Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 84 references

A new conservative flux lets a discontinuous Galerkin code handle cratering and mass transfer in dust collisions.

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 ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 03:51 UTC pith:3NKT2HGK

load-bearing objection A real new conservative flux formulation for DG fragmentation with delta-function kernels, but the coupled mass-transfer validation is weaker than the 'good convergence' claim. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13740 v1 pith:3NKT2HGK submitted 2026-07-15 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM

GRACE-DG: A Discontinuous Galerkin method-based code for general non-linear coagulation-fragmentation equations

Jing Yang , Zhuo Chen , Xue-Ning Bai This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM MSC 65M6082C21
keywords discontinuous Galerkincoagulation-fragmentation equationsdust growthprotoplanetary disksmass transfercrateringSmoluchowski equationconservative flux
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.

This paper presents GRACE-DG, an open-source high-order discontinuous Galerkin code for the non-linear coagulation-fragmentation equations that govern dust growth in protoplanetary disks. Its central contribution is a new conservative form of the fragmentation mass flux that enables the method to treat breakage kernels containing Dirac delta functions, which are needed to model cratering, remnant particles, and mass transfer between colliding grains. Previous DG fragmentation solvers relied on numerical quadrature of the flux, which fails when the breakage kernel contains such singular terms. By reordering the integrations and evaluating the innermost fragment-mass integral analytically, the authors extend the DG framework from pure destructive fragmentation to general collision outcomes, and they demonstrate good convergence in coupled aggregation-and-breakage simulations. If the method works as argued, it gives the field a physically richer and efficient solver that can be coupled into hydrodynamic simulations of planet formation.

Core claim

The paper claims a new conservative formulation of the non-linear fragmentation term, Ffrag[g](x,t) = ∫₀ˣdu ∫_{x−u}^∞dv ∫_{u+v}^x dw [w/(v(u+v))] Kfrag(u,v) b(w,u,v) g(u,t)g(v,t) − ∫_x^∞du ∫₀^∞dv ∫₀^x dw [w/(v(u+v))] Kfrag(u,v) b(w,u,v) g(u,t)g(v,t). The key achievement is writing the flux so that the innermost integral is over the fragment mass w, allowing it to be evaluated analytically for the physically common breakage kernel that is a power law plus a Dirac delta remnant, b(x,y,z) = A x^α + δ(x − m_left). This removes the need to numerically integrate over the delta function, which had blocked previous DG formulations from handling cratering and mass-transfer events. The paper also deri

What carries the argument

The central object is the new conservative fragmentation flux of Equation 9, which reorders the classical flux so that the innermost integration is performed over the fragment mass w rather than over the collider masses. This reordering, combined with the piecewise analytic evaluation of the fragment-mass integral for the power-law-plus-delta kernel, lets the scheme accommodate Dirac-delta breakage kernels that represent a surviving remnant particle. The derivation also relies on the symmetry of the breakage kernel under exchange of the two colliding masses, and the scheme is built on the conservative mass-density form of the Smoluchowski equations, solved with a discontinuous Galerkin discr

Load-bearing premise

The derivation of the new conservative flux assumes the breakage kernel is symmetric under exchange of the two colliding masses, and the analytic flux evaluation assumes the fragment distribution has the power-law-plus-delta-remnant form; if a physical model uses an asymmetric breakage prescription or a tabulated fragment distribution, the flux formulation and numerical scheme would need to be re-examined.

What would settle it

Run the scheme on a coupled coagulation-fragmentation problem with an asymmetric breakage kernel (e.g., projectile and target break differently) and compare against a well-resolved reference solution; if total mass is not conserved or the solution deviates, the symmetry assumption is essential for the claimed generality.

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

If this is right

  • The DG fragmentation solver can now represent cratering and mass transfer, where a large remnant survives the collision and mass can be transferred to the larger grain, going beyond pure destructive fragmentation.
  • The new flux formulation permits breakage kernels with Dirac delta terms, such as the power-law-plus-remnant form, which are common in models of fragmenting dust collisions.
  • The scheme demonstrates an experimental order of convergence of k+1 for pure coagulation and pure fragmentation benchmarks, and it reproduces the expected analytical equilibrium power-law slope g(x) ~ x^{-0.748} in the coupled aggregation-breakage test.
  • By working with the conservative mass-density equation and using high-order Legendre polynomials within each mass bin, the method mitigates over-diffusion and numerical cancellation, enabling accurate evolution over about 18 orders of magnitude in mass with relatively few bins.
  • The computational cost scales as N^3 for polynomial order k≥1 and N^2 for k=0, which is moderate enough for operator splitting in hydrodynamic codes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the conservation proof is general, the same reordering-and-analytic-integral trick may extend to multidimensional population-balance equations, helping to address the steep O(N^{2d}) scaling with tensor-product DG bases.
  • A key hidden assumption is the symmetry of the breakage kernel under exchange of the two colliding masses; a testable extension is to check the scheme on asymmetric breakage prescriptions, where conservation might be violated.
  • The paper's convergence demonstration uses a toy setup with constant root-mean-square relative velocity; a more demanding test would be to repeat it with realistic size-dependent relative velocities to see if the high-order accuracy holds in a physically evolving collision environment.
  • Enabling mass transfer may change predictions of maximum grain size in protoplanetary disks, because high-velocity collisions between very unequal grains can deposit mass onto large particles and let them grow past the standard fragmentation barrier.

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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents GRACE-DG, a discontinuous Galerkin (DG) solver for the general non-linear coagulation–fragmentation equation with a conservative mass-density formulation. Its central claimed contribution is a new conservative fragmentation flux (Eq. 9) that permits DG to treat breakage kernels containing Dirac delta functions, i.e., cratering and mass-transfer collisions of the form given in Eq. 46, which could not be handled by the existing Lombart et al. (2024) DG fragmentation solver. The paper validates the scheme on pure coagulation (constant and additive kernels), pure fragmentation, and a coupled aggregation–breakage problem with a mass-transfer/cratering prescription. Pure-process benchmarks reproduce expected k+1 order of convergence, while the coupled test is compared only against a high-resolution run of the same scheme.

Significance. If the new flux formulation is correct and robust, it is a meaningful extension of DG-based dust growth codes: it removes the delta-function limitation of Lombart et al. (2024) and enables high-order, conservative treatment of cratering and mass transfer, which are important for dust evolution in protoplanetary disks. The analytic derivation in Appendix A is a genuine contribution and appears internally consistent under the stated symmetry and local-mass-conservation assumptions. The paper also provides open-source code (Zenodo citation), which is a reproducible resource for the community. The pure coagulation and pure fragmentation benchmarks are clean and successfully demonstrate the expected k+1 convergence and bounded errors over many orders of magnitude in mass. However, the central claim that the solver exhibits good convergence for coupled aggregation–breakage and mass-transfer is not yet supported by the quantitative evidence presented: the only coupled test is a self-convergence test against the same scheme, and the paper itself acknowledges that increasing polynomial order does not substantially improve the high-mass end, where mass transfer acts. The result is therefore

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.5, Fig. 10] The only demonstration of the new mass-transfer capability is a self-convergence test. The paper explicitly states there is no known analytical solution, and the reference solution is N=300, k=4 of the same scheme. No quantitative error norms, EOC, or comparison against an independent method are reported for the coupled case. Moreover, the text states that increasing k 'does not substantially enhance the accuracy of the mass distribution at the high-mass end', while mass-transfer/cratering deposits remnant mass precisely in that high-mass region (m_left close to y+z). Thus the very quantity the new scheme is designed to capture is the least-controlled part of the solution. I request an independent reference (e.g., a well-resolved non-DG method, a manufactured solution, or a dedicated convergence study with error tables separated for the power-law and remnant channels), or a clearly softe
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. A6] The derivation of the conservative flux uses the symmetry of the integrand K(y-z,z)b(x,y-z,z)f(y-z)f(z) under exchange (y-z)<->z. This is not stated as an assumption on the breakage kernel. For an arbitrary non-linear breakage kernel b(x,u,v), especially projectile/target-asymmetric prescriptions, the equality in Eq. A6 may fail, and Eq. 9 would not be equivalent to Eq. 6. The specific kernel in Eq. 46 is symmetric, so the paper's numerical examples are not affected, but the claim of 'general non-linear fragmentation' is overstated unless this symmetry condition is stated explicitly and its domain of validity is delineated. If asymmetric or tabulated breakage kernels are intended for future use, the paper should explain how the flux formulation must be modified.
  3. [§3.3 and §4.5] The default flux choice (Δx=0, non-conservative) is adopted 'unless explicitly stated', but the coupled aggregation–breakage test of §4.5 does not state which flux type is used. Since mass conservation is a central advertised feature and the test aims to demonstrate mass transfer, the paper should specify the flux type for this test and report the evolution of total mass or the mass-conservation error. This would also clarify how the upper boundary is handled when remnant masses approach y+z.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Figure 1] 'Fragmantation' should be 'Fragmentation'.
  2. [Figure 4 caption] 'consatnt kernel' should be 'constant kernel'.
  3. [Keywords] 'physcis' should be 'physics'.
  4. [§4.1] 'relatve errors' should be 'relative errors'.
  5. [§4.5] The values Δv_rms=0.5, v_b=0.1, v_f=1 are described as chosen for illustration, but the section still calls the setup a 'toy model' in the text; please state clearly in the main text that this is an illustrative test with no direct physical calibration, and do not call it a benchmark in the section title or abstract.
  6. [Acknowledgments] The acknowledgment thanks 'the anonymous referee' before the review process; this is premature in a submitted manuscript and should be removed or deferred.
  7. [§3.3] The observation that optimal quadrature order is Q=k+1 rather than Q=k is interesting but is only stated without explanation; a brief justification or reference would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the new fragmentation flux is derived from the governing equation; validation is self-referential but not circular.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained analytic manipulation, not a fit or a renamed input. Starting from the non-conservative general fragmentation equation (Eq. 6 / Eq. A1), Appendix A postulates the conservative flux form (Eq. A3), applies the Leibniz rule (Eq. A4), uses local mass conservation ∫_0^{x+v} w b(w,x,v)dw = x+v, and invokes symmetry of the two colliding masses (Eq. A6) to recover exactly the original equation (Eq. A7). No fitted parameter, no external 'prediction' target, and no self-cited uniqueness theorem is inserted into this derivation. The delta-function breakage kernel (Eq. 46) is an adopted physical model from Kobayashi & Tanaka (2010) and Hirashita et al. (2021); Appendix B only evaluates the innermost integral analytically, producing the piecewise cases B9-B10, which are not used to force a desired answer. The coupled aggregation-breakage test in Section 4.5 is benchmarked only against a higher-resolution run of the same scheme, and the paper explicitly concedes that increasing polynomial order does not substantially improve the high-mass end and defers the issue to future work; this is a validation gap, not a circular reduction of the claim. Self-citations (Yang et al. 2026 code release; Huang & Bai 2022; Chen & Bai 2026 as hydrodynamic host codes) are pointer references and are not load-bearing evidence. Therefore, no specific circular step can be exhibited.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are proposed. The method relies on standard Smoluchowski modeling, a specific analytic breakage-kernel form, and numerical parameters chosen for the toy test; the symmetry assumption is the most fragile physical premise.

free parameters (5)
  • Δv_rms = 0.5
    Chosen constant rms relative velocity in the coupled coagulation-fragmentation toy model (Section 4.5); not fitted to data but set for illustration.
  • v_b = 0.1
    Bouncing threshold velocity in the Section 4.5 toy model.
  • v_f = 1
    Fragmentation threshold velocity in the Section 4.5 toy model.
  • α = -1.83
    Power-law index of the fragment size distribution, adopted from literature (Dohnanyi 1969; Jones et al. 1996) in the Section 4.5 test.
  • Q (quadrature order) = k+1
    Number of Gauss quadrature points per cell chosen for optimal convergence; found empirically and matching Liu et al. (2019).
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The collision-induced coagulation-fragmentation process is governed by the Smoluchowski equation and the non-linear fragmentation equation (Eq. 6).
    The whole method is built on this population-balance model; the paper cites it as standard.
  • domain assumption The breakage kernel b(x,y,z) is symmetric under exchange of the colliding masses y and z, and satisfies local mass conservation.
    Used in Appendix A (Eq. A6) to derive the conservative flux; if asymmetric, the derivation fails.
  • ad hoc to paper The fragment mass distribution can be written as a power law plus a single remnant delta function (Eq. 46).
    Adopted from Kobayashi & Tanaka (2010) and Hirashita et al. (2021). The numerical implementation in Appendix B explicitly uses this form to evaluate the innermost integral analytically; a general tabulated breakage kernel would require a different treatment.
  • standard math The DG scheme with the linear scaling limiter (Eq. 18-19) preserves positivity and accuracy.
    Borrowed from Liu et al. (2019) and Lombart et al. (2022); no new proof given.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 25741 in / 15450 out tokens · 128754 ms · 2026-08-02T03:51:35.670689+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Dust plays a crucial role in protoplanetary disks (PPDs) evolution and planet formation, influencing disk dynamics through gas-dust coupling, regulating disk temperature by dominating continuum opacity, and altering disk ionization fraction by capturing free electrons. In this work, we develop a high-order discontinuous Galerkin (DG) method-based open-source code GRACE-DG to solve the collision-induced coagulation-fragmentation equations. In particular, we have derived a new conservative formulation for the non-linear fragmentation term, which enables the DG method to capture the mass transfer process. The new solver exhibits good convergence in coupled aggregation and breakage simulations, making it highly suitable for future integration into hydrodynamic codes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13740 by Jing Yang, Xue-Ning Bai, Zhuo Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of collision outcomes. Depending on the relative velocity between colliding particles, three main outcomes are possible: coagulation, bouncing, and fragmen￾tation. In the case of fragmentation, the specific outcome further depends on the mass ratio of the colliding grains. (for example, Equation 48) age. As illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Schematic illustration on the physical interpre￾tation of the fragmentation flux in Equation 9. The upper panel shows the processes inducing the positive flux, while the lower panel depicts the events responsible for the nega￾tive flux. convection-dominated flows and local hyperbolic conser￾vation laws (Cockburn & Shu 2001). In this work, we apply it to solve the following integro-differential equa￾tion: ∂… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Numerical solutions for the pure coagulation test with constant kernel (Equation 36) with N = 40 cells and different k at τ = 3 × 1012. The Black dashed lines are the analytic solution for comparison; the vertical gray lines delimit the mass bins. The approximation improves for a higher polynomial degree. The mass density g(x, τ ) = xf(x, τ ) reaches its peak at x = 1 + τ /2, which increases over time due … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time evolution of numerical errors for the pure coagulation test (consatnt kernel) with N = 40 cells and different k. Errors remain bounded at large times (see Section 4.1 for error definitions). 10 1 10 2 Nbins 10 6 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 10 0 e c, N N 5 bins N 2 bins k=0 k=1 k=2 k=3 k=4 10 1 10 2 Nbins 10 6 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 10 0 e d, N N 5 bins N 2 bins k=0 k=1 k=2 k=3 k=4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fig… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Numerical errors for N = 10, 20, 40, 100, 200 and k = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 at τ = 3 × 1012 for the pure coagulation test with constant kernel. The experimental order of convergence is EOC = k + 1. 5 shows the numerical errors for N = 10, 20, 40, 100, 200 and k = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 at τ = 3 × 1012. The numer￾ical scheme exhibits progressively better accuracy for larger mass bins N and increased polynomial degree k, dem… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of coagulation solutions with an ad￾ditive kernel. The orange line shows Dustpy results, the pur￾ple dashed line is the analytical solution, and the green/blue dots are DG results with N = 40 bins and k = {0, 1}. In summary, realistic coagulation kernels are highly sensitive to dust mass itself, and capturing dust growth from interstellar grains to pebbles requires a wide mass range. In conventi… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Numerical solutions for the pure fragmentation test (Equation 40) with N = 20 cells and different k at τ = 500. The black dashed line is the analytic solution for comparison; the vertical gray lines delimit the bins. The approximation improves for a higher polynomial degree. 10 1 10 2 Time 10 10 10 9 10 8 10 7 10 6 10 5 n u m e ric al e r r o r e M 1, N k=0 k=1 k=2 k=3 k=4 10 1 10 2 Time 10 3 10 2 10 1 10 … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Time evolution of numerical errors for the pure fragmentation test with N = 20 cells and different k. Errors remain bounded at large times. (see Section 4.1 for error definitions) βfrag(x, y) = Z ∞ vf fv dv =1 − erf s 3 2∆v 2 rms vf ! + vf s 6 π∆v 2 rms exp − 3v 2 f 2∆v 2 rms ! , (43) Then the coagulation and fragmentation kernels are de￾noted by, Kcoag(x, y) = σ(x, y) · ∆vrms(x, y) · βcoag(x, y), (44) Kfr… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The mass distribution of fragmentation outcomes described by Equation 46. The outcomes are divided into a continuous power-law fragment distribution (xmin ≤ x ≤ mfrag) and a discrete remnant particle (mleft). where σ(x, y) = π(x 1/3 + y 1/3 ) 2 is the geometric cross section. βcoag(x, y) + βfrag(x, y) may not be equal to 1 due to the bouncing effect. For fragmentation, we generally write the breakage kerne… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Numerical solutions for the case with coupled aggregation and breakage using N = 20 mass bins. Vertical gray lines indicate the boundaries of each mass bin. Each row corresponds to a different polynomial degree k, while each column shows the solution at a different time τ . The black dashed line represents the reference solution computed with N = 300 and k = 4. The last row presents the same numerical sol… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Total mass evolution for the pure coagulation test with k = 2. Conservative and non-conservative flux re￾sults are shown in purple and green, respectively; the blue dashed line shows the higher-resolution non-conservative case. The orange line represents the evolution of M1,N from the exact solution. In addition, a higher-resolution non-conservative case with N = 100 is included [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Bai , X.-N., & Stone , J. M. 2010, , 722, 1437, 10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1437

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/722/2/1437 2010

  2. [2]

    2024, , 62, 157, 10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-052705

    Birnstiel , T. 2024, , 62, 157, 10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-052705

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-052705 2024

  3. [3]

    P., & Brauer , F

    Birnstiel , T., Dullemond , C. P., & Brauer , F. 2009, , 503, L5, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912452

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912452 2009

  4. [4]

    2010, , 513, A79, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913731

    ---. 2010, , 513, A79, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913731

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913731 2010

  5. [5]

    2012, , 539, A148, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118136

    Birnstiel , T., Klahr , H., & Ercolano , B. 2012, , 539, A148, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118136

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118136 2012

  6. [6]

    W., & Dullemond , C

    Birnstiel , T., Ormel , C. W., & Dullemond , C. P. 2011, , 525, A11, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015228

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015228 2011

  7. [7]

    Bodenheimer , P., & Pollack , J. B. 1986, , 67, 391, 10.1016/0019-1035(86)90122-3

    doi:10.1016/0019-1035(86)90122-3 1986

  8. [8]

    P., & Henning , T

    Brauer , F., Dullemond , C. P., & Henning , T. 2008, , 480, 859, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077759

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077759 2008

  9. [9]

    2017, , 834, 145, 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/145

    Bukhari Syed , M., Blum , J., Wahlberg Jansson , K., & Johansen , A. 2017, , 834, 145, 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/145

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/145 2017

  10. [10]

    2012, , 753, 119, 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/119

    Charnoz , S., & Taillifet , E. 2012, , 753, 119, 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/119

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/753/2/119 2012

  11. [11]

    2026, , 283, 48, 10.3847/1538-4365/ae4723

    Chen , Z., & Bai , X.-N. 2026, , 283, 48, 10.3847/1538-4365/ae4723

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae4723 2026

  12. [12]

    2001, Journal of Scientific Computing, 16, 173, 10.1023/A:1012873910884

    Cockburn, B., & Shu, C.-W. 2001, Journal of Scientific Computing, 16, 173, 10.1023/A:1012873910884

    doi:10.1023/a:1012873910884 2001

  13. [13]

    N., Okuzumi , S., Flock , M., Pinilla , P., & Dzyurkevich , N

    Delage , T. N., Okuzumi , S., Flock , M., Pinilla , P., & Dzyurkevich , N. 2022, , 658, A97, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141689

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141689 2022

  14. [14]

    Dohnanyi , J. S. 1969, , 74, 2531, 10.1029/JB074i010p02531

    doi:10.1029/jb074i010p02531 1969

  15. [15]

    Growth of Dust as the Initial Step Toward Planet Formation

    Dominik , C., Blum , J., Cuzzi , J. N., & Wurm , G. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed. B. Reipurth , D. Jewitt , & K. Keil , 783, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0602617

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0602617 2007

  16. [16]

    Dominik , C., & Dullemond , C. P. 2024, , 682, A144, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347716

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347716 2024

  17. [17]

    P., & Dominik , C

    Dullemond , C. P., & Dominik , C. 2004, , 421, 1075, 10.1051/0004-6361:20040284

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20040284 2004

  18. [18]

    2005, , 434, 971, 10.1051/0004-6361:20042080

    ---. 2005, , 434, 971, 10.1051/0004-6361:20042080

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20042080 2005

  19. [19]

    Eriksson , L. E. J., Pfeil , T., Kaufmann , N., & Vaikundaraman , V. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.22550, 10.48550/arXiv.2603.22550

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.22550 2026

  20. [20]

    2001, SIAM Review, 43, 89, 10.1137/S003614450036757X

    Gottlieb , S., Shu , C.-W., & Tadmor , E. 2001, SIAM Review, 43, 89, 10.1137/S003614450036757X

    doi:10.1137/s003614450036757x 2001

  21. [21]

    B., Pagani , L., & Lef \`e vre , C

    Hirashita , H., Il'in , V. B., Pagani , L., & Lef \`e vre , C. 2021, , 502, 15, 10.1093/mnras/staa4018

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa4018 2021

  22. [22]

    W., Li , H., & Li , S

    Ho , K. W., Li , H., & Li , S. 2024, , 975, L34, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8655

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad8655 2024

  23. [23]

    A., Okuzumi , S., Arakawa , S., & Fukai , R

    Homma , K. A., Okuzumi , S., Arakawa , S., & Fukai , R. 2024, , 10.1093/pasj/psae052

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psae052 2024

  24. [24]

    2022, , 262, 11, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac76cb

    Huang , P., & Bai , X.-N. 2022, , 262, 11, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac76cb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac76cb 2022

  25. [25]

    Ida , S., & Lin , D. N. C. 2004, , 604, 388, 10.1086/381724

    doi:10.1086/381724 2004

  26. [26]

    V., Akimkin , V

    Ivlev , A. V., Akimkin , V. V., & Caselli , P. 2016, , 833, 92, 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/92

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/92 2016

  27. [27]

    S., Mac Low , M.-M., et al

    Johansen , A., Oishi , J. S., Mac Low , M.-M., et al. 2007, , 448, 1022, 10.1038/nature06086

    doi:10.1038/nature06086 2007

  28. [28]

    P., Tielens , A

    Jones , A. P., Tielens , A. G. G. M., & Hollenbach , D. J. 1996, , 469, 740, 10.1086/177823

    doi:10.1086/177823 1996

  29. [29]

    L., Pfeil , T., Stammler , S., et al

    Kaufmann , N. L., Pfeil , T., Stammler , S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.20764, 10.48550/arXiv.2511.20764

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.20764 2025

  30. [30]

    2010, , 206, 735, 10.1016/j.icarus.2009.10.004

    Kobayashi , H., & Tanaka , H. 2010, , 206, 735, 10.1016/j.icarus.2009.10.004

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2009.10.004 2010

  31. [31]

    Kostoglou , M., & Konstandopoulos , A. G. 2001, Journal of Aerosol Science, 32, 1399, 10.1016/S0021-8502(01)00056-8

    doi:10.1016/s0021-8502(01)00056-8 2001

  32. [32]

    2010, , 725, 1242, 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/1242

    Kothe , S., G \"u ttler , C., & Blum , J. 2010, , 725, 1242, 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/1242

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/1/1242 2010

  33. [33]

    J., & Bergin , E

    Krijt , S., Ciesla , F. J., & Bergin , E. A. 2016, , 833, 285, 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/285

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/285 2016

  34. [34]

    Li , R., Chen , Y.-X., & Lin , D. N. C. 2022, , 510, 5246, 10.1093/mnras/stab3677

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3677 2022

  35. [35]

    Li , R., & Youdin , A. N. 2021, , 919, 107, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0e9f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0e9f 2021

  36. [36]

    2020, , 892, L19, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7fb2

    Li , Y.-P., Li , H., Li , S., et al. 2020, , 892, L19, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7fb2

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab7fb2 2020

  37. [37]

    2019, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 41, B448, 10.1137/17M1150360

    Liu , H., Gr \"o pler , R., & Warnecke , G. 2019, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 41, B448, 10.1137/17M1150360

    doi:10.1137/17m1150360 2019

  38. [38]

    2024, , 533, 4410, 10.1093/mnras/stae2039

    Lombart , M., Br \'e hier , C.-E., Hutchison , M., & Lee , Y.-N. 2024, , 533, 4410, 10.1093/mnras/stae2039

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2039 2024

  39. [39]

    2022, , 517, 2012, 10.1093/mnras/stac2232

    Lombart , M., Hutchison , M., & Lee , Y.-N. 2022, , 517, 2012, 10.1093/mnras/stac2232

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2232 2022

  40. [40]

    2021, , 501, 4298, 10.1093/mnras/staa3682

    Lombart , M., & Laibe , G. 2021, , 501, 4298, 10.1093/mnras/staa3682

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3682 2021

  41. [41]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.07088, 10.48550/arXiv.2601.07088

    Lombart , M., Lebreuilly , U., & Maury , A. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.07088, 10.48550/arXiv.2601.07088

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.07088 2026

  42. [42]

    2023, , 670, A61, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244291

    Marchand , P., Lebreuilly , U., Mac Low , M.-M., & Guillet , V. 2023, , 670, A61, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244291

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244291 2023

  43. [43]

    2016 a , , 818, 16, 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/16

    Musiolik , G., Teiser , J., Jankowski , T., & Wurm , G. 2016 a , , 818, 16, 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/16

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/1/16 2016

  44. [44]

    2016 b , , 827, 63, 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/63

    ---. 2016 b , , 827, 63, 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/63

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/827/1/63 2016

  45. [45]

    2019, , 873, 58, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0428

    Musiolik , G., & Wurm , G. 2019, , 873, 58, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0428

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0428 2019

  46. [46]

    1981, , 45, 517, 10.1016/0019-1035(81)90018-X

    Nakagawa , Y., Nakazawa , K., & Hayashi , C. 1981, , 45, 517, 10.1016/0019-1035(81)90018-X

    doi:10.1016/0019-1035(81)90018-x 1981

  47. [47]

    2009, , 698, 1122, 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1122

    Okuzumi , S. 2009, , 698, 1122, 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1122

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/698/2/1122 2009

  48. [48]

    2012, , 753, L8, 10.1088/2041-8205/753/1/L8

    Okuzumi , S., & Hirose , S. 2012, , 753, L8, 10.1088/2041-8205/753/1/L8

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/753/1/l8 2012

  49. [49]

    2016, , 821, 82, 10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/82

    Okuzumi , S., Momose , M., Sirono , S.-i., Kobayashi , H., & Tanaka , H. 2016, , 821, 82, 10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/82

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/821/2/82 2016

  50. [50]

    2012, , 752, 106, 10.1088/0004-637X/752/2/106

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

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/752/2/106 2012

  51. [51]

    2009, , 707, 1247, 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/1247

    Okuzumi , S., Tanaka , H., & Sakagami , M.-a. 2009, , 707, 1247, 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/1247

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/707/2/1247 2009

  52. [52]

    W., & Cuzzi , J

    Ormel , C. W., & Cuzzi , J. N. 2007, , 466, 413, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066899

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066899 2007

  53. [53]

    W., & Klahr , H

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014903 2010

  54. [54]

    W., Spaans , M., & Tielens , A

    Ormel , C. W., Spaans , M., & Tielens , A. G. G. M. 2007, , 461, 215, 10.1051/0004-6361:20065949

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065949 2007

  55. [55]

    2024, , 691, A45, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449337

    Pfeil , T., Birnstiel , T., & Klahr , H. 2024, , 691, A45, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449337

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449337 2024

  56. [56]

    A Neural Network Subgrid Model of the Early Stages of Planet Formation

    Pfeil , T., Cranmer , M., Ho , S., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.04160, 10.48550/arXiv.2211.04160

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211.04160 2022

  57. [57]

    2021, , 652, A106, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140601

    Pillich , C., Bogdan , T., Landers , J., Wurm , G., & Wende , H. 2021, , 652, A106, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140601

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140601 2021

  58. [58]

    B., Hubickyj , O., Bodenheimer , P., et al

    Pollack , J. B., Hubickyj , O., Bodenheimer , P., et al. 1996, , 124, 62, 10.1006/icar.1996.0190

    arXiv 1996

  59. [59]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.06298, 10.48550/arXiv.2507.06298

    Qian , Y., & Wu , Y. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.06298, 10.48550/arXiv.2507.06298

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.06298 2025

  60. [60]

    A., & Owen , J

    Robinson , A., Booth , R. A., & Owen , J. E. 2024, , 529, 1524, 10.1093/mnras/stae624

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae624 2024

  61. [61]

    2016, , 589, A15, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527069

    Sato , T., Okuzumi , S., & Ida , S. 2016, , 589, A15, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527069

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527069 2016

  62. [62]

    Scott , W. T. 1968, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 25, 54, 10.1175/1520-0469(1968)025<0054:ASOCDC>2.0.CO;2

    doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1968)025 1968

  63. [63]

    Shu, C.-W. 2008. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:52027743

    2008

  64. [64]

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

    1916

  65. [65]

    M., & Birnstiel , T

    Stammler , S. M., & Birnstiel , T. 2022, , 935, 35, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7d58

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7d58 2022

  66. [66]

    M., Birnstiel , T., Pani \'c , O., Dullemond , C

    Stammler , S. M., Birnstiel , T., Pani \'c , O., Dullemond , C. P., & Dominik , C. 2017, , 600, A140, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629041

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629041 2017

  67. [67]

    M., Tomida , K., White , C

    Stone , J. M., Tomida , K., White , C. J., & Felker , K. G. 2020, , 249, 4, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab929b 2020

  68. [68]

    2018, , 863, 97, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad1f4

    Tamfal , T., Dr a \.z kowska , J., Mayer , L., & Surville , C. 2018, , 863, 97, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad1f4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad1f4 2018

  69. [69]

    1996, , 123, 450, 10.1006/icar.1996.0170

    Tanaka , H., Inaba , S., & Nakazawa , K. 1996, , 123, 450, 10.1006/icar.1996.0170

    arXiv 1996

  70. [70]

    Terquem , C. E. J. M. L. J. 2008, , 689, 532, 10.1086/592597

    work page doi:10.1086/592597 2008

  71. [71]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.21239, 10.48550/arXiv.2507.21239

    Vaikundaraman , V., Gurrutxaga , N., & Dr a \.z kowska , J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.21239, 10.48550/arXiv.2507.21239

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.21239 2025

  72. [72]

    J., Laibe , G., & Pinte , C

    Vericel , A., Gonzalez , J.-F., Price , D. J., Laibe , G., & Pinte , C. 2021, , 507, 2318, 10.1093/mnras/stab2263

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2263 2021

  73. [73]

    I., Akimkin , V., Stoyanovskaya , O., Pavlyuchenkov , Y., & Liu , H

    Vorobyov , E. I., Akimkin , V., Stoyanovskaya , O., Pavlyuchenkov , Y., & Liu , H. B. 2018, , 614, A98, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731690

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731690 2018

  74. [74]

    K., & Kataoka , A

    Watanabe , T. K., & Kataoka , A. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.18353. 2605.18353

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  75. [75]

    Weidenschilling , S. J. 1980, , 44, 172, 10.1016/0019-1035(80)90064-0

    doi:10.1016/0019-1035(80)90064-0 1980

  76. [76]

    Wetherill , G. W. 1990, , 88, 336, 10.1016/0019-1035(90)90086-O

    doi:10.1016/0019-1035(90)90086-o 1990

  77. [77]

    2012, , 540, A73, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118475

    Windmark , F., Birnstiel , T., G \"u ttler , C., et al. 2012, , 540, A73, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118475

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118475 2012

  78. [78]

    Woitke , P., Kamp , I., & Thi , W. F. 2009, , 501, 383, 10.1051/0004-6361/200911821

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200911821 2009

  79. [79]

    2005, , 178, 253, 10.1016/j.icarus.2005.04.002

    Wurm , G., Paraskov , G., & Krauss , O. 2005, , 178, 253, 10.1016/j.icarus.2005.04.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2005.04.002 2005

  80. [80]

    2026, GRACE-DG: A Discontinuous Galerkin code for GRAin Collisional Evolution , v1.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.21023229

    Yang , J., Chen , Z., & Bai , X.-N. 2026, GRACE-DG: A Discontinuous Galerkin code for GRAin Collisional Evolution , v1.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.21023229

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.21023229 2026

Showing first 80 references.