Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

An outer gas giant reshapes the inner planetesimal disk: small bodies first collide into Moon-sized objects, then a sweeping secular resonance concentrates about five Earth masses of them into a narrow ring at 0.1–0.5 au.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Planetesimals grow to Moon size within 10,000 years, then a migrating secular resonance driven by a cold Jupiter sweeps them into compact rings at 0.1 to 0.5 au.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Two-phase growth-then-transport is a real step forward, but the headline ring mass is stitched together from separate runs and the 40%/60% numbers don't match. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.02745 v1 pith:VLV2JPWC submitted 2025-09-02 astro-ph.EP

The Influence of Cold Jupiters in the Formation of Close-in planets. II. Collisional Growth of Planetesimals

Marcela Best , Antranik A. Sefilian , Carolina Charalambous , Kedron Silsbee , Cristobal Petrovich This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords planet formationplanetesimal accretionsecular resonancecold Jupiterclose-in super-Earthsprotoplanetary disk evolutioncollisional growthpeas-in-a-pod
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 an outer cold Jupiter does not merely sculpt the dynamics of an inner planetesimal disk—it shapes what the disk becomes. Tracking collisions among 1–10 km planetesimals together with disk gravity, gas drag, and a slowly depleting gas disk, the authors find a two-stage story: within the first ~10,000 years, planetesimals collide and grow into Moon-sized bodies (over 1000 km), and only later does a sweeping secular apsidal resonance, moving inward as the gas disk dissipates, gather these bodies into a compact ring at 0.1–0.5 au. The result is an accumulation of about five Earth masses—roughly 60% of the initial solid mass—in a narrow ring (Δa/a ≲ 0.1), enough to seed a system of close-in super-Earths. The authors conclude that collisions, rather than disrupting transport, set the stage for it, and that disk gravity is essential for both growth and transport. If correct, this gives a concrete formation-level route linking cold giant companions to the presence and architecture of close-in planets, including departures from the 'peas-in-a-pod' pattern.

Core claim

The central claim is that an extended planetesimal disk of small bodies, under the gravitational influence of a Jupiter-mass companion and a viscously dissipating protoplanetary disk, naturally evolves into a massive, compact ring of Moon-sized planetesimals. The sequence is: phase I, collisional growth during the first ~10 kyr converts a large fraction of the solid reservoir into bodies larger than 1000 km, proceeding from the inside out until the truncation radius set by the secular resonance; phase II, smaller bodies are ground down while the size distribution relaxes toward an equilibrium power law; phase III, as the gas disk dissipates on Myr timescales, the secular apsidal resonance sw

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the sweeping secular apsidal resonance: a location where the planetesimal precession rate (from the giant and the disk) matches the giant's own precession rate; as the gas disk depletes, this resonance moves inward, pumping planetesimal eccentricities and enhancing gas drag so that material migrates and piles up. Carrying the calculation is a Smoluchowski-style collisional module on a radial–mass grid, using Stewart–Leinhardt fragmentation thresholds, a fragment-cascade prescription, and orbit-intersection geometry to allow ring-to-ring collisions; bodies above 1000 km are removed and later tracked as test populations under Lindblad torques.

Load-bearing premise

The whole sequence depends on the planetesimal disk staying dynamically cold, with eccentricity dispersion σe ≈ 2×10⁻⁴, during the first ~10,000 years of growth; if anything stirs the disk to σe ≈ 10⁻³, growth stalls at ~100 km and the compact ring does not form.

What would settle it

A single numerical experiment would settle it: re-run the fiducial model while keeping the growing >1000 km bodies in the simulation and letting them gravitationally stir the remaining planetesimals (instead of removing them). If the eccentricity dispersion rises above ~10⁻³ within the first 10 kyr, the model's Moon-sized ring should fail to form; if the dispersion stays below the fragmentation threshold, the ring survives. Observationally, detecting a population of close-in super-Earths whose host stars lack cold giants would not falsify the mechanism, but finding that rings form even in disk

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Collisional growth does not erase the sweeping-resonance transport found in Paper I; growth and transport happen on separated timescales, so the two processes can be treated as sequential.
  • A giant with eJ ≳ 0.01 and MJ ≳ 1 MJup enhances the amount of solid material delivered to the inner disk by a factor of 2–4 relative to the no-giant case, with the strongest accumulation (~40%) for 1–3 MJup giants.
  • The dense ring of Moon-sized bodies at 0.1–0.5 au provides a plausible seed population for super-Earth formation, and the spatial redistribution can produce architectures that depart from peas-in-a-pod uniformity.
  • Disk gravity is not a perturbation but a governing ingredient: omitting it shifts the truncation radius inward and removes the sweeping mechanism, sharply reducing both formation and transport of large planetesimals.
  • The model's outcomes are scalable: the fraction of solids converted to large bodies is roughly constant above a solid-to-gas threshold, so disks with more or less solid mass yield proportionally more or less ring material.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial extension: the paper's own transport tests show 3000 km bodies behave like 1000 km ones while 5000 km bodies decouple; this implies an upper size cutoff on the seed population, so the final planetary masses formed from the ring may be set by the balance between growth and Lindblad damping—a prediction one could test with N-body follow-ups.
  • Editorial extension: because the truncation radius and transport efficiency depend on the initial planetesimal size, the model predicts that systems with larger primordial planetesimals form their compact rings more efficiently; observations of super-Earth systems with and without cold giants might constrain the primordial size distribution.
  • Editorial extension: if photoevaporation shortens the disk lifetime, phase III transport is cut short before the resonance sweeps fully inward; this suggests the giant–super-Earth correlation could be stronger around stars with longer-lived disks, a testable demographic trend.
  • Editorial extension: the same resonance-sweeping geometry could produce multiple or asymmetric rings if the disk evolves non-monotonically (e.g., viscosity transitions or gap opening), connecting this mechanism to observed gap complexity in close-in systems.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper extends Paper I by adding a collisional coagulation/fragmentation module (based on Silsbee & Rafikov 2021) to the previous semi-analytic treatment of planetesimal dynamics under a cold Jupiter and a viscously evolving disk. In the fiducial model, 5-km planetesimals in 0.1-1.5 au, totaling about 9 Earth masses of solids, evolve under the secular apsidal resonance of a 3-M_Jup giant at 3 au. The authors identify three phases: early growth to >1000-km bodies within ~10 kyr, a fragmentation/equilibrium phase, and a later resonance-sweeping phase that transports the large bodies inward. Because bodies above 1000 km are removed from the collisional simulation, their transport is computed in separate runs assuming fixed sizes of 1000, 3000, and 5000 km, yielding about 40% peak transport for 1000/3000-km bodies and about 25% for 5000-km bodies. The paper concludes that about 5 Earth masses (about 60% of the initial solids) accumulate in a compact ring at 0.1-0.5 au.

Significance. If the quantitative result held, the paper would provide a concrete formation-level pathway connecting cold giant planets to the properties of close-in super-Earths, including the apparent disruption of 'peas-in-a-pod' architectures. The study has clear strengths: the collisional module is publicly available, tested against the Smoluchowski coagulation solution and known fragmentation equilibria (Appendix C), and accompanied by resolution and parameter-sensitivity tests (Appendix B, Figure D1). The qualitative sequence—early growth, later resonant transport, compact rings—is internally consistent and builds on a published Paper I. However, the headline number is not produced by a single self-consistent simulation, and the mass accounting in the conclusion is inconsistent with the results reported in Section 3.2. These issues affect the central quantitative claim rather than the overall methodology.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5 vs Section 3.2 and Figure 3] The concluding claim of 'about 5 Earth masses (about 60% of the initial solid material) in a small compact ring' is not supported by the stated transport efficiencies. Section 3.2 reports ~40% peak transport for 1000- and 3000-km bodies, with the CDF normalized to the initial ~9 M_Earth; Section 3.3.1 quotes values of 15-40%. Forty percent of 9 M_Earth is ~3.6 M_Earth, not ~5 M_Earth. The 60% figure appears to conflate the mass fraction converted to >1000-km bodies with the fraction transported into the ring. Please reconcile the numbers or revise the headline claim.
  2. [Sections 2.3, 3.2, and 4.3.3] The central 'compact ring of several Earth masses' is assembled from two disconnected calculations. In the fiducial collisional run, bodies exceeding 1000 km are removed and stored separately (Section 2.3); the transport simulations then use these bodies as fixed-size test particles with no collisions or mutual gravity (Section 3.2). Section 4.3.3 concedes that modeling their further evolution is future N-body work. Because transport efficiency is size-dependent (40% at 1000/3000 km vs 25% at 5000 km and decoupled from the resonance, Figure 3), and because the removed bodies would plausibly continue growing, colliding, and stirring one another, the final ring mass and width are not established by the simulations as run. The abstract and conclusion present the ring as the model outcome; I would accept a clearly labeled 'proof of concept plus transport test,' but the current framing overst
  3. [Section 3.3.2 and Table 1] The outcome depends critically on the planetesimal disk remaining dynamically cold: at sigma_e = 2e-4 growth to >1000 km occurs, but the paper reports that at sigma_e = 1e-3 planetesimals cannot grow above ~100 km. Since the collisional simulation removes >1000-km bodies as they form (Section 2.3), self-stirring of the remaining small-body population by these large bodies is excluded by construction. The rebuttal in Section 4.3.1 relies on damping timescales from Gong et al. (2019) rather than on a simulation of the coupled system. This is load-bearing: if the disk is stirred above the fragmentation threshold during Phase I, the population of large planetesimals—and hence the transported ring—does not form. The robustness claim should be supported by a test that includes viscous stirring or by an explicit timescale calculation using the masses and number densities actually produced.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1] The row labeled 'Gas-to-dust ratio' with fiducial value 0.05 should be labeled 'Solid-to-gas ratio' or 'Dust-to-gas ratio' to match the usage in Sections 2.3 and 3.3.2; the inverse notation is confusing.
  2. [Equation (23) and surrounding text] The text says 'a 1000 km planetesimal with a density of 3 g/cm 2'; the units should be g/cm^3. Please also verify that the prefactors in Equations (23) and (24) are consistent with the cited Tanaka et al. (2002) expressions.
  3. [Section 3.1] The notation t_acc(ap = atrunc) is used before atrunc is defined a few paragraphs later. Consider defining atrunc before first use, or reordering the paragraph.
  4. [Figure 3 caption] The caption says 'not considering collisions,' but the runs include Lindblad torques and gas drag. Clarify that 'no collisional evolution' is meant.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: the ring outcome is emergent from a new collisional module and an independently published Paper I; the separate fixed-size transport runs are a stated approximation, not a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that an initially extended disk of 1–10 km planetesimals evolves into massive compact rings of >1000 km bodies—is not equivalent to its inputs by construction. The dynamical backbone (Eqs. 1–3 and the resonance-location formula Eq. 22) is imported from Best et al. 2024 (Paper I), a published, peer-reviewed companion paper by overlapping authors; this is a legitimate prior result, not an unverified self-citation, and the present contribution is a genuinely new collisional module. That module is validated against external analytical benchmarks (Smoluchowski coagulation, O'Brien & Greenberg fragmentation steady state, Pan & Schlichting equilibrium slope), so the growth/fragmentation physics is not calibrated to reproduce the headline ring. The transport of >1000 km bodies is admittedly computed in separate simulations with assumed fixed sizes (Section 3.2), and Section 4.3.3 explicitly defers the N-body treatment of these bodies to future work. This 'stitching' means the final ring is not produced by a single self-consistent simulation, and the paper's conclusion (5 Earth masses, ~60% of initial solids) is not clearly reconciled with the stated ~40% peak transport in Figure 3. These are limitations and internal-consistency concerns, not circularity: the output would change if the assumed size or stirring physics changed, which is exactly what the paper's own parameter tests demonstrate (e.g., sigma_e = 1e-3 prevents growth above ~100 km). No step in the derivation is defined in terms of the target result, and no prediction is a refitted input. Score 1 reflects only the heavy reliance on the authors' own Paper I, which is nevertheless independent published work and does not by itself constitute circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

9 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model rests on an inherited dynamical framework (Paper I), assumed disk physics (viscous-only evolution, basalt material strengths, coplanarity), and hand-chosen parameters (sigma_e, initial size, solid ratio, giant properties). The most load-bearing free choice is sigma_e = 2e-4: growth to 1000 km fails at 1e-3. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • Eccentricity dispersion sigma_e = 2e-4
    Assumed cold dispersion in the fiducial run (Table 1). Load-bearing: at sigma_e = 1e-3, growth stalls at ~100 km (Section 3.3.2).
  • Inclination dispersion sigma_i = 1e-4 = sigma_e/2
    Assumed; enters collision rates R1 (Eq. 16) and the accretion timescale estimate (Eq. 20).
  • Initial planetesimal size = 5 km
    Fiducial initial size; larger initial sizes increase conversion efficiency into >1000 km bodies (Figure D1-B).
  • Solid-to-gas ratio = 5%
    Chosen to match Kepler-type systems (Kuchner 2004); conversion fraction saturates above this value (Figure D1-A).
  • Giant planet mass and eccentricity = 3 M_Jup, eJ = 0.05
    Fiducial giant properties; varied one at a time in Section 3.3.1.
  • Disk viscosity parameters alpha_in, alpha_out = 1e-3, 1e-4
    Taken from Paper I; set the viscous timescale and the resonance sweeping rate (Appendix A).
  • Fragment cascade parameter b = 0.01
    Adopted from Silsbee & Rafikov 2021 (Eq. 12) for destructive collisions.
  • Large-body removal threshold = 1000 km
    Computational cutoff (Section 2.3); forces the decoupled two-stage transport modeling with assumed 1000/3000/5000 km bodies.
  • Minimum tracked size m_min = 1 km
    Resolution cutoff for the fragment cascade; tested in Appendix B, results stabilize below 100 m.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Secular apsidal resonance forcing and inward sweeping (Paper I)
    Eqs. (1)-(3) and Eq. (22) are inherited from Best et al. 2024; the whole transport claim assumes this mechanism operates as described.
  • domain assumption Disk evolves by viscous diffusion only
    Appendix A; no photoevaporation, which the paper notes may overextend Phase III (Section 4.3.2).
  • domain assumption Basalt-only material strengths (Stewart & Leinhardt 2009)
    Eqs. (10) and (21) use strong-rock parameters; ices and mixed compositions are deferred (Section 4.3.3).
  • domain assumption Coplanar system, second-order eccentricity expansions
    Section 2; inclination and eccentricity effects beyond second order are ignored except in drag terms.
  • domain assumption Grown bodies do not stir the remaining population
    Section 4.3.1; removal of >1000 km bodies is justified by damping timescales from Gong et al. 2019, a cited result not simulated here. This premise protects the cold-dispersion growth phase.
  • domain assumption Linear Lindblad torque theory for large bodies
    Eqs. (23)-(24) from Tanaka et al. 2002 applied to 1000-5000 km bodies during transport.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Influence of Cold Jupiters in the Formation of Close-in planets. II. Collisional Growth of Planetesimals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VLV2JPWC

@misc{pith2026250902745,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Influence of Cold Jupiters in the Formation of Close-in planets. II. Collisional Growth of Planetesimals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VLV2JPWC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02745}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

Exoplanet observations have shown that the occurrence and orbital architectures of close-in super-Earths and sub-Neptunes are shaped by the presence of outer gas giant planets. This influence may emerge during the formation stage or from later dynamical evolution by a yet elusive physical process. In this work, we investigate the early stages of planetesimal accretion, modeling the joint collisional and dynamical evolution of planetesimals under the gravitational influence of a cold Jupiter and a viscously-dissipating massive protoplanetary disk. We find that an initially extended planetesimal disk of small ($\sim 1-10$ km) bodies evolves into massive, compact ($\Delta a/a\lesssim 0.1$) rings of several Earth masses in Moon-sized objects centered at $\sim0.1-0.5$ au. This prevalent outcome is the result of an initial stage of planetesimal accretion over the first 10 kyrs, followed by orbital transport driven by a secular apsidal resonance sweeping inward on Myr timescales. Our findings highlight the crucial role of giant planets in redistributing solids within the inner disk. This redistribution of planetary building blocks may help explain why systems with giant companions often depart from the "peas-in-a-pod" architecture.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.02745 by Antranik A. Sefilian, Carolina Charalambous, Cristobal Petrovich, Kedron Silsbee, Marcela Best.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Evolution of the distributions of planetesimals in size and semi-major axes using the fiducial parameters (Section 2.3) for three representative times. Row A presents the surface density as a function of semimajor axis for different planetesimal size ranges, indicated by different colors as shown in the legend. Row B shows the forced eccentricity (solid lines) and the minimum eccentricity for fragmentation… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Planetesimal mass budget as a function of time in the fiducial simulation (Section 2.3). The total mass of planetesimals larger than 1000 km is shown in blue, those between 1 and 1000 km in orange, and their combined total mass is represented by the green curve. Shaded regions highlight the distinct evolutionary phases described in Section 3.1. initial gas distribution (which determines the size-dependent … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Eccentricity (top) and solid surface density (middle) as a function of semimajor axis for planetesimals of 1000, 3000 and 5000 kms in red, green and blue, respectively, affected by the secular resonance and the Lindblad torque, not considering collisions. The bottom panel shows the cumulative distribution function (CDF) for the amount of mass as a function of semimajor axis, normalized by the initial amoun… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cumulative distribution function of total planetesimal mass as a function of the semi-major axis for various eccentricities (left panels) and masses (right panels) of the giant planet. Upper panels correspond to the end of phase II, with no material having been swept by the secular resonance, and lower panels correspond to the end of phase III where the resonance has swept and accumulated material within t… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Puffed-up Edges of Planet-opened Gaps in Protoplanetary Disks. II. The Role of the Planet's Orbital Eccentricity

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Eccentric gap-opening planets enhance dust lofting at gap edges via stronger meridional circulation, make gaps leaky to dust, and produce larger, wider pebble rings than circular planets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 330, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01850-5

    Batygin, K., & Morbidelli, A. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 330, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01850-5

    doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01850-5 2023

  2. [2]

    A., & Rafikov, R

    Belyaev, M. A., & Rafikov, R. R. 2011, Icarus, 214, 179, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2011.04.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2011.04.002 2011

  3. [3]

    A., & Petrovich, C

    Best, M., Sefilian, A. A., & Petrovich, C. 2024, ApJ, 960, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0965

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0965 2024

  4. [4]

    S., Naponiello, L., Pezzetta, E., et al

    Bonomo, A. S., Naponiello, L., Pezzetta, E., et al. 2025, Cold Jupiters and small planets: friends, foes, or indifferent? A search for correlations with the largest exoplanet samples. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.20035

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    S., Dumusque, X., Massa, A., et al

    Bonomo, A. S., Dumusque, X., Massa, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346211 COLLISIONAL GROWTH OF PLANETESIMALS 19

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346211 2023

  6. [6]

    C., & Kenyon, S

    Bromley, B. C., & Kenyon, S. J. 2017, AJ, 153, 216, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6aaa

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa6aaa 2017

  7. [7]

    L., Knutson, H

    Bryan, M. L., Knutson, H. A., Lee, E. J., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf57f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aaf57f 2019

  8. [8]

    L., & Lee, E

    Bryan, M. L., & Lee, E. J. 2024, ApJL, 968, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5013 —. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.01748, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.01748

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.01748 2024

  9. [9]

    D., & Krivov, A

    Costa, T., Pearce, T. D., & Krivov, A. V . 2024, MNRAS, 527, 7317, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3582

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3582 2024

  10. [10]

    I., Morbidelli, A., Rubie, D

    Dale, K. I., Morbidelli, A., Rubie, D. C., & Nesvorný, D. 2025, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 658, 119334, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2025.119334 Dr ˛ a˙zkowska, J., Li, S., Birnstiel, T., Stammler, S. M., & Li, H. 2019, ApJ, 885, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab46b7

    work page arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Duffell, P. C. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 889, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5b0f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5b0f 2020

  12. [12]

    2022, European Physical Journal Plus, 137, 1357, doi: 10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-03515-8

    Ercolano, B., & Picogna, G. 2022, European Physical Journal Plus, 137, 1357, doi: 10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-03515-8

    work page doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-03515-8 2022

  13. [13]

    Gong, M., Zheng, X., Lin, D. N. C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e70

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e70 2019

  14. [14]

    Greenzweig, Y ., & Lissauer, J. J. 1992, Icarus, 100, 440, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(92)90110-S

    doi:10.1016/0019-1035(92)90110-s 1992

  15. [15]

    Bertolami, M. M. 2020, A&A, 642, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038458

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038458 2020

  16. [16]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.14347, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.14347

    Guo, K., & Kokubo, E. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.14347, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.14347

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.14347 2023

  17. [17]

    Hansen, B. M. S. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/1131

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/1/1131 2009

  18. [18]

    Y ., & Weiss, L

    He, M. Y ., & Weiss, L. M. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 166, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acdd56

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acdd56 2023

  19. [19]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 800, L22, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/800/2/l22

    Pierens, A. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 800, L22, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/800/2/l22

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/800/2/l22 2015

  20. [20]

    2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16309.x

    Johansen, A., & Lacerda, P. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16309.x

    arXiv 2010

  21. [21]

    2001, Icarus, 153, 416, doi: 10.1006/icar.2001.6700

    Kobayashi, H., & Ida, S. 2001, Icarus, 153, 416, doi: 10.1006/icar.2001.6700

    work page arXiv 2001

  22. [22]

    J., Wetherill, G

    Kortenkamp, S. J., Wetherill, G. W., & Inaba, S. 2001, Science, 293, 1127, doi: 10.1126/science.1062391

    doi:10.1126/science.1062391 2001

  23. [23]

    Kuchner, M. J. 2004, ApJ, 612, 1147, doi: 10.1086/422577

    doi:10.1086/422577 2004

  24. [24]

    R., & Becker, J

    Livesey, J. R., & Becker, J. 2025, ApJ, 979, 202, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada28b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada28b 2025

  25. [25]

    2017, ApJL, 849, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9714

    Millholland, S., Wang, S., & Laughlin, G. 2017, ApJL, 849, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9714

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa9714 2017

  26. [26]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 920, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2947

    Pascucci, I. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 920, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2947

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac2947 2021

  27. [27]

    D., & Dermott, S

    Murray, C. D., & Dermott, S. F. 1999, Solar System Dynamics, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139174817 O’Brien, D. P., & Greenberg, R. 2003, Icarus, 164, 334, doi: 10.1016/S0019-1035(03)00145-3

    doi:10.1017/cbo9781139174817 1999

  28. [28]

    W., & Klahr, H

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014903 2010

  29. [29]

    Pan, M., & Schlichting, H. E. 2012, ApJ, 747, 113, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/747/2/113

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/747/2/113 2012

  30. [30]

    Pringle, J. E. 1981, ARA&A, 19, 137, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.19.090181.001033

    work page arXiv 1981

  31. [31]

    R., Silsbee, K., & Booth, R

    Rafikov, R. R., Silsbee, K., & Booth, R. A. 2020, ApJS, 247, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7b71 Ribas, Á., Merín, B., Bouy, H., & Maud, L. T. 2014, A&A, 561, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322597

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab7b71 2020

  32. [32]

    J., Knutson, H

    Rosenthal, L. J., Knutson, H. A., Chachan, Y ., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7230

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac7230 2022

  33. [33]

    Sefilian, A. A. 2024, ApJ, 966, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad32d1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad32d1 2024

  34. [34]

    A., Rafikov, R

    Sefilian, A. A., Rafikov, R. R., & Wyatt, M. C. 2021, ApJ, 910, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abda46

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abda46 2021

  35. [35]

    Silsbee, K., & Rafikov, R. R. 2021, A&A, 652, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141139

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141139 2021

  36. [36]

    Smoluchowski, M. V . 1916, Zeitschrift fur Physik, 17, 557

    1916

  37. [37]

    M., Lichtenberg, T., Dr ˛ a˙zkowska, J., & Birnstiel, T

    Stammler, S. M., Lichtenberg, T., Dr ˛ a˙zkowska, J., & Birnstiel, T. 2023, A&A, 670, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245512

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245512 2023

  38. [38]

    T., & Leinhardt, Z

    Stewart, S. T., & Leinhardt, Z. M. 2009, ApJL, 691, L133, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/L133

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/691/2/l133 2009

  39. [39]

    Tanaka, H., Takeuchi, T., & Ward, W. R. 2002, ApJ, 565, 1257, doi: 10.1086/324713

    doi:10.1086/324713 2002

  40. [40]

    P., Matese, J

    Whitmire, D. P., Matese, J. J., Criswell, L., & Mikkola, S. 1998, Icarus, 132, 196, doi: 10.1006/icar.1998.5900

    arXiv 1998

  41. [41]

    Woo, J. M. Y ., Morbidelli, A., Grimm, S. L., Stadel, J., & Brasser, R. 2023, Icarus, 396, 115497, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2023.115497

    work page arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    V ., & Petigura, E

    Zandt, J. V ., & Petigura, E. A. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 168, 268, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad8c3b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad8c3b 2024

  43. [43]

    M., Huber, D., et al

    Zhang, J., Weiss, L. M., Huber, D., et al. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 162, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac0634

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac0634 2021

  44. [44]

    2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 045013, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad3132

    Zhu, W. 2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 045013, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad3132

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ad3132 2024

  45. [45]

    2018, AJ, 156, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad22a

    Zhu, W., & Wu, Y . 2018, AJ, 156, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad22a

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aad22a 2018

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.