Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Vortex-Induced Rings and Gaps within Protoplanetary Disks

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Long-lived vortices in protoplanetary disks can open the dust rings and gaps ALMA sees, and their density waves carry over two orders of magnitude more angular momentum than planet waves shocking at the same radius.

desk verdict A genuinely new gap-opening mechanism that deserves refereeing, but the 'two orders of magnitude' AMF advantage over planets is not yet secure because the simulation vortex is a periodic train, not an isolated one. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11507 v2 pith:RVPJWKUJ submitted 2024-12-16 astro-ph.EP

Xiaoyi Ma , Pinghui Huang , Cong Yu , Ruobing Dong This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords protoplanetarydisksdustringsandgapsRossbywaveinstabilityvorticesdensitywavesangularmomentumfluxplanet-diskinteractionhydrodynamicsimulations
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 sets out to establish that vortices, the same anticyclonic eddies thought to produce crescent-shaped dust asymmetries, can also create the concentric dust rings and gaps that ALMA observes in protoplanetary disks, with no planet required. It reports two-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations, in a small co-rotating patch of an inviscid disk with dust, of a single long-lived vortex formed by the Rossby Wave Instability. The vortex excites spiral density waves; those waves steepen into shocks, deposit their angular momentum, and open a gas gap whose pressure maxima gather dust into rings. More elongated vortices put the outer dust ring farther away, following the fitted relation $x_{\mathrm{ring}}/h = 2.07\,\chi_v - 0.2$ across the four simulated models. The paper further claims that vortex-driven density waves carry over two orders of magnitude more angular momentum flux than planet-driven waves that shock at the same location, making vortices potentially far more effective at opening distant gaps and rings.

What carries the argument

The engine of the result is the vortex itself, produced by the Rossby Wave Instability, an instability that amplifies a radial pressure bump into a persistent anticyclonic eddy. The vortex excites a pair of spiral density waves, and the paper tracks the wave's angular momentum flux $F_J(x) = \int \Sigma v_x\,\delta v_y\,dy$, which remains constant until the wave shocks and then decays as angular momentum is deposited into the gas. Shock locations are identified independently by jumps in vortensity, $\zeta = (\nabla\times\mathbf{v})_z/\Sigma$, which is conserved in inviscid barotropic flow except at shocks. The quantitative payload is carried by the empirical relation between vortex aspect ratio $\chi_v$ and outer ring position, and by comparing $F_J$ for vortex waves against planet waves at equal shock distance.

What would settle it

A global, full-azimuth simulation with a finite vortex (no $1/m_*$ truncation) that measures the angular momentum flux of the vortex wave at its shock radius would settle the central quantitative claim: if the flux is not more than two orders of magnitude larger than a planet wave shocking at the same radius, or if the outer dust ring fails to track $x_{\mathrm{ring}}/h = 2.07\,\chi_v - 0.2$, the result fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a single long-lived vortex in an inviscid protoplanetary disk acts as a gap-opening agent through its own density waves, reproducing the ring-and-gap morphology usually attributed to planets. The vortex excites a pair of spiral density waves whose angular momentum flux stays roughly constant until the wave shocks; after the shock the flux decays and the lost angular momentum opens a gas gap, with dust rings forming at the gap edges. Quantitatively, the paper finds that the vortex aspect ratio $\chi_v$ and the location of the outer dust ring obey $x_{\mathrm{ring}}/h = 2.07\,\chi_v - 0.2$, and that vortex waves carry more than two orders of magnitude more angular momentum flux than planet waves that shock at the same distance, implying a substantially larger gap-opening capacity for the vortex in the far disk.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a vortex stretched across the whole simulated azimuthal strip, whose two density waves overlap coherently, represents a real finite vortex in a disk, because the measured angular momentum flux, shock radius, and ring-position correlation all come from that overlapping geometry.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A disk showing a crescent-shaped vortex should also tend to show a dust ring outside it, with the ring's separation controlled by how elongated the vortex is.
  • Rings and gaps in very young disks, where planets may not have had time to form, could be produced by vortices instead of requiring rapid planet formation.
  • Because vortex waves carry over two orders of magnitude more angular momentum than equal-shock planet waves, vortices may dominate gap opening in disks that host them, especially at large radii.
  • The fitted relation $x_{\mathrm{ring}}/h = 2.07\,\chi_v - 0.2$ offers observers a quantitative check: measure the vortex aspect ratio from a crescent and predict where the outer ring should sit.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the angular momentum flux excess survives in global simulations with finite vortices, vortex-driven wave transport could compete with planet-driven transport in setting the angular momentum budget of low-viscosity disks.
  • A testable extension is to compare disks that have crescents with disks that have rings but no detected planets; the vortex mechanism predicts the outer ring radius should correlate with the crescent's elongation, unlike planet-driven ring spacing.
  • Because the simulations use a single dust Stokes number and neglect dust feedback, the predicted ring contrast and location may depend on grain size, and multi-species dust runs would show whether the rings remain ALMA-detectable across realistic grain populations.
  • The shearing-box geometry makes the vortex span the whole simulated azimuthal strip, so the two emitted waves overlap; the reported two-orders-of-magnitude excess and the ring-location correlation could shift in a global disk where the vortex is finite.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper investigates whether Rossby Wave Instability (RWI) vortices can open gaps and produce dust rings in protoplanetary disks through the shock dissipation of vortex-excited density waves. The authors run 2D inviscid shearing-box simulations with gas and a single dust fluid (St = 0.1) using Athena++, initializing four models with different Gaussian density-bump amplitudes to produce vortices of different elongations. In the lowest-amplitude model (A4), the vortex excites density waves whose angular momentum flux (AMF) stays roughly constant until x = 13.6h, where the AMF begins to decay, a vortensity jump appears, and a gas gap opens; dust drifts to pressure bumps and forms two rings. Over the four models, more elongated vortices produce rings at larger separations, fit by the empirical relation x_ring/h = 2.07 chi_v - 0.2 (Eq. 15). Using analytic scalings for planet-disk interactions (Goodman & Rafikov 2001; Dong et al. 2011a), the authors compare vortex-induced and planet-induced waves and claim the former carry over two orders of magnitude more AMF when their shock locations coincide. A synthetic ALMA image from a global simulation is presented as resembling HD 135344B.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper establishes a genuinely non-planetary pathway to the ring-and-gap substructures observed in protoplanetary disks, and it makes a strong, falsifiable statement that vortex-induced density waves are far more efficient angular-momentum carriers than planet-induced waves with the same shock radius. The paper has clear strengths: the causal chain from wave excitation to shock, AMF decay, gas-gap formation, and dust-ring placement is checked with multiple independent diagnostics (AMF profiles, vortensity jumps, and surface-density morphology); the convergence test in Appendix A explicitly motivates the 256 cells/h resolution; and the model parameters and fitting are reported in tabular form. However, the headline quantitative results rest on a small number of models and on an idealized shearing-box geometry, so the significance is conditional on additional robustness tests.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.3, footnote 1, and Fig. 2/3] The most serious concern is that the shearing box is periodic in y and the vortex spans the full azimuthal domain, so the two density waves on opposite sides overlap (footnote 1, p. 4). Consequently, the AMF measured with Eq. (13) and the shock location inferred from the AMF decay in Fig. 2(c) are properties of a superposition of overlapping waves, not of an isolated vortex. The comparison with planet-induced waves in §3.4 uses analytic scalings derived for an isolated planet (Eqs. 16-17), so the claimed 'two orders of magnitude' advantage may be an artifact of the periodic geometry. No sensitivity test to the azimuthal domain size L_y or to the 1/m* truncation is reported, and L_y differs among the models in Table 1 (10π/4 vs. 10π/3), which could also feed the x_ring-chi_v correlation. The authors should add simulations with larger L_y (or otherwise isolated vortices) and demonstrate that FJ, the shock location, and the ring location do not depend on the box width.
  2. [§3.4, Fig. 8, and Eqs. 16-17] The comparison in Fig. 8 mixes directly simulated vortex data with analytic planet-wave predictions. It should be stated explicitly that the blue points are not from simulations but from Eq. (17) applied to the Mp,shock values from Eq. (16). As written, the reader cannot tell whether the factor-of-100 difference is a robust physical result or an artifact of concatenating two approximate scalings. Moreover, Eq. (17) is calibrated for weak, weakly nonlinear planet waves; the authors should justify that it remains valid for the planet masses inferred here, and ideally verify the comparison with a direct planet-disk simulation at the same resolution and box size.
  3. [§3.3, Table 1, and §3.1] The linear correlation in Eq. (15) and Fig. 6 is based on four models, and the ring position x_ring is evaluated at a different time for each model (tau_20 ranges from 149 to 860 orbits). Section 3.1 states that 'the gas gap deepens and widens with time, pushing the two dust rings further apart,' so x_ring is time-dependent. The fit therefore conflates vortex elongation with evolution time. The authors should either evaluate all models at a common epoch, demonstrate that the ordering of x_ring is stable over the simulated interval, or include time as an explicit variable in the scaling.
  4. [§4.1 and Appendix C] The synthetic ALMA image that supports the observational claim 'detectable by ALMA' is produced from a global simulation whose maximum resolution near the vortex is approximately 33 cells per scale height (Appendix C.1), far below the 256 cells/h convergence requirement established in Appendix A for capturing weak-wave propagation and shock locations. The authors should either increase the global resolution to a level consistent with their own convergence criterion, or soften the claim to a qualitative morphological match rather than a resolved prediction of detectability.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.1] The text 'HLLE Reimann solver' and 'the default Reimann solver' should read 'HLLE Riemann solver' and 'Riemann solver'; also 'trancation errors' should be 'truncation errors'.
  2. [§2.1] The sentence 'where 4 are the gas continuity and momentum equation, respectively' should be 'where Equations (3) and (4) are the gas continuity and momentum equations, respectively.'
  3. [Figure 5 caption] The caption does not explain the dotted and solid arrows that are referenced in the text; please describe them explicitly in the caption.
  4. [Figure 6] The fitted formula is rendered with garbled characters in the figure label ('𝑥!"#$ℎ=2.07𝜒v−0.2'); please fix the typesetting.
  5. [§3.2 and Figure 3] The statement that the 'planet induced ones have a full-width-half-magnitude ~70% smaller' would be clearer if the comparison were made at matched wave amplitude or matched shock distance, since Fig. 3(a) and 3(b) use different normalizations and different shock locations.
  6. [Table 1] The table header contains the typo 'T able 1'; also, the unit for x_ring is given as '[h]' but the text in Eq. (15) reports x_ring/h, so please make the notation consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central gap/ring results are direct simulation outputs, and the AMF comparison uses external analytic benchmarks rather than the paper's own fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are produced by direct 2D shearing-box simulations, not derived from the relations they are compared against. The x_ring–chi_v correlation (Eq. 15) is an empirical least-squares fit of two independently measured simulation outputs: chi_v is defined from velocity profiles near the vortex (Appendix B), and x_ring is the location of dust ring B read from azimuthally averaged dust surface density; neither quantity is defined in terms of the other. The angular momentum flux comparison uses the vortex flux measured from the simulation (Eq. 13) against analytic scalings for planet-driven waves (Eqs. 16–17, from Goodman & Rafikov 2001 and Dong et al. 2011a). These scalings are external, parameter-free benchmarks that do not take the vortex AMF as an input; although Dong et al. 2011a is co-authored by one of the present authors, the formula is independently established and is not fitted to the present simulations. The footnote about overlapping waves in the periodic shearing box is an acknowledged geometric limitation that may affect quantitative robustness, but it is not a circular reduction of a predicted quantity to an input. No equation in the paper is defined so that the claimed prediction is an input by construction, and no load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a set of idealizations: inviscid 2D isothermal shearing box, a domain-truncated vortex, and analytic scalings from planet-disk theory used to compare with planetary waves. There are no invented physical entities. The two free parameters come from a 4-point empirical fit.

free parameters (2)
  • a = 2.07 ± 0.06
    Slope of the empirical linear fit (Eq. 15) between vortex aspect ratio and dust ring location, fitted to four simulation models (A1-A4).
  • b = -0.2 ± 0.3
    Intercept of the empirical linear fit (Eq. 15) between vortex aspect ratio and dust ring location.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Equation 16 (Goodman & Rafikov 2001) relating planetary mass to shock length is valid for mapping vortex-induced wave shock locations to equivalent planet masses.
    Used in Section 3.4 to compute Mp,shock from x_shock; the relation is derived for planetary waves and may not capture the different wave profile of vortex waves.
  • domain assumption Equation 17 (Dong et al. 2011a) relating planetary mass to angular momentum flux is valid for computing the AMF of equivalent planet waves.
    Used in Section 3.4 to compute Mp,AMF and the AMF comparison in Figure 8; the formula is standard but is a theoretical scaling for planetary waves.
  • domain assumption The shearing-box domain truncated to 1/m* of the azimuthal extent with periodic boundary conditions is representative of a global vortex-disk interaction.
    Used to isolate a single vortex; footnote 1 notes the vortex is as long as the domain and the two waves overlap, which may affect measured AMF and shock location.
  • domain assumption The disk can be approximated as 2D, isothermal, inviscid, and without magnetic fields or self-gravity for the core results.
    Setup in Section 2; the impact of viscosity, radiation, 3D, and self-gravity are only discussed qualitatively in Section 4.2.
  • standard math Vortensity is conserved except at shocks in inviscid barotropic flow; peaks in vortensity locate shocks.
    Used in Section 3.2 to identify shock location; standard result from vorticity dynamics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vortex-Induced Rings and Gaps within Protoplanetary Disks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RVPJWKUJ

@misc{pith2026241211507,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vortex-Induced Rings and Gaps within Protoplanetary Disks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RVPJWKUJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11507}
}
read the original abstract

Observations of protoplanetary disks have revealed the presence of both crescent-shaped and ring-like structures in dust continuum emission. These crescents are thought to arise from dust-trapping vortices generated by the Rossby Wave Instability (RWI), which induces density waves akin to those caused by planets. These vortices have the potential to create gaps and rings within the disk, resulting from the dissipation of their density waves. We carry out 2D hydrodynamic simulations in the shearing box to investigate vortex-disk interaction. We find that long-lived vortices can produce dust rings and gaps in inviscid discs detectable by ALMA, and a more elongated vortex produces rings at larger separations. Vortex-induced density waves carry over two orders of magnitude higher angular momentum flux compared to planet-induced ones that shock at the same location, making the former much more effective at producing dust gaps and rings far away.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11507 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Surface density snapshots for gas (left) and dust (right) of module with lowest initial bump amplitude (Model A4), at t = 20, 400 and 800 orbits. An RWI vortex centred at (x, y) = (0, 0) forms (black solid arrow, left column), generating spiral density waves (black dashed arrow, left column). As the system evolves, a gas gap is opened on each side of the vortex (white dashed arrow, left column), prompting the format… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Panel (a): Azimuthal profiles for vortex-induced density wave of Model A4 at t = 20 orbits (top left panel in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Surface density for gas (left) and dust (right) at t = τ20 for disk models listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Azimuthally averaged surface density profiles for gas (top; left column in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Empirical fitting between the aspect ratio of the vortex and the location of the dust ring. I migration of planets (Paardekooper et al. 2010). The migration timescale is usually comparable to or longer than the disk lifetime unless the aspect ratio drops below 4 or the…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Panel (a): Correlation between vortex aspect ratio and planet mass for the planets whose waves shock at the same distance as the vortex-induced ones (See §3.4). (b): Correlation between vortex aspect ratio and planet mass for the planets whose waves carry the same amou…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: AMF carried by the planet-induced waves (blue dots) and vortex-induced waves (orange dots) that shock at the same distance. with the same shock length, making vortices signifi￾cantly more effective at gap opening ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Panel (a): Dust surface density from the global simulation for the disk Model A2. (b): The corresponding synthetic continuum image at 1.9 mm. The white ellipse in the bottom left corner represents the synthetic beam size of 0.079′′ ×0.070′′ . (c): Continuum observation…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Vortensity radial profile at t = 360 orbits for Model A4 is shown at resolutions of 64, 128, 256 and 512 cells/h [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Radial velocity vgas,x along the y direction (a), surface gas density (b), and azimuthal velocity deviation from Keplerian velocity vgas,y − vk along the x direction (c) for Model A2 at t = τ20. Black dashed lines mark local extrema near the vortex. The distance betwe…

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 and Gas Transport in Substructured Nonideal MHD Wind-Launching Disks with Embedded Planets

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In magnetized wind-launching disks, planet-opened gaps remain partially permeable: small grains and gas leak through, while large grains are filtered, making substructures regulators rather than barriers.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    L., P´ erez, L

    ALMA Partnership, Brogan, C. L., P´ erez, L. M., et al. 2015, ApJL, 808, L3, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/808/1/L3

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/808/1/l3 2015

  2. [2]

    M., Huang, J., P´ erez, L

    Andrews, S. M., Huang, J., P´ erez, L. M., et al. 2018, ApJL, 869, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf741

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf741 2018

  3. [3]

    Armitage, P. J. 2020, Astrophysics of Planet Formation, 2nd edn. (Cambridge University Press)

    2020

  4. [4]

    2021, A&A, 652, A101, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140325

    Asensio-Torres, R., Henning, T., Cantalloube, F., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A101, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140325

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140325 2021

  5. [5]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bae, J., Isella, A., Zhu, Z., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 423, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2210.13314

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.13314 2023

  6. [6]

    2018, ApJL, 864, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aadd51

    Bae, J., Pinilla, P., & Birnstiel, T. 2018, ApJL, 864, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aadd51

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aadd51 2018

  7. [7]

    2018, ApJ, 859, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf8c

    Bae, J., & Zhu, Z. 2018, ApJ, 859, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf8c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabf8c 2018

  8. [8]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 458, 39273941, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2527

    Baruteau, C., & Zhu, Z. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 458, 39273941, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2527

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2527 2016

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    P., & Pinilla, P

    Birnstiel, T., Dullemond, C. P., & Pinilla, P. 2013, A&A, 550, L8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220847

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    P., Zhu, Z., et al

    Birnstiel, T., Dullemond, C. P., Zhu, Z., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 869, L45, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf743

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Perez, S., et al

    Casassus, S., van der Plas, G. M., Perez, S., et al. 2013, Nature, 493, 191, doi: 10.1038/nature11769

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    F., Pinilla, P., et al

    Cazzoletti, P., van Dishoeck, E. F., Pinilla, P., et al. 2018, Astronomy and amp; Astrophysics, 619, A161, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834006

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    P., & Rafikov, R

    Cimerman, N. P., & Rafikov, R. R. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 23292349, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2652

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    Crnkovic-Rubsamen, I., Zhu, Z., & Stone, J. M. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 4285, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv828

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    2021, OpTool: Command-line driven tool for creating complex dust opacities, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2104.010

    Dominik, C., Min, M., & Tazaki, R. 2021, OpTool: Command-line driven tool for creating complex dust opacities, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2104.010

    2021

  8. [16]

    2017, ApJ, 843, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa72f2

    Dong, R., Li, S., Chiang, E., & Li, H. 2017, ApJ, 843, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa72f2

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    R., & Stone, J

    Dong, R., Rafikov, R. R., & Stone, J. M. 2011a, ApJ, 741, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/57

    doi

  10. [18]

    R., Stone, J

    Dong, R., Rafikov, R. R., Stone, J. M., & Petrovich, C. 2011b, ApJ, 741, 56, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/56

    doi

  11. [19]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 809, 93, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/809/1/93

    Dong, R., Zhu, Z., & Whitney, B. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 809, 93, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/809/1/93

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    P., Juhasz, A., Pohl, A., et al

    Dullemond, C. P., Juhasz, A., Pohl, A., et al. 2012, RADMC-3D: A multi-purpose radiative transfer tool, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1202.015

    2012

  13. [21]

    2014, ApJL, 788, L41, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/788/2/L41

    Fu, W., Li, H., Lubow, S., & Li, S. 2014, ApJL, 788, L41, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/788/2/L41

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 922, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1d4e

    Fung, J., & Ono, T. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 922, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1d4e

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 782, 88, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/782/2/88

    Fung, J., Shi, J.-M., & Chiang, E. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 782, 88, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/782/2/88

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 441, 19101915, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu697

    Gholipour, M., & Nejad-Asghar, M. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 441, 19101915, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu697

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    1999, ApJ, 523, 350, doi: 10.1086/307720

    Godon, P., & Livio, M. 1999, ApJ, 523, 350, doi: 10.1086/307720

    1999 doi

  18. [26]

    Goodman, J., & Rafikov, R. R. 2001, ApJ, 552, 793, doi: 10.1086/320572

    2001 doi

  19. [27]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 262, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac76cb

    Huang, P., & Bai, X.-N. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 262, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac76cb

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 883, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab40c4

    Huang, P., Dong, R., Li, H., Li, S., & Ji, J. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 883, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab40c4

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 893, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8199

    Huang, P., Li, H., Isella, A., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 893, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8199

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    Jiang, H., & Ormel, C. W. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 11621179, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1278

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    Kevlahan, N. K. R. 1997, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 341, 371, doi: 10.1017/S0022112097005752

    1997 doi

  24. [32]

    Lesur, G., & Papaloizou, J. C. B. 2009, Astronomy and amp; Astrophysics, 498, 112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811577

    2009 doi

  25. [33]

    A., Wendroff, B., & Liska, R

    Li, H., Colgate, S. A., Wendroff, B., & Liska, R. 2001, ApJ, 551, 874, doi: 10.1086/320241

    2001 doi

  26. [34]

    M., Lovelace, R

    Li, H., Finn, J. M., Lovelace, R. V. E., & Colgate, S. A. 2000, ApJ, 533, 1023, doi: 10.1086/308693

    2000 doi

  27. [35]

    2005, ApJ, 624, 1003, doi: 10.1086/429367

    Li, H., Li, S., Koller, J., et al. 2005, ApJ, 624, 1003, doi: 10.1086/429367

    2005 doi

  28. [36]

    Lin, D. N. C., & Papaloizou, J. 1986, ApJ, 309, 846, doi: 10.1086/164653 15

    1986 doi

  29. [37]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 575591, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty947

    Lin, M.-K., & Pierens, A. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 575591, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty947

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 453, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz913

    Lodato, G., Dipierro, G., Ragusa, E., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 453, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz913

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    J., et al

    Long, F., Pinilla, P., Herczeg, G. J., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 869, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae8e1

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    Lovelace, R. V. E., Li, H., Colgate, S. A., & Nelson, A. F. 1999, ApJ, 513, 805, doi: 10.1086/306900

    1999 doi

  33. [41]

    2000, A&AS, 141, 165, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000116

    Masset, F. 2000, A&AS, 141, 165, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000116

    2000 doi

  34. [42]

    46, European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, 03001, doi: 10.1051/epjconf/20134603001

    Conferences, Vol. 46, European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, 03001, doi: 10.1051/epjconf/20134603001

  35. [43]

    2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 516, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014000

    Meheut, H., Casse, F., Varniere, P., & Tagger, M. 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 516, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014000

    2010 doi

  36. [44]

    2012a, A&A, 542, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118500

    Meheut, H., Keppens, R., Casse, F., & Benz, W. 2012a, A&A, 542, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118500

    doi

  37. [45]

    Meheut, H., Lovelace, R. V. E., & Lai, D. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 1988, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt022

    2013 doi

  38. [46]

    2012b, A&A, 545, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219794

    Meheut, H., Meliani, Z., Varniere, P., & Benz, W. 2012b, A&A, 545, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219794

    doi

  39. [47]

    2012c, MNRAS, 422, 2399, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20789.x

    Meheut, H., Yu, C., & Lai, D. 2012c, MNRAS, 422, 2399, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20789.x

    2012

  40. [48]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/118

    Miranda, R., Li, H., Li, S., & Jin, S. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/118

    2017 doi

  41. [49]

    Miranda, R., & Rafikov, R. R. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 878, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab22a7

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    Miranda, R., & Rafikov, R. R. 2020, ApJ, 892, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab791a

    2020 doi

  43. [51]

    K., & Inutsuka, S.-i

    Muto, T., Suzuki, T. K., & Inutsuka, S.-i. 2010, ApJ, 724, 448, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/448

    2010 doi

  44. [52]

    1987, MNRAS, 228, 1, doi: 10.1093/mnras/228.1.1

    Narayan, R., Goldreich, P., & Goodman, J. 1987, MNRAS, 228, 1, doi: 10.1093/mnras/228.1.1

    1987 doi

  45. [53]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, 84, doi: 10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/84

    Ono, T., Muto, T., Takeuchi, T., & Nomura, H. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, 84, doi: 10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/84

    2016 doi

  46. [54]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad54d

    Ono, T., Muto, T., Tomida, K., & Zhu, Z. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad54d

    2018 doi

  47. [55]

    Paardekooper, S.-J., Lesur, G., & Papaloizou, J. C. B. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 725, 146158, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/725/1/146 P´ erez, L. M., Benisty, M., Andrews, S. M., et al. 2018, ApJL, 869, L50, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf745

    2010 doi

  48. [56]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1314

    Pierens, A., & Lin, M.-K. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1314

    2018 doi

  49. [57]

    2012, Astronomy and amp; Astrophysics, 545, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219315

    Pinilla, P., Benisty, M., & Birnstiel, T. 2012, Astronomy and amp; Astrophysics, 545, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219315

    2012 doi

  50. [58]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Pinte, C., Teague, R., Flaherty, K., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 645, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09528

    2023 doi arXiv

  51. [59]

    2013, A&A, 559, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322175

    Richard, S., Barge, P., & Le Diz` es, S. 2013, A&A, 559, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322175

    2013 doi

  52. [60]

    M., Schmiedeke, A., Pineda, J

    Segura-Cox, D. M., Schmiedeke, A., Pineda, J. E., et al. 2020, Nature, 586, 228, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2779-6

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

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

    1973

  54. [62]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 876, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1265

    Sierra, A., Lizano, S., Mac ías, E., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 876, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1265

    2019 doi

  55. [63]

    M., & Gardiner, T

    Stone, J. M., & Gardiner, T. A. 2010, ApJS, 189, 142, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/189/1/142

    2010 doi

  56. [64]

    M., Tomida, K., White, C

    Stone, J. M., Tomida, K., White, C. J., & Felker, K. G. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 249, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929b The CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 134, 114501, doi: 10.1...

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    2023, The dependence of the structure of planet-opened gaps in protoplanetary disks on radiative cooling

    Zhang, M., Huang, P., & Dong, R. 2023, The dependence of the structure of planet-opened gaps in protoplanetary disks on radiative cooling. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.11757

    2023 arXiv

  58. [66]

    2018, ApJL, 869, L47, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf744

    Zhang, S., Zhu, Z., Huang, J., et al. 2018, ApJL, 869, L47, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf744

    2018 doi

  59. [67]

    M., Rafikov, R

    Zhu, Z., Stone, J. M., Rafikov, R. R., & Bai, X.-n. 2014, ApJ, 785, 122, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/122

    2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.