Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 41 references

Kinetic Field Theory Applied to Planetesimal Formation I: Freely Streaming Dust Particles

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Freely streaming dust inevitably develops a universal $k^{-3}$ density power-law tail at small scales.

desk verdict Useful KFT-for-planetesimals groundwork, but the universal k^-3 tail is not proven as cleanly as the paper claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17514 v1 pith:HTZ2YGAQ submitted 2024-11-26 astro-ph.EP

Jiahan Shi , Matthias Bartelmann , Hubert Klahr , Cornelis P. Dullemond This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords planetesimalformationkineticfieldtheorydensitypowerspectrumk^-3scalingstreaminginstabilityfreeprotoplanetarydisksscale-invariantstructure
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 applies kinetic field theory, a statistical field theory for classical particle ensembles, to the early stage of planetesimal formation in protoplanetary disks. It models the initial phase-space distribution of dust particles from a three-dimensional streaming-instability simulation, then evolves them as freely streaming particles with no forces. The central claim is that the non-linearly evolved density power spectrum necessarily develops a universal $k^{-3}$ tail at small scales, meaning structure forms in a scale-invariant way below a characteristic, time-dependent length. If correct, the specific random initial state used in streaming-instability simulations does not impose a preferred scale on small-scale structure formation, which is relevant for interpreting and designing numerical simulations of planetesimal formation.

What carries the argument

The generating functional $Z$ of kinetic field theory, which integrates the initial phase-space probability distribution weighted by particle trajectories, together with the free-particle Green's function $G(t,t')$ (Hamiltonian $H=p^2/2m$, so that positions stream as $\bar q(t)=q_i+(t/m)p_i$). The power spectrum is extracted by applying two density operators to $Z$, and the small-scale asymptote is fixed by a saddle-point theorem for integrals of the form $\int e^{-|k|^s f(x)} g(x) e^{i k\cdot x}$, applied to the momentum-correlation shaping function $f(r)$ whose Hessian at the origin is positive definite. The momentum covariance matrix $\bar C_{pp}$, built from Gaussianized squared-density and momentum fields of a streaming-instability snapshot, supplies the initial correlations that make the tail universal.

What would settle it

Include a linear drag force with Stokes number $\mathrm{St}=0.01$ in the kinetic field theory equation of motion and recompute the small-scale asymptote; if the power spectrum slope changes from $k^{-3}$, the free-streaming result does not carry over to realistic streaming-instability conditions. A direct numerical check would be to measure the density power spectrum of a streaming-instability simulation at wave numbers $k\gtrsim 85$ at early times and test whether the slope is $-3$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The free generating functional of kinetic field theory, with initial correlations extracted from a streaming-instability snapshot, produces a non-linear density power spectrum $P(k_1,t)$ whose small-scale asymptote is $P(k_1)\sim P_{(0)}(t)/k_1^3$. The slope comes from a saddle-point expansion of the power-spectrum integral: the exponential of the squared free-streaming displacement times the initial momentum covariance matrix satisfies the conditions of an isolated minimum at zero separation with positive-definite Hessian, forcing the $k^{-3}$ form in three dimensions. The amplitude $P_{(0)}(t)$ has an analytic expression and peaks at a finite time, so small-scale structures first grow and then dissolve as particle streams cross. The paper presents this as proof that free streaming from any sufficiently smooth, positive-definite initial momentum covariance inevitably produces scale-invariant clustering below a time-dependent length scale, independent of the specific simulation noise.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the dust particles truly free-stream, with no gas drag, self-gravity, or particle feedback; if any of those forces act, the universal $k^{-3}$ tail has not been shown to survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Streaming-instability simulations need not treat the initial particle noise as a source of preferred small-scale structure: below the time-dependent scale $k_0^{-1}$, clustering is scale-invariant by free streaming alone.
  • The analytic amplitude formula gives a testable prediction for when small-scale structures reach maximum amplitude, at $t_{\max}\approx 0.97\pi$ in disk units, and when they dissolve.
  • The linear power spectrum behaves as $k^{4/3}$ at large scales and $k^{-1}$ at small scales, so the non-linear $k^{-3}$ tail is a genuine non-linear effect of correlated streaming, not an artifact of the linear approximation.
  • The method transfers the kinetic field theory formalism from cosmic structure formation to protoplanetary disks, providing a resolution-independent route to clustering statistics in this setting.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If gas drag preserves the $k^{-3}$ tail, the required spatial resolution for streaming-instability simulations would be set by the characteristic scale $k_0^{-1}(t)$ rather than by the initial noise scale, and resolving below it may not change the clustering statistics.
  • The same saddle-point argument in two dimensions would predict a $k^{-2}$ tail, giving a dimensional scaling test that could be checked in two-dimensional streaming-instability simulations.
  • Scale-invariant clustering of dust below a characteristic length could feed into a scale-free planetesimal mass distribution at the onset of gravitational collapse, connecting the power-spectrum slope to the initial mass function of planetesimals.
  • The Gaussianization of the density field (the density variable is the square of a Gaussian variate) suggests the initial density PDF is close to a chi-square-type distribution with one degree of freedom; direct measurements of the density PDF in streaming-instability snapshots could validate or refine the assumed form.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper applies Kinetic Field Theory (KFT) to a three-dimensional streaming-instability simulation snapshot, modeling the initial phase-space distribution of dust particles by Gaussianizing the density and momentum fields and fitting isotropic power spectra from the simulation. Restricting the dynamics to freely streaming particles, the authors derive a non-linear density power spectrum and show, via a saddle-point/asymptotic analysis, that it develops a universal k^-3 tail at small scales. They further derive the time-dependent amplitude and onset scale of this tail, and argue that the initial condition of streaming-instability simulations therefore does not imprint a preferred small-scale structure-formation scale.

Significance. If the k^-3 universality claim is correct, the paper offers a valuable analytic handle on small-scale clustering in planetesimal formation: the slope is parameter-free, the amplitude and onset scale are explicit functions of time and of the fitted momentum correlations, and the analytic amplitude is checked against direct numerical integration of the derived expression. The construction of the initial probability distribution from simulation data, including the Gaussianization step and the treatment of density-momentum correlations, is transparent and reusable. The main caveat, acknowledged by the authors, is that the calculation is for free streaming only; the relevance to planetesimal formation depends on whether drag and self-gravity preserve the tail. Because the central claim rests on an asymptotic theorem applied to an approximate spectrum, the technical gaps below must be addressed before the universality statement can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.2.1, Eqs. (47)-(49) and (63)] The replacement of the correlation operator C(-i∂_p) by the constant (49) is not justified uniformly in k. The hierarchy in (48) bounds the original Fourier conjugate variable t_pk, but after applying two density operators the relevant argument is L_p = -Σ_j k_j g_qp(t_j) e_j. For an equal-time power spectrum with t1=t2=t and k1+k2=0, one has |L_p| ~ sqrt(2) |k1| t, which is unbounded as k1→∞, precisely the limit used in Sec. 4.2.4 to derive the k^-3 tail. Thus the neglected density-momentum and density-density correlation terms in (B15) may contribute at leading order in the small-scale regime, and the k^-3 result is established only for the approximate Pfree, not for the full KFT expression. The Sec. 5 claim that the SI initial state does not impose a preferred scale is also weakened because scale-dependent density correlations have been removed by this approximation.
  2. [Sec. 4.2.4, Eqs. (70), (73), (56)-(57)] The asymptotic theorem of Konrad & Bartelmann (2022), as stated in Eq. (70), requires f(x) to be quadratically integrable on R^3 (condition ii). This condition is not satisfied by the function f(r) defined in Eq. (73): since m1(0) and m2(0) are negative while m1(r) and m2(r) tend to zero as r→∞, f(r) tends to the positive constant g_qp^2(t)[-m1(0) - μ^2 m2(0)]. The approximants (56)-(57) have the same property, because a1(r) and a2(r) decay to zero rather than making the difference vanish at infinity. A positive constant is not quadratically integrable on R^3, so the saddle-point expansion (76) is not justified by the cited theorem as written. The authors either need a modified theorem with weaker growth conditions at infinity or an explicit treatment of the boundary contribution from the constant asymptotic value of f.
  3. [Appendix D, Eqs. (D1)-(D7) and Fig. D1] The assertion that Pdiff can be safely neglected is not established. The integral defining Pdiff is not absolutely convergent: for μ=0 the radial integrand behaves like r^2 e^{y(0)} for large r, and for general μ the oscillatory factor does not produce absolute convergence. The bound in (D3)-(D4) takes the limits k1→∞ and R→∞ simultaneously without a uniform estimate, so it does not prove exponential suppression; moreover, the k1→0 limit computed in (D5)-(D7) diverges, showing that Pdiff is not a harmless finite renormalization. Figure D1 only demonstrates numerical agreement at moderate k (near k≈45) for a single time, whereas the claim concerns k→∞. A rigorous subdominance argument, or a cutoff-independent regularized definition of the full P0, is needed before the full expression (54) can be said to have the k^-3 tail.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.3.2 and Table 3] The text mentions both c100 and c200 for the density power spectrum fit, but Table 3 lists only c200; please clarify the notation or correct the typo.
  2. [Eq. (28) and Sec. 3.3.4] The expression for ζ00(r) uses the symbol c200, but the surrounding text and Eq. (26) use c200 with a different subscript convention; please make the notation consistent so the reader can verify the Fourier transform.
  3. [Figs. 3-5] The k-axis scaling by 2π/L is stated in the main text but not in the figure axis labels; please include the units explicitly on each panel for clarity.
  4. [Fig. 7 and Sec. 4.2.3] The caption and text refer to the onset of the k^-3 slope near k≈25, but the plotted spectra use a logarithmic axis with different time labels; please add a short description of how k0 in Fig. 8 is extracted from the spectra.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the universal k^-3 tail follows from a general asymptotic theorem applied to the assumed Gaussian initial state, not from fitting the target slope.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the sense required by the circularity test. The initial iPDF is constructed by Gaussianizing simulation data (Sec. 3.2), and the free-streaming Green's function is specified in Sec. 4.1. The central result, Eq. (63) and its asymptotic tail, is obtained by evaluating the resulting Gaussian integrals and applying a saddle-point/asymptotic theorem from Konrad & Bartelmann (2022). The theorem is a parameter-free mathematical statement whose stated conditions (positive-definite Hessian at an isolated minimum) are checked for the fitted momentum covariance in Eqs. (73)-(75); it does not assume the k^-3 result. Thus the k^-3 slope is a genuine consequence of the smooth, positive covariance input rather than a renamed fit of the same slope. The cited KFT formalism (Bartelmann et al. 2016-2019) is externally established and used as a framework, not as a black-box uniqueness argument. The paper explicitly acknowledges the free-streaming idealization and states that the result may change with interactions (Sec. 5), which is a scope limitation rather than circularity. The main caveats are mathematical: the truncation of the correlation operator uses a bound on t_p that is not uniform in k, and condition (ii) of the cited theorem is not obviously met because f(r) tends to a positive constant. These are correctness risks, not circular reductions of the prediction to its inputs. Accordingly, no specific circular step can be exhibited; the small residual self-citation does not carry the argument by itself.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The universal k^-3 slope is parameter-free; it follows from a saddle-point theorem. The amplitude and onset scale, however, are set by momentum-covariance parameters fit to a single SI snapshot. The paper introduces no new physical entities but makes several modeling assumptions: free streaming, Gaussianized isotropic initial state, and negligible density-momentum correlations.

free parameters (5)
  • a1, Gaussianization scale for density = 0.1823 ± 0.0005
    Fitted to the simulation's density PDF in Sec. 3.2.2; maps density to a Gaussian variable via rho = rho_bar^2. Affects the normalization of the iPDF, not the k^-3 slope.
  • a2, Gaussianization offset = 2.569 ± 0.006
    Fitted offset in the same Gaussianization; together with a1 it sets the mean of the Gaussianized density variable.
  • b0, diagonal momentum covariance amplitude = ≈ 1.8 × 10^-5 (disk units)
    Derived from fit coefficients c2_11, c2_22, c2_33 in Eq. (31); sets the amplitude of the k^-3 tail and the break scale k0.
  • b1, off-diagonal momentum covariance amplitude = ≈ 9.2 × 10^-6 (disk units)
    Derived from c2_12, c2_13, c2_23; controls the longitudinal-transverse anisotropy and enters the Hessian determinant.
  • sigma_bar, averaged momentum correlation width = ≈ 10.3 (in units 2π/L)
    Average of the six sigma_ij fit values from Table 2; sets the correlation length and the Gaussian cutoff of the momentum power spectrum.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math The KFT generating functional formalism of Martin-Siggia-Rose and the prior KFT results used for density operators and free generating functionals are valid.
    Sections 2 and 4 rely on Bartelmann et al. (2016, 2017, 2019) without re-deriving the framework.
  • standard math The saddle-point asymptotic theorem of Konrad and Bartelmann (2022) is valid for the integrals considered here.
    Eqs. (70)-(71) are used to establish the k^-3 tail in Sec. 4.2.4.
  • domain assumption The SI simulation snapshot can be represented as a statistically homogeneous, isotropic Gaussian random field in phase space after Gaussianizing the density.
    Sec. 3.2 assumes a multivariate Gaussian joint distribution and isotropy; only a single snapshot at t_snap = 4.25 is used.
  • domain assumption Dust particle motion is freely streaming during the times considered; gas drag, self-gravity and particle feedback are neglected.
    Sec. 4.1 defines the free Hamiltonian; Sec. 5 concedes the result may not hold with interactions and friction.
  • domain assumption The specific snapshot (St = 0.01, epsilon0 = 1, eta = 0.05, L = 0.1H, t_snap = 4.25) is representative of general streaming-instability initial states.
    The conclusion about SI initial conditions is drawn from this single parameter set.
  • ad hoc to paper The approximation C(p) ≈ constant in Eq. (49) is valid, so density-density correlations at nonzero separation and density-momentum correlations are negligible.
    Sec. 4.2.1 Eq. (48) asserts inequalities without full derivation; this drops the scale-dependent initial density power spectrum.
  • ad hoc to paper The analytic forms of the power spectra in Eqs. (25)-(27) with fixed exponents alpha = 2/3, beta = 4/3, and alpha_0i = 1/3 represent the simulation statistics.
    These functional forms are chosen from the data and used to construct the covariance matrix.
  • ad hoc to paper The Gaussianizing transformation rho = rho_bar^2 with fitted a1 and a2 maps the density distribution to a Gaussian variable.
    Sec. 3.2.2 introduces the transformation; it is needed to write the joint iPDF as a multivariate Gaussian.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kinetic Field Theory Applied to Planetesimal Formation I: Freely Streaming Dust Particles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HTZ2YGAQ

@misc{pith2026241117514,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kinetic Field Theory Applied to Planetesimal Formation I: Freely Streaming Dust Particles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HTZ2YGAQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17514}
}
abstract

Planet formation in the solar system was started when the first planetesimals were formed from the gravitational collapse of pebble clouds. Numerical simulations of this process, especially in the framework of streaming instability, produce various power laws for the initial mass function for planetesimals. While recent advances have shed light on turbulence and its role in particle clustering, a comprehensive theoretical framework linking turbulence characteristics to particle cluster properties and planetesimal mass function remains incomplete. Recently, a kinetic field theory for ensembles of point-like classical particles in or out of equilibrium has been applied to cosmic structure formation. This theory encodes the dynamics of a classical particle ensemble by a generating functional specified by the initial probability distribution of particles in phase space and their equations of motion. Here, we apply kinetic field theory to planetesimal formation. A model for the initial probability distribution of dust particles in phase space is obtained from a quasi-initial state for a three-dimensional streaming-instability simulation that is a particle distribution with velocities for gas and particles from the Nakagawa relations. The equations of motion are chosen for the simplest case of freely streaming particles. We calculate the non-linearly evolved density power spectrum of dust particles and find that it develops a universal $k^{-3}$ tail at small scales, suggesting scale-invariant structure formation below a characteristic and time-dependent length scale. Thus, the KFT analysis indicates that the initial state for streaming instability simulations does not impose a constraint on structure evolution during planetesimal formation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17514 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. This plot shows the number density 𝜌 and the streamline of dust particles in a 𝑥 − 𝑧 slice of the simulation snapshot discussed in this paper. This number density can be well modeled as a statistically isotropic and homogeneous random field. 3 Initial probability distribution from the linear phase of a 3D Streaming-Instability Simulation In this Section, we analyze the position and velocity data of a three-dimension… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: Momentum distribution in the 𝑥 direction with double-logarithmic scaling. The purple points represent actual data, the red line shows the Gaussian fit. The mean value 𝑝1𝑐 has been set to zero. Centre: Density distribution function in double-logarithmic scaling. The data points are represented by the purple dots, and the orange curve shows the fit function (16). Right: Probability distribution of the centred an… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: The six independent components of the momentum power spectrum are shown here. The 𝑘 axis is scaled by 2𝜋 𝐿 here and below. The red vertical line at 𝑘 = 17.5 indicates the dissipation scale 𝑙𝑑, and the grey vertical line at 𝑘 = 42 indicates the correlation scale 𝑙𝑐. Right: Momentum power spectrum 𝑃11 adapted from the simulation (purple dots) together with an individual fit function of the form (25, orange line)… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Density power spectra extracted from the simulation (purple points) and modelled by the fit function (26, orange line). Left: complete 𝑘 range allowed by the simulation data. Right: small scales, i.e. large wave numbers. The blue dashed line represents the 𝑘 −3 slope. …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Cross power spectrum between the density and the momentum components. Similar to the momentum power spectra shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The density, momentum, and density-momentum correlation functions of (28) are shown here in the left, centre, and right panels, respectively. The horizontal axes are scaled by 𝐿 = 0.1𝐻, i.e. the same length scale as the simulation boxes. 3.3.4 Correlation functions and…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: The linearly evolved density power spectrum Plin (𝑘1, 𝑡) (blue line) compared to the free non-linear density power spectrum Pfree (𝑘1, 𝑡) (yellow line). The asymptotic behaviour at large (green dashed line) and small scales is also indicated. At small scales, the…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: The wave number 𝑘0 where the free spectrum reaches its asymptotic slope decreases with time first rapidly, then slowly, showing how structure formation proceeds towards larger scales. Right: Amplitude P (0) (𝑡) for the asymptotic 𝑘 −3 tail of the free, non-linear…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid.sentence := #2 '...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    M., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf741 , 869, L41

    Andrews S. M., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf741 , 869, L41

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf741 2018

  4. [4]

    Bartelmann M., Fabis F., Berg D., Kozlikin E., Lilow R., Viermann C., 2016, @doi [New Journal of Physics] 10.1088/1367-2630/18/4/043020 , 18, 043020

    doi:10.1088/1367-2630/18/4/043020 2016

  5. [5]

    Bartelmann M., Fabis F., Kozlikin E., Lilow R., Dombrowski J., Mildenberger J., 2017, @doi [New Journal of Physics] 10.1088/1367-2630/aa7e6f , 19, 083001

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/aa7e6f 2017

  6. [6]

    Bartelmann M., et al., 2019, Cosmic Structure Formation with Kinetic Field Theory ( @eprint arXiv 1905.01179 )

    work page arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Blum J., Wurm G., 2008, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145152 , 46, 21

    arXiv 2008

  8. [8]

    A., Meru F., Lee M

    Booth R. A., Meru F., Lee M. H., Clarke C. J., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx3084 , 475, 167

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3084 2017

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Brandenburg A., Dobler W., 2002, @doi [Computer Physics Communications] https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-4655(02)00334-X , 147, 471

    2002 doi

  2. [10]

    Dullemond, C

    Brauer, F. Dullemond, C. P. Henning, Th. 2008, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077759 , 480, 859

    2008 doi

  3. [11]

    N., Hogan R

    Cuzzi J. N., Hogan R. C., Shariff K., 2008, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/591239 , 687, 1432

    2008 doi

  4. [12]

    N., Hogan R

    Cuzzi J. N., Hogan R. C., Bottke W. F., 2010, @doi [Icarus] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2010.03.005 , 208, 518

    2010 doi

  5. [13]

    P., Mazenko G

    Das S. P., Mazenko G. F., 2012, @doi [Journal of Statistical Physics] 10.1007/s10955-012-0610-y , 149, 643

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    Güttler, C. Blum, J. Zsom, A. Ormel, C. W. Dullemond, C. P. 2010, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912852 , 513, A56

    2010 doi

  7. [15]

    N., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab76c3 , 892, 120

    Hartlep T., Cuzzi J. N., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab76c3 , 892, 120

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    N., Weston B., 2017, @doi [Phys

    Hartlep T., Cuzzi J. N., Weston B., 2017, @doi [Phys. Rev. E] 10.1103/PhysRevE.95.033115 , 95, 033115

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    C., Cuzzi J

    Hogan R. C., Cuzzi J. N., 2007, @doi [Phys. Rev. E] 10.1103/PhysRevE.75.056305 , 75, 056305

    2007 doi

  10. [18]

    C., Cuzzi J

    Hogan R. C., Cuzzi J. N., Dobrovolskis A. R., 1999, @doi [Phys. Rev. E] 10.1103/PhysRevE.60.1674 , 60, 1674

    1999 doi

  11. [19]

    F., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv2226 , 455, 89

    Hopkins P. F., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv2226 , 455, 89

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    Hubbard A., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt543 , 432, 1274

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    Johansen A., Youdin A., 2007, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/516730 , 662, 627

    2007 doi

  14. [22]

    S., Mac Low M.-M., Klahr H., Henning T., Youdin A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature06086 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Natur.448.1022J 448, 1022

    Johansen A., Oishi J. S., Mac Low M.-M., Klahr H., Henning T., Youdin A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature06086 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Natur.448.1022J 448, 1022

    2007 doi

  15. [23]

    Klahr H., Schreiber A., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/abca9b , 911, 9

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    Konrad S., Bartelmann M., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac1795 , 515, 2578

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    E., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2596 , 878, L30

    Krapp L., Benítez-Llambay P., Gressel O., Pessah M. E., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2596 , 878, L30

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    A., Lin D

    Kretke K. A., Lin D. N. C., 2007, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/520718 , 664, L55

    2007 doi

  19. [27]

    C., Siggia E

    Martin P. C., Siggia E. D., Rose H. A., 1973, @doi [Phys. Rev. A] 10.1103/PhysRevA.8.423 , 8, 423

    1973 doi

  20. [28]

    P., Lovascio F., Paardekooper S.-J., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab112 , 502, 1469

    McNally C. P., Lovascio F., Paardekooper S.-J., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab112 , 502, 1469

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    F., Nesvorný D., Levison H

    Morbidelli A., Bottke W. F., Nesvorný D., Levison H. F., 2009, @doi [Icarus] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2009.07.011 , 204, 558

    2009 doi

  22. [30]

    Nakagawa Y., Sekiya M., Hayashi C., 1986, @doi [Icarus] https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-1035(86)90121-1 , 67, 375

    1986 doi

  23. [31]

    P., Lovascio F., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa3162 , 499, 4223

    Paardekooper S.-J., McNally C. P., Lovascio F., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa3162 , 499, 4223

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    G., Norman M

    Pan L., Padoan P., Scalo J., Kritsuk A. G., Norman M. L., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637x/740/1/6 , 740, 6

    2011 doi

  25. [33]

    Partnership A., et al., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.1088/2041-8205/808/1/L3 , 808, L3

    2015 doi

  26. [34]

    Schreiber A., 2018, PhD thesis, MPI for Astronomy, @doi 10.11588/heidok.00024579 , urn:nbn:de:bsz:16-heidok-245792

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    R., 1997, @doi [Journal of Fluid Mechanics] 10.1017/S0022112096004454 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997JFM...335...75S 335, 75

    Sundaram S., Collins L. R., 1997, @doi [Journal of Fluid Mechanics] 10.1017/S0022112096004454 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997JFM...335...75S 335, 75

    1997 doi

  28. [36]

    J., 1977, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/180.2.57 , 180, 57

    Weidenschilling S. J., 1977, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/180.2.57 , 180, 57

    1977 doi

  29. [37]

    L., 1972, in Elvius A., ed., From Plasma to Planet

    Whipple F. L., 1972, in Elvius A., ed., From Plasma to Planet. p. 211

    1972

  30. [38]

    Johansen, A

    Yang, C.-C. Johansen, A. Carrera, D. 2017, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201630106 , 606, A80

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

    N., Goodman J., 2005, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/426895 , 620, 459

    Youdin A. N., Goodman J., 2005, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/426895 , 620, 459

    2005 doi

  32. [40]

    Youdin A., Johansen A., 2007, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/516729 , 662, 613

    2007 doi

  33. [41]

    Zhu Z., Yang C.-C., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa3628 , 501, 467

    2020 doi

Pith tools

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