Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 48 references

CLoE: Curriculum Learning on Endoscopic Images for Robust MES Classification

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A protosolar disk with a magnetically dead zone can form two Earth-mass planets, 0.974 and 1.04 Earth masses, matching Earth and Venus.

desk verdict A serious but over-tuned tandem-disk planet formation model whose two-Earth-mass output rests on an unexamined 'immediate re-formation' step—and whose submission metadata and body do not match. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.13280 v1 pith:SWGD7ZW6 submitted 2025-08-18 cs.CV cs.LG

Zeynep Ozdemir , Hacer Yalim Keles , Omer Ozgur Tanriover This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.LG
keywords planetformationterrestrialplanetsprotoplanetarydisksmagneto-rotationalinstabilitypebbleaccretionplanetarymigrationsolarsystemexoplanets
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 Earth and Venus can be a natural by-product of how dust drifts in a protosolar disk, rather than the outcome of a rare late reshuffle. In its tandem-disk model, solid particles pile up at the inner boundary of a magnetically dead region, forming a planet that grows to about an Earth mass and then migrates outward under the gas disk's torque; the remaining solids then form a second planet. For a disk with accretion rate $10^{-7.08}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ and dust fraction $1.25\times10^{-3}$, the accumulated solid mass is $1.99\,M_\oplus$, producing planets of $0.974\,M_\oplus$ and $1.04\,M_\oplus$. A sympathetic reader would take this as evidence that the inner edge of the dead zone is a plausible, parameter-driven factory for terrestrial planets.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the inner MRI front: the boundary where the magneto-rotational instability switches off and the pressure gradient reverses, so inward-drifting pebbles accumulate. There the pebble subdisk becomes gravitationally unstable, a planet grows by pebble accretion, and once it reaches roughly an Earth mass the gas-disk torque (type-I migration) pushes it outward, letting the cycle repeat. The quantitative argument is carried by an analytic relation tying the final planetary mass to the pebble mass-accretion rate at the front (Equation 12, derived in Appendix H) together with the torque formula that determines when migration starts and where it stalls.

What would settle it

Rerun Case D while tracking the surface density of the pebble subdisk between the first planet's outward migration and the exhaustion of the pebble supply, and check whether the gravitational-instability criterion (Toomre $Q<1$) is actually reached; if it is not, the rapid re-formation of the second planet cannot occur and the two-planet outcome collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the inner edge of the MRI-suppressed region of a protosolar disk acts as a repeating planet factory. Solid particles drift inward, pile up where the pressure gradient reverses, and undergo gravitational instability to make planetesimals; the first planet grows by pebble accretion until the gas-disk torque pushes it outward. For a disk with initial accretion rate $10^{-7.08}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ and dust fraction $1.25\times10^{-3}$ (Case D), the accumulated solid mass is $1.99\,M_\oplus$, and the cycle produces two planets of $0.974\,M_\oplus$ and $1.04\,M_\oplus$ plus a small residual body. The paper reads this as matching the Earth--Venus pair, which carries 92% of the Solar System's terrestrial planet mass.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes that after the first Earth-mass planet migrates outward, the solids still arriving at the inner MRI front immediately form a second planet through gravitational instability, rather than being depleted, scattered, or merging with the first planet.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Case D is representative, the dominance of Earth and Venus in the Solar System is a natural consequence of pebble supply at the inner MRI front, not a rare coincidence.
  • The formation cycle predicts a three-step rhythm: gravitational instability makes the first planet, gas-disk torque moves it outward, and residual solids immediately form the next planet, so the number of rocky planets is set by how long pebble inflow lasts.
  • Lower accretion rates produce one dominant planet plus a small companion, while higher accretion rates or dust fractions produce several near-Earth-mass planets, giving a spectrum of rocky architectures around Sun-like stars.
  • Planets born at the inner MRI front start dry and chemically reduced, with water and volatiles arriving later, matching the enstatite-chondrite-like composition inferred for Earth's building materials.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mechanism is right, the near-equality of the two Case D masses is a disk-parameter outcome; transit and radial-velocity surveys of Sun-like stars should find rocky pairs with mass ratios near unity when disk accretion rates and dust fractions fall in the corresponding window.
  • The Case D planets end at 1.31-1.54 AU, not at the present Venus and Earth orbits; a natural extension is to check whether continued outward migration under a decaying accretion rate can stall the pair at 0.72 and 1.0 AU without disrupting the mass ratio.
  • Because the cycle needs a sustained pebble supply, the model implies a sharp population-level split: disks whose pebble inflow stops before the first planet reaches migration mass should form a single super-Earth rather than a comparable pair, and counting such systems would test the mechanism.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The submitted file is internally mismatched: the title, abstract, and code-release URL describe CLoE, a curriculum-learning method for Mayo Endoscopic Subscore classification, while the full text is an astrophysics manuscript, "Earth-Mass Planets in Tandem Disks," by Nimura and Ebisuzaki. Taking the full text as the paper under evaluation, it proposes that terrestrial planets form at the inner edge of an MRI-suppressed region (the inner MRI front) of a tandem protoplanetary disk, where inward-drifting pebbles accumulate and undergo gravitational instability. The model includes time-dependent accretion, pebble growth and drift, pebble-accretion growth of a planet, and outward migration by gas-disk torque, and five disk-parameter cases are integrated. The headline Case D (Mdot0 = 10^-7.08 Msun/yr, fp = 1.25e-3) produces three rocky planets with masses 0.974, 1.04, and 0.0115 MEarth at 1.54, 1.39, and 1.31 AU, which the authors claim closely matches Earth and Venus. Appendices A-I derive analytic scalings for the planetary mass and argue that the model generically yields roughly two Earth-mass planets when the available rocky mass is about 1.98 MEarth.

Significance. If the formation mechanism were established, this would be a substantial contribution to terrestrial-planet formation: it identifies a physical location where pebbles naturally concentrate and provides closed-form scalings connecting disk accretion rate and dust fraction to resulting planet masses. The analytic work in Appendices A-I is detailed and self-consistent, and the comparison between simulation and analytic mass estimates (Table 2) is a useful internal check. However, the solar-system match is weaker than the abstract claims: the total rocky mass is chosen to equal 1.98 MEarth in Cases B-D, the second planet's mass is the residual left after the first planet migrates away and is assumed to re-form "immediately" without a stability analysis, and the final semimajor axes are 1.31-1.54 AU rather than 0.72-1.0 AU. The stress-test concern is on target: the two-Earth-mass split is not yet a dynamical prediction.

major comments (4)
  1. [Front matter vs full text] The manuscript as submitted is internally inconsistent: the title, abstract, and code-release URL describe a computer-vision paper on CLoE for MES classification, while the full text is an unrelated astro-ph paper on tandem-disk planet formation. The CLoE performance numbers cited in the abstract (82.5% accuracy, QWK 0.894) have no supporting experiments or analysis in the body. This discrepancy must be resolved before the scientific content can be evaluated.
  2. [Section 3, Case D; Discussion Step 3] The second and third planets in Case D (Table 1, Fig. 7D) are said to form "immediately" via gravitational instability after the preceding planet migrates outward, but no gravitational-instability criterion (e.g., Toomre Q or Goldreich-Ward condition) and no formation timescale are supplied for the residual pebble subdisk. Absent such an analysis, the second planet's mass is simply MRocky minus the mass carried away by the first planet, so the two-Earth-mass split is a bookkeeping outcome rather than a tested dynamical prediction. Please add a quantitative stability and timescale comparison between re-formation of the residual solids and pebble depletion or migration.
  3. [Table 1; Section 2] Cases B, C, and D adjust Mdot0 (and, in Cases C and D, fp) so that MRocky approximates 1.98 MEarth, the solar-system total rocky-planet mass. The match to that total is therefore an input condition, not a predicted output; the genuinely predicted quantities are the number of planets and their individual masses. The paper should separate fitted inputs from outputs and should explore the surrounding parameter space to show that the near-equal two-planet split is not a selected point.
  4. [Section 4.2] The manuscript acknowledges that the final orbital radii for Case D (1.31, 1.39, and 1.54 AU) differ substantially from the observed Venus and Earth semimajor axes (0.72 and 1.0 AU) and invokes a long-term migration that is not modeled. Without such a migration model, the claimed agreement with the solar system is confined to planet masses, and the abstract's statement that Case D "closely matches the distribution of terrestrial planets in the Solar System" overstates what has been established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 7] The schematic stages T1-T6 in the right-hand panels of Figure 7 are not defined in the caption; please add a short definition of each stage or explicit pointers to the corresponding text paragraphs.
  2. [Table 1 and text] The subscript notation for the drift start and end times is inconsistent: Table 1 uses tS;acc and tE;acc, while the text uses tS,acc and tE,acc. Please unify the notation.
  3. [Appendix H, Eq. (H4)] Equation (H4) and the analogous expression in Equation (I6) use fp/(1.25e-2) in a logarithmic term, whereas the companion derivation in Equation (E9) gives fp/(1.25e-3); please verify whether the 10^-2 is a typo, since these formulas are used to reproduce the simulated masses in Table 2.
  4. [Equations (4) and (8a)] The symbol alpha is used both for the Shakura-Sunyaev viscosity parameter and for the logarithmic surface-density gradient; although the paper acknowledges this, the two uses occur close together in Equations (4) and (8a) and would be clearer if a separate symbol (e.g., a = -d ln Sigma / d ln r) were introduced.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Case D's total-mass match is imposed by tuning Mdot0 to the solar-system total; the two-planet split retains some independent content, giving partial circularity.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2, disk parameters paragraph before Table 1 (see also Table 1, Case D row and Abstract)]
    "Cases B, C, and D, adjust ˙M0 to achieve MRocky ∼ 1.98M⊕, matching the total planet mass in our solar system (the sum of Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars; dashed line in Figure 5)."

    The free parameter ˙M0 is explicitly varied so that the model's integrated rocky mass MRocky equals the solar-system total of 1.98 M⊕. Case D then yields MRocky = 1.99 M⊕, and the Abstract presents this total as the predicted 'total solid mass at the inner MRI edge' that 'closely matches' Earth and Venus. Thus the headline total-mass match is the fitting target, not an independent prediction. The genuinely computed outputs are the number of planets and the individual mass split (0.974 M⊕ and 1.04 M⊕), which are not fixed by the total-mass choice alone; the circularity is confined to the total-mass claim.

full rationale

The paper contains one clear instance of fitted-input-called-prediction: Cases B, C, and D are constructed by adjusting ˙M0 (and, for Case D, fp within the observationally allowed ALMA range) so that MRocky reaches approximately 1.98 M⊕, the solar system's total rocky planet mass. The later statement that Case D's 1.99 M⊕ total matches the solar system is therefore a restatement of the chosen target, not a derivation. However, the near-equal split into two Earth-mass planets (0.974 and 1.04 M⊕) is a genuine output of the growth and migration calculation, so the paper is not wholly circular. The 'second planet forms immediately' step in Case D is an assumption without a quantitative gravitational-instability or growth-timescale criterion, but that is a correctness risk rather than a circular reduction to the inputs. The paper also concedes that the final orbital radii (1.39-1.54 AU) disagree with Venus and Earth, further weakening the solar-system match but not constituting circularity. Overall score 6 reflects the partial, load-bearing circularity of the total-mass claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The 'tandem disk' and 'pebbles subdisk' concepts are inherited from prior literature, though the rapid re-formation of a second planet is effectively a new model ingredient; it is listed under axioms rather than entities.

free parameters (4)
  • Initial accretion rate Mdot0 = 10^-7.08 M_sun/yr (Case D)
    Cases B, C, D set Mdot0 so that MRocky is about 1.98 M_earth, matching the solar system rocky mass; Case D is selected as the match.
  • Particle fraction fp = 1.25e-3 (Case D)
    fp is poorly constrained (paper quotes ALMA range 0.001 to 0.1); the value is chosen, in combination with Mdot0, to make the total rocky mass match the solar system.
  • Accretion decay timescale tau_acc = 1 M_sun / Mdot0 yr
    Set so total accreted mass equals 1 M_sun; a modeling choice, not measured.
  • Hill-sphere separation factor D = 5
    Assumed mutual separation of planets, following Kokubo & Ida (1995); controls how many planets fit in the feeding zone.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The disk is a steady-state, 1D alpha disk with exponentially decaying accretion rate (Eqs. 6 and 7).
    All disk structure and migration timescales are computed from this background; it is invoked throughout Sections 2 and 3 and Appendices A through I.
  • domain assumption An MRI-suppressed middle region exists and acts as a particle trap at its inner front (Ebisuzaki & Imaeda 2017).
    The existence of the MSR and the piling-up of solids at its inner boundary is carried over from prior tandem-disk papers, not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption The type-I migration torque formula (Paardekooper et al.) applies and determines when planets leave the front; they stabilize where torque becomes negative near the water sublimation zone (Figure 2f, Eqs. 8a, 8b, and 11).
    This is the mechanism that stops planet growth at roughly Earth mass and sets final semi-major axes; if the torque sign or normalization is wrong, the two-planet result changes.
  • ad hoc to paper After a planet migrates away, residual solids at the inner MRI front immediately form the next planet via gravitational instability (Section 3, Case D).
    No dedicated timescale or stability analysis is provided for this re-formation cycle; it is the key step that converts one mass reservoir into multiple Earth-mass planets.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CLoE: Curriculum Learning on Endoscopic Images for Robust MES Classification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SWGD7ZW6

@misc{pith2026250813280,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CLoE: Curriculum Learning on Endoscopic Images for Robust MES Classification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SWGD7ZW6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.13280}
}
read the original abstract

Estimating disease severity from endoscopic images is essential in assessing ulcerative colitis, where the Mayo Endoscopic Subscore (MES) is widely used to grade inflammation. However, MES classification remains challenging due to label noise from inter-observer variability and the ordinal nature of the score, which standard models often ignore. We propose CLoE, a curriculum learning framework that accounts for both label reliability and ordinal structure. Image quality, estimated via a lightweight model trained on Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) labels, is used as a proxy for annotation confidence to order samples from easy (clean) to hard (noisy). This curriculum is further combined with ResizeMix augmentation to improve robustness. Experiments on the LIMUC and HyperKvasir datasets, using both CNNs and Transformers, show that CLoE consistently improves performance over strong supervised and self-supervised baselines. For instance, ConvNeXt-Tiny reaches 82.5\% accuracy and a QWK of 0.894 on LIMUC with low computational cost. These results highlight the potential of difficulty-aware training strategies for improving ordinal classification under label uncertainty. Code will be released at https://github.com/zeynepozdemir/CLoE.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1976, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 56, 1756, doi: 10.1143/PTP.56.1756

    Adachi, I., Hayashi, C., & Nakazawa, K. 1976, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 56, 1756, doi: 10.1143/PTP.56.1756

    doi:10.1143/ptp.56.1756 1976

  2. [2]

    O., & Gudkova, T

    Amorim, D. O., & Gudkova, T. V. 2023, Solar System Research, 57, 414, doi: 10.1134/S0038094623040020

    work page doi:10.1134/s0038094623040020 2023

  3. [3]

    P., van der Marel, N., et al

    Ansdell, M., Williams, J. P., van der Marel, N., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 46, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/46

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/828/1/46 2016

  4. [4]

    A., Acton, C

    Archinal, B. A., Acton, C. H., A’Hearn, M. F., et al. 2018, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 130, 22, doi: 10.1007/s10569-017-9805-5

    doi:10.1007/s10569-017-9805-5 2018

  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]

    A., & Hawley, J

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

    doi:10.1086/170270 1991

  7. [7]

    Belbruno, E., & Gott, III, J. R. 2005, AJ, 129, 1724, doi: 10.1086/427539

    work page doi:10.1086/427539 2005

  8. [8]

    Bouvier, J., Alencar, S. H. P., Boutelier, T., et al. 2007, A&A, 463, 1017, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066021

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066021 2007

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    N., & Mayeda, T

    Clayton, R. N., & Mayeda, T. K. 1999, GeoCoA, 63, 2089, doi: 10.1016/S0016-7037(99)00090-3

    1999 doi

  2. [10]

    N., Mayeda, T

    Clayton, R. N., Mayeda, T. K., & Rubin, A. E. 1984, Lunar and Planetary Science Conference Proceedings, 89, C245, doi: 10.1029/JB089iS01p0C245

    1984 doi

  3. [11]

    Coleman, G. A. L., & Nelson, R. P. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 479, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1715

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    N., Dobrovolskis, A

    Cuzzi, J. N., Dobrovolskis, A. R., & Champney, J. M. 1993, Icarus, 106, 102, doi: 10.1006/icar.1993.1161

    1993

  5. [13]

    W., Stone, J

    Davis, S. W., Stone, J. M., & Pessah, M. E. 2010, ApJ, 713, 52, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/713/1/52 Drążkowska, J., Bitsch, B., Lambrechts, M., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T...

    2010 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    M., & Anderson, D

    Dziewonski, A. M., & Anderson, D. L. 1981, Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 25, 297, doi: 10.1016/0031-9201(81)90046-7

    1981 doi

  7. [15]

    S., & Grossman, L

    Ebel, D. S., & Grossman, L. 2000, GeoCoA, 64, 339, doi: 10.1016/S0016-7037(99)00284-7

    2000 doi

  8. [16]

    2017, NewA, 54, 7, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2016.11.001

    Ebisuzaki, T., & Imaeda, Y. 2017, NewA, 54, 7, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2016.11.001

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    1972, GeoCoA, 36, 597, doi: 10.1016/0016-7037(72)90078-6

    Grossman, L. 1972, GeoCoA, 36, 597, doi: 10.1016/0016-7037(72)90078-6

    1972 doi

  10. [18]

    F., & Balbus, S

    Hawley, J. F., & Balbus, S. A. 1991, ApJ, 376, 223, doi: 10.1086/170271

    1991 doi

  11. [19]

    1985, in Protostars and Planets II, ed

    Hayashi, C., Nakazawa, K., & Nakagawa, Y. 1985, in Protostars and Planets II, ed. D. C. Black & M. S. Matthews, 1100–1153

    1985

  12. [20]

    1992a, Icarus, 96, 107, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(92)90008-U

    Ida, S., & Makino, J. 1992a, Icarus, 96, 107, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(92)90008-U . 1992b, Icarus, 98, 28, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(92)90203-J . 1993, Icarus, 106, 210, doi: 10.1006/icar.1993.1167

    1993

  13. [21]

    2025, ARA&A, 63, 217, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052722-094843 27

    Ikoma, M., & Kobayashi, H. 2025, ARA&A, 63, 217, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052722-094843 27

    2025 doi

  14. [22]

    2017a, Geoscience Frontiers, 8, 223, doi: 10.1016/j.gsf.2016.06.011

    Imaeda, Y., & Ebisuzaki, T. 2017a, Geoscience Frontiers, 8, 223, doi: 10.1016/j.gsf.2016.06.011 . 2017b, Geoscience Frontiers, 8, 233, doi: 10.1016/j.gsf.2016.07.001 . 2018, Geoscience Frontiers, 9, 1023, doi: 10.1016/j.gsf.2016.11.003

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    1995, Geophys

    Javoy, M. 1995, Geophys. Res. Lett., 22, 2219, doi: 10.1029/95GL02015

    1995 doi

  16. [24]

    2010, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 293, 259, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2010.02.033

    Javoy, M., Kaminski, E., Guyot, F., et al. 2010, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 293, 259, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2010.02.033

    2010 doi

  17. [25]

    2017, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 45, 359, doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-063016-020226

    Johansen, A., & Lambrechts, M. 2017, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 45, 359, doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-063016-020226

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    2013, A&A, 557, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322151

    Kataoka, A., Tanaka, H., Okuzumi, S., & Wada, K. 2013, A&A, 557, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322151

    2013 doi

  19. [27]

    1995, Icarus, 114, 247, doi: 10.1006/icar.1995.1059

    Kokubo, E., & Ida, S. 1995, Icarus, 114, 247, doi: 10.1006/icar.1995.1059 . 2012, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2012, 01A308, doi: 10.1093/ptep/pts032 Le Maistre, S., Rivoldini, A., Caldiero, A., et al. 2023, Nature, 619, 733, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06150-0

    1995

  20. [28]

    J., Ragozzine, D., Fabrycky, D

    Lissauer, J. J., Ragozzine, D., Fabrycky, D. C., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 8, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/1/8

    2011 doi

  21. [29]

    2010, ApJL, 715, L68, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/715/2/L68

    Lyra, W., Paardekooper, S.-J., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2010, ApJL, 715, L68, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/715/2/L68

    2010 doi

  22. [30]

    2017, Geoscience Frontiers, 8, 253, doi: 10.1016/j.gsf.2016.10.005

    Maruyama, S., & Ebisuzaki, T. 2017, Geoscience Frontiers, 8, 253, doi: 10.1016/j.gsf.2016.10.005

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    2012, ApJ, 752, 106, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/2/106

    Okuzumi, S., Tanaka, H., Kobayashi, H., & Wada, K. 2012, ApJ, 752, 106, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/2/106

    2012 doi

  24. [32]

    Ormel, C. W. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.14643, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.14643

    2024 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    W., & Klahr, H

    Ormel, C. W., & Klahr, H. H. 2010, A&A, 520, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014903

    2010 doi

  26. [34]

    Paardekooper, S. J. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 2031, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1542

    2014 doi

  27. [36]

    J., & Papaloizou, J

    Paardekooper, S. J., & Papaloizou, J. C. B. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 2283, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14511.x

    2009

  28. [37]

    Safronov, V. S. 1969, Evolution of the Protoplanetary Cloud and Formation of the Earth and Planets (Moscow: Nauka)

    1969

  29. [38]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

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

    1973

  30. [39]

    H., & Hirose, S

    Shi, J., Krolik, J. H., & Hirose, S. 2010, ApJ, 708, 1716, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/1716

    2010 doi

  31. [40]

    Stepinski, T. F. 1998, Icarus, 132, 100, doi: 10.1006/icar.1998.5893

    1998

  32. [41]

    J., Morbidelli, A., Raymond, S

    Walsh, K. J., Morbidelli, A., Raymond, S. N., O’Brien, D. P., & Mandell, A. M. 2011, Nature, 475, 206, doi: 10.1038/nature10201

    2011 doi

  33. [42]

    Weidenschilling, S. J. 1977a, MNRAS, 180, 57, doi: 10.1093/mnras/180.2.57 . 1977b, Ap&SS, 51, 153, doi: 10.1007/BF00642464

    doi

  34. [43]

    W., & Stewart, G

    Wetherill, G. W., & Stewart, G. R. 1989, Icarus, 77, 330, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(89)90093-6

    1989 doi

  35. [44]

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

    1972

  36. [45]

    2004, Icarus, 170, 180, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2004.03.002

    Yamoto, F., & Sekiya, M. 2004, Icarus, 170, 180, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2004.03.002

    2004 doi

  37. [46]

    1995, GeoCoA, 59, 3413, doi: 10.1016/0016-7037(95)00214-K

    Yoneda, S., & Grossman, L. 1995, GeoCoA, 59, 3413, doi: 10.1016/0016-7037(95)00214-K

    1995 doi

  38. [47]

    McDonough, W. F. 2019, Chemically de ning the building blocks of the Earth. https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.11717

    2019 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Yoshizaki, T., & McDonough, W. F. 2020, GeoCoA, 273, 137, doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2020.01.011

    2020 doi

  40. [49]

    N., & Lithwick, Y

    Youdin, A. N., & Lithwick, Y. 2007, Icarus, 192, 588, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.07.012

    2007 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.