucial role in the formation and composition of the Galilean moons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13351 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Diagram illustrating the structure of the circumplanetary disk model, and delimited into two distinct zones. The first zone, situated closer to Jupiter, is optically thick, characterized by an optical depth τ exceeding 2/3 in the midplane. The second zone, located farther from Jupiter, is optically thin, with τ below 2/3 in the midplane. The altitude at τ = 2/3 defines the photosurface. Within the optically thick re… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Time evolution of the CPD’s mass (blue line) and gas accretion rate (red line) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. presents the surface density, midplane tempera￾ture, and midplane pressure profiles of the CPD at 33, 50, 100, 150, and 200 kyr after CPD formation. It showcases the rapid depletion of the CPD, with the surface density dimin￾ishing from a range between 1.3×103 and 102 g.cm−2 33 kyr, to a range between 2 × 10−1 and 3.6 × 10−4 g.cm−2 200 kyr, after Jupiter’s formation. Concurrently, the CPD’s tempera￾ture experiences … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Temperature (left panels) and pressure (right panels) profiles of the CPD at t = 50, 100, 150, and 200 kyr of the CPD evolution. The photosurface and the CPD’s scale height are presented by the white plain and dashed lines, respectively. . If the photosurface is not ex…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: CPD temperature profiles with dust enrichment levels (from left to right columns) corresponding to 0.1, 1, and 10 times the protosolar value, depicted at t = 100, 150, and 200 kyr of the CPD evolution (from top to bottom rows). The solid white line represents the altit…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: CPD temperature profiles with α-viscosity parameters (from left to right columns) corresponding to 10−2 , 10−3 , and 10−4 , depicted at t = 100, 150, and 200 kyr of the CPD evolution (from top to bottom rows). The solid white line represents the altitude of the photosu…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: CPD pressure profiles with α-viscosity parameters (from left to right columns) corresponding to 10−2 , 10−3 , and 10−4 , depicted at t = 100, 150, and 200 kyr of the CPD evolution (from top to bottom rows). The solid white line represents the altitude of the photosurfa…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Temperature and pressure profiles within the CPD after t = 50, 500, 1000, and 3000 kyr of evolution, using the accretion rate prescription from Sasaki et al. (2010), and a metallicity 0.1 times the protosolar one. The photosurface and the CPD’s scale height are represe…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: From top to bottom: shapes of the H2O, NH3, CO2 and H2S icelines (black dashed lines) at t = 50, 150 and 200 kyr of the CPD evolution. The hatched areas are located within the shadow cast by the CPD. We use the nominal model depicted in Sec. 3, with a metallicity 0.1 t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 901, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaf47

    Aguichine, A., Mousis, O., Devouard, B., & Ronnet, T. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 901, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaf47

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abaf47 2020

  2. [2]

    2005, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 439, 1205, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20052841

    Alibert, Y ., Mousis, O., & Benz, W. 2005, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 439, 1205, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20052841

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20052841 2005

  3. [3]

    E., Mousis, O., & Ronnet, T

    Anderson, S. E., Mousis, O., & Ronnet, T. 2021, The Planetary Science Journal, 2, 50, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/abe0ba

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/abe0ba 2021

  4. [4]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 885, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5062

    Aoyama, Y ., & Ikoma, M. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 885, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5062

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab5062 2019

  5. [5]

    A., & Bate, M

    Ayliffe, B. A., & Bate, M. R. 2009, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15002.x

    arXiv 2009

  6. [6]

    A., & Hawley, J

    Balbus, S. A., & Hawley, J. F. 1991, The Astrophysical Journal, 376, 214, doi: 10.1086/170270

    doi:10.1086/170270 1991

  7. [7]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 894, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8937

    Batygin, K., & Morbidelli, A. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 894, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8937

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8937 2020

  8. [8]

    2021, 916, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f83

    Benisty, M., Bae, J., Facchini, S., et al. 2021, 916, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f83

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f83 2021

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    M., & Ward, W

    Canup, R. M., & Ward, W. R. 2002, The Astronomical Journal, 124, 3404, doi: 10.1086/344684 —. 2006, Nature, 441, 834, doi: 10.1038/nature04860

    2002 doi

  2. [10]

    G., & Zhu, Z

    Chen, C., Yang, C.-C., Martin, R. G., & Zhu, Z. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 2822, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3427

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 2806, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2269

    Choksi, N., Chiang, E., Fung, J., & Zhu, Z. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 2806, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2269

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    2019, 877, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab212b

    Christiaens, V ., Cantalloube, F., Casassus, S., et al. 2019, 877, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab212b

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    2010, SSRv, 153, 411, doi: 10.1007/s11214-009-9611-9 D’Angelo, G., Durisen, R

    Coradini, A., Magni, G., & Turrini, D. 2010, SSRv, 153, 411, doi: 10.1007/s11214-009-9611-9 D’Angelo, G., Durisen, R. H., & Lissauer, J. J. 2010, Giant Planet Formation, 319–346, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1006.5486 Dr˛ a˙ zkowska, J., & Szulágyi, J. 2018, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae0fd

    2010 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    P., Dominik, C., & Natta, A

    Dullemond, C. P., Dominik, C., & Natta, A. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 560, 957, doi: 10.1086/323057

    2001 doi

  7. [15]

    2019, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab53da

    Fung, J., Zhu, Z., & Chiang, E. 2019, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab53da

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    P., Schmid, H

    Garufi, A., Quanz, S. P., Schmid, H. M., et al. 2014, 568, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424262

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    E., Galli, D., & Padovani, M

    Glassgold, A. E., Galli, D., & Padovani, M. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 756, 157, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/157

    2012 doi

  10. [18]

    2015, ApJ, 806, 181, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/181

    Heller, R., & Pudritz, R. 2015, ApJ, 806, 181, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/181

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    L., & Wardle, M

    Keith, S. L., & Wardle, M. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 89, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu245

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    2004, Journal of Computational Physics, 193, 357, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2003.08.010

    Knoll, D., & Keyes, D. 2004, Journal of Computational Physics, 193, 357, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2003.08.010

    2004 doi

  13. [21]

    A., Prinja, A

    Knoll, D. . A., Prinja, A. K., & Campbell, R. B. 1993, Journal of Computational Physics, 418

    1993

  14. [22]

    M., Youdin, A

    Krapp, L., Kratter, K. M., Youdin, A. N., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.14638, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.14638

    2024 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    L., & Kronrod, V

    Kuskov, O. L., & Kronrod, V . A. 2005, Icarus, 177, 550, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2005.04.014

    2005 doi

  16. [24]

    2012, A&A, 544, A32, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219127

    Lambrechts, M., & Johansen, A. 2012, A&A, 544, A32, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219127

    2012 doi

  17. [25]

    P., Crida, A., & Morbidelli, A

    Lambrechts, M., Lega, E., Nelson, R. P., Crida, A., & Morbidelli, A. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 630, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834413 18

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    Li, Y .-P., Chen, Y .-X., & Lin, D. N. C. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, 5346, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3049

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    2019, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Planetary Science

    Lodders, K. 2019, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Planetary Science

    2019

  20. [28]

    I., & Stevenson, D

    Lunine, J. I., & Stevenson, D. J. 1982, Icarus, 52, 14, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(82)90166-X

    1982 doi

  21. [29]

    Lynden-Bell, D., & Pringle, J. E. 1974, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 168, 603, doi: 10.1093/mnras/168.3.603

    1974 doi

  22. [30]

    Madeira, G., Izidoro, A., & Winter, S. M. G. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 1854, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab986

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    B., & Dorofeeva, V

    Makalkin, A. B., & Dorofeeva, V . A. 1995, Astronomicheskii Vestnik, 29, 99 —. 2006, Solar System Research, 40, 441, doi: 10.1134/S0038094606060013 —. 2014, Solar System Research, 48, 62, doi: 10.1134/S0038094614010067

    1995 doi

  24. [32]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 952, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accf12

    Marleau, G.-D., Kuiper, R., Béthune, W., & Mordasini, C. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 952, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accf12

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    G., Nixon, C

    Martin, R. G., Nixon, C. J., Pringle, J. E., & Livio, M. 2019, NewA, 70, 7, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2019.01.001

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    J., Baratoux, D., & Guignard, J

    Monnereau, M., Toplis, M. J., Baratoux, D., & Guignard, J. 2013, GeoCoA, 119, 302, doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2013.05.035

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 910, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe3fc

    Montesinos, M., Cuello, N., Olofsson, J., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 910, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe3fc

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    2014, Icarus, 232, 266, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2014.01.010

    Morbidelli, A., Szulágyi, J., Crida, A., et al. 2014, Icarus, 232, 266, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2014.01.010

    2014 doi

  29. [37]

    2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 558, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321617

    Mordasini, C. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 558, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321617

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 547, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118457

    Mordasini, C., Alibert, Y ., Klahr, H., & Henning, T. 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 547, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118457

    2012 doi

  31. [39]

    Mosqueira, I., & Estrada, P. R. 2003, Icarus, 163, 198, doi: 10.1016/S0019-1035(03)00076-9

    2003 doi

  32. [40]

    2002, Icarus, 156, 162, doi: 10.1006/icar.2001.6782

    Mousis, O. 2002, Icarus, 156, 162, doi: 10.1006/icar.2001.6782

    2002

  33. [41]

    2004, Planetary and Space Science, 52, 361, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2003.06.004

    Mousis, O., & Gautier, D. 2004, Planetary and Space Science, 52, 361, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2003.06.004

    2004 doi

  34. [42]

    I., et al

    Mousis, O., Schneeberger, A., Lunine, J. I., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 944, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb5a4

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 936, 188, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac87fa

    Notsu, S., Ohno, K., Ueda, T., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 936, 188, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac87fa

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 651, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141169

    Ohno, K., & Ueda, T. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 651, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141169

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    B., Hollenbach, D., Beckwith, S., et al

    Pollack, J. B., Hollenbach, D., Beckwith, S., et al. 1994, ApJ, 421, 615, doi: 10.1086/173677

    1994 doi

  38. [46]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 633, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936804

    Ronnet, T., & Johansen, A. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 633, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936804

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    I., & Crida, A

    Ronnet, T., Mousis, O., Vernazza, P., Lunine, J. I., & Crida, A. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 155, 224, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabcc7

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    R., & Ida, S

    Sasaki, T., Stewart, G. R., & Ida, S. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 714, 1052, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/2/1052

    2010 doi

  41. [49]

    2020, 642, A187, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037556

    Schulik, M., Johansen, A., Bitsch, B., Lega, E., & Lambrechts, M. 2020, 642, A187, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037556

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

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

    1973

  43. [51]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 846, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8454

    Shibaike, Y ., Okuzumi, S., Sasaki, T., & Ida, S. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 846, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8454

    2017 doi

  44. [52]

    W., Ida, S., Okuzumi, S., & Sasaki, T

    Shibaike, Y ., Ormel, C. W., Ida, S., Okuzumi, S., & Sasaki, T. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 885, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab46a7

    2019 doi

  45. [53]

    2016, A&A, 595, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201528039 Szulágyi, J

    Stolker, T., Dominik, C., Avenhaus, H., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201528039 Szulágyi, J. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 842, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7515 Szulágyi, J., Binkert, F., & Surville, C. 2022, ApJ, 924, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac32d...

    2016 doi

  46. [54]

    Tanigawa, T., Ohtsuki, K., & Machida, M. N. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 747, 47, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/47

    2012 doi

  47. [55]

    F., Lesur, G., Woitke, P., et al

    Thi, W. F., Lesur, G., Woitke, P., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 632, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732187

    2019 doi

  48. [56]

    K., & Brown, M

    Trumbo, S. K., & Brown, M. E. 2023, Science, 381, 1308, doi: 10.1126/science.adg4155

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    R., Duchêne, G., et al

    Villenave, M., Stapelfeldt, K. R., Duchêne, G., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Jouranal, 930, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5fae

    2022 doi

  50. [58]

    Ward, W. R. 1997, Icarus, 126, 261, doi: 10.1006/icar.1996.5647

    1997

  51. [59]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 923, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2c82

    Zhang, S., Hu, X., Zhu, Z., & Bae, J. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 923, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2c82

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    2022, Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 54, 49, doi: 10.1016/j.net.2021.07.022

    Zhou, X., Zhong, C., Li, Z., & Li, F. 2022, Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 54, 49, doi: 10.1016/j.net.2021.07.022

    2022 doi

  53. [61]

    P., & Gammie, C

    Zhu, Z., Hartmann, L., Nelson, R. P., & Gammie, C. F. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 746, 110, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/110

    2012 doi

  54. [62]

    Zhu, Z., Ju, W., & Stone, J. M. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 832, 193, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/193

    2016 doi

Pith tools

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