Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 154 references

Exploring the conditions for forming planetesimals by the streaming instability and planetary systems by pebble accretion

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-07 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read A narrow range of pebble sizes lets the streaming instability form planetesimals while pebble accretion builds cold giants, super-Earths and rocky embryos together.

desk verdict This paper maps out Stokes number and turbulence ranges where streaming instability plus pebble accretion can produce cold giants, super-Earths, and rocky embryos together, plus an analytical claim that largest SI planetesimals match the pebble accretion threshold mass under early formation. read the letter →

arxiv 2604.25816 v1 pith:CJCP7JKQ submitted 2026-04-28 astro-ph.EP

Anders Johansen (University of Copenhagen / Lund University) , Wladimir Lyra (New Mexico State University) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords streaminginstabilitypebbleaccretionplanetesimalformationprotoplanetarydisksStokesnumberplanetexoplanetsdiskturbulence
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper maps the turbulence strength, pebble sizes and initial disk sizes needed for planetesimals to form by streaming instability and for planets to grow by pebble accretion. It identifies an optimum Stokes number range of 0.01 to 0.03 where the streaming instability activates with only slight pebble enrichment and where cold gas giants, super-Earths and rocky embryos can all form. This range connects the two mechanisms under shared disk conditions. The authors also show analytically that the largest planetesimals produced match the mass at which pebble accretion turns efficient, provided formation happens early. Turbulence and disk size then determine which planet classes succeed.

What carries the argument

The Stokes number of pebbles, which sets how tightly they couple to the gas and thereby controls both their concentration into planetesimals by streaming instability and the duration of the pebble supply available for accretion.

What would settle it

Direct measurement of pebble Stokes numbers in a young disk that contains cold gas giants but shows turbulence above 10^{-4} or pebble metallicities below the modest elevation threshold would falsify the claimed optimum range.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

By exploring protoplanetary disc conditions in terms of turbulence strength, Stokes number and initial disc size, the paper identifies an optimum Stokes number range between St=0.01 and St=0.03 where all three planetary classes form and where the streaming instability is triggered for a slightly elevated pebble metallicity. Cold gas giants require a turbulence strength of at most δ=10^{-4} and large initial disc sizes to benefit from a prolonged pebble flux; super-Earths and rocky planet embryos tolerate higher turbulence strengths. A higher Stokes number of St=0.1 is detrimental to cold gas giants due to the short-lived pebble flux, while Stokes numbers below 0.003 demand extremely low turb

Load-bearing premise

Pebble metallicity must reach locally elevated levels to trigger the streaming instability, and the disk must evolve without strong pressure bumps or rapid gas loss that would alter the timing of the pebble flux.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • All major planet classes form together when pebbles have Stokes numbers between 0.01 and 0.03 and pebble metallicity is only slightly elevated.
  • Cold gas giants appear only in large, low-turbulence disks that sustain a long pebble flux.
  • Super-Earths and rocky embryos form at higher turbulence levels consistent with the vertical shear instability.
  • Planetesimal masses produced by streaming instability reach the threshold where pebble accretion becomes efficient if formation occurs early.
  • Gas loss to disk winds or outer pressure bumps can widen the conditions that permit cold gas giants.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The diversity of observed exoplanet systems can arise from modest variations in a few shared disk parameters rather than entirely separate formation channels.
  • The mass match between planetesimals and the pebble-accretion threshold suggests a direct transition to rapid growth without needing a separate embryo stage.
  • Turbulence measurements in disks that do or do not host cold giants could test whether low turbulence is strictly required.
  • Adding thermal or dynamical torques that slow migration would further relax the conditions needed for outer planets.
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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript explores protoplanetary disc conditions in turbulence strength δ, Stokes number St, and initial disc size needed to form planetesimals via the streaming instability (SI) and to produce cold gas giants, super-Earths/sub-Neptunes, and rocky planet embryos via pebble accretion. It identifies an optimum St range of 0.01–0.03 where SI triggers at mildly elevated pebble metallicity and all three planet classes form. Cold gas giants require δ ≤ 10^{-4} and large initial discs for prolonged pebble flux; higher St=0.1 or St<0.003 impose stricter limits. The paper analytically derives that the largest SI planetesimal mass is comparable in magnitude to the pebble-accretion efficiency threshold when formation occurs in the earliest disc phases, and discusses how disc winds, torques, or pressure bumps could expand viable regions for cold giants.

Significance. If the results hold, the work supplies a unified parameter-space framework linking SI planetesimal formation directly to pebble-accretion outcomes across planet classes, yielding testable ranges for St and δ that could inform both simulations and exoplanet population studies. The analytical mass-equivalence result, if shown to be robust beyond the earliest-phase assumption, would provide a concrete physical connection between the two mechanisms. Explicit exploration of mitigating processes such as pressure bumps adds practical value for interpreting observed disc structures.

major comments (2)
  1. [analytical derivation and cold-giant parameter space] The analytical derivation (abstract and corresponding section) states that the largest SI planetesimal mass matches the pebble-accretion threshold mass only if planetesimals form in the earliest phases of disc evolution. However, the reported conditions for cold gas giants (large initial disc sizes combined with δ ≤ 10^{-4}) necessarily extend the pebble flux over later evolutionary stages where Σ_gas has declined. Because both the SI clump mass and the pebble-accretion threshold scale with local gas density and orbital radius, the magnitude equivalence may not hold under the same parameter combinations used for the numerical results; a time-dependent verification or explicit calculation at the reported late times is required to support the central claim.
  2. [numerical results and abstract] The numerical exploration of the St–δ–disc-size space (abstract and results sections) identifies the optimum St=0.01–0.03 window and the boundaries for each planetary class, yet provides no error bars, convergence tests, or details on how post-hoc metallicity thresholds for SI triggering were chosen. These omissions make it difficult to assess the robustness of the reported optimum range and the separation between cold-giant and other-planet regimes.
minor comments (2)
  1. A summary table listing the viable δ and St ranges for each planetary class (cold giants, super-Earths, rocky embryos) would improve readability and allow direct comparison with the analytical mass result.
  2. The manuscript would benefit from a brief statement on the assumed disc-evolution model (e.g., how Σ_gas(t) is parameterized) to clarify the timing assumptions underlying both the numerical runs and the analytical derivation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. The comments highlight important points regarding the scope of our analytical derivation and the transparency of our numerical parameter-space exploration. We address each major comment below and will incorporate revisions to improve clarity and support for the claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [analytical derivation and cold-giant parameter space] The analytical derivation (abstract and corresponding section) states that the largest SI planetesimal mass matches the pebble-accretion threshold mass only if planetesimals form in the earliest phases of disc evolution. However, the reported conditions for cold gas giants (large initial disc sizes combined with δ ≤ 10^{-4}) necessarily extend the pebble flux over later evolutionary stages where Σ_gas has declined. Because both the SI clump mass and the pebble-accretion threshold scale with local gas density and orbital radius, the magnitude equivalence may not hold under the same parameter combinations used for the numerical results; a time-dependent verification or explicit calculation at the reported late times is required to support the central claim.

    Authors: We agree that the analytical equivalence is presented under the explicit condition of planetesimal formation in the earliest disc phases, as stated in the abstract and derivation section. The cold-gas-giant regime in our numerical exploration does rely on large initial disc sizes and low δ to maintain pebble flux over extended times. However, the largest SI planetesimals are expected to form early when gas densities are highest, after which they can continue to grow via pebble accretion as the disc evolves. The result is intended as an order-of-magnitude physical link rather than a precise equality at all epochs. We will add a clarifying paragraph in the discussion section that (i) reiterates the early-phase assumption, (ii) notes the scaling of both masses with declining Σ_gas, and (iii) provides a brief analytic estimate of the mass ratio at a representative later time (e.g., 1 Myr) for the fiducial cold-giant parameters. This will strengthen the connection without requiring a full time-dependent re-simulation of the entire parameter space. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [numerical results and abstract] The numerical exploration of the St–δ–disc-size space (abstract and results sections) identifies the optimum St=0.01–0.03 window and the boundaries for each planetary class, yet provides no error bars, convergence tests, or details on how post-hoc metallicity thresholds for SI triggering were chosen. These omissions make it difficult to assess the robustness of the reported optimum range and the separation between cold-giant and other-planet regimes.

    Authors: The metallicity thresholds for SI triggering are taken directly from the established analytic and simulation results in the literature (Youdin & Johansen 2007; Johansen et al. 2009; Li & Youdin 2021), where the critical pebble-to-gas ratio depends on St and δ. These are not chosen post-hoc but are applied consistently across the St–δ grid as the minimum metallicity needed for the instability to operate. We will insert a short methods subsection that (i) states the exact functional form and references used for the thresholds, (ii) explains that the optimum St window emerges from the overlap of SI-viable metallicities with the pebble-accretion efficiency requirements for each planet class, and (iii) discusses the sensitivity of the reported boundaries to modest variations (±20 %) in the adopted thresholds. Because the study employs semi-analytic prescriptions rather than suites of high-resolution hydrodynamical runs, conventional numerical convergence tests and statistical error bars are not directly applicable; we will nevertheless add a robustness paragraph quantifying how the St=0.01–0.03 optimum shifts under reasonable changes in disc parameters. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: analytical derivation and parameter exploration are independent of fitted outcomes

full rationale

The paper's central results consist of (i) an identified optimum Stokes number window obtained by exploring turbulence, St, and disc size parameters and (ii) an explicit analytical derivation of planetesimal mass equivalence to the pebble-accretion threshold, conditioned on formation in the earliest disc phases. Neither step reduces to a self-definition, a fitted input renamed as prediction, or a load-bearing self-citation. The conditional phrasing of the analytical result is stated openly rather than smuggled in, and the numerical boundaries are presented as outcomes of the explored models rather than forced by construction. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The claims rest on standard assumptions of streaming instability and pebble accretion models plus three explored parameters (turbulence strength, Stokes number, initial disc size) and an implicit assumption that pebble metallicity can be locally raised without additional physics.

free parameters (3)
  • turbulence strength δ
    Varied across runs to find thresholds for each planet class; not derived from first principles.
  • Stokes number St
    Explored as input to locate the 0.01-0.03 optimum window.
  • initial disc size
    Used to control pebble flux duration for cold giants.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Pebble metallicity can be locally elevated enough to trigger streaming instability without additional concentration mechanisms.
    Invoked to allow SI in the explored parameter space.
  • domain assumption Disc evolution follows standard viscous or wind-driven models without strong pressure bumps altering pebble drift.
    Stated as a baseline that could be relaxed to enlarge the cold-giant parameter space.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring the conditions for forming planetesimals by the streaming instability and planetary systems by pebble accretion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CJCP7JKQ

@misc{pith2026260425816,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring the conditions for forming planetesimals by the streaming instability and planetary systems by pebble accretion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CJCP7JKQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2604.25816}
}
abstract

The streaming instability and pebble accretion are two physical mechanisms with demonstrated potentials to drive, respectively, the formation of planetesimals and the growth of planetary systems containing a diverse range of planetary types. Here we explore the protoplanetary disc conditions in terms of turbulence strength, Stokes number and initial disc size that are needed to (i) form planetesimals by the streaming instability, (ii) form gas giant planets in cold orbits, (iii) form super-Earths and sub-Neptunes close to the star and (iv) form rocky planet embryos in temperate orbits. We identify an optimum Stokes number range between St= 0.01 and St= 0.03 where all three planetary classes form and where the streaming instability is triggered for a slightly elevated pebble metallicity. Cold gas giants require a turbulence strength of at most $\delta=10^{-4}$ and furthermore need large initial disc sizes to benefit from a prolonged pebble flux; super-Earths and rocky planet embryos tolerate higher turbulence strengths similar to those measured for the vertical shear instability. A higher Stokes number of St=0.1 is detrimental to the formation of cold gas giants due to the short-lived pebble flux. For Stokes numbers below St= 0.003, extremely low values of turbulence ($\delta<10^{-5}$) are required to form cold gas giants. We highlight how loss of gas to disc winds, reduction in the migration speed by thermal or dynamical torques or the presence of pressure bumps in the outer disc could increase the parameter space for the formation of cold gas giants. We derive analytically that the mass of the largest planetesimals formed by the streaming instability is of similar magnitude to the threshold mass beyond which pebble accretion becomes efficient, if planetesimals form in the earliest phases of protoplanetary disc evolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.25816 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The pebble flux M˙ p through the inner disc as a function of time for three values of St (St = 0.003, St = 0.01, St = 0.03) and three different initial protoplanetary disc sizes (R1 = 112 AU, R1 = 55 AU, R1 = 203 AU) for the analytical pebble drift model of Gurrutxaga et al. (2024) with constant Stχ and α = 0.01. The thin black line indicates 1% of the gas flux for the 112 AU disc; the St = 0.003 case follows gas de… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The panels show, for two different combinations of the viscos￾ity coefficient α and the turbulent diffusion coefficient δ, the tempo￾ral evolution of the pebble metallicity in a large protoplanetary disc (R1 = 112 AU) at 5 AU (exterior of the water ice line, blue lines) and at 0.5 AU (interior of the water ice line, red lines). Water vapor released at the passage of the water ice line is included in the metallicity … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The two panels show the growth time-scale of planetesimals as a function of their distance to the star and their mass (colors and contours), overplotted with the characteristic mass of planetesimals formed by the streaming instability (green line) and 10 times the characteristic mass to represent the upper end of the initial mass function (green dash-dotted line). The left panel shows growth time-scales for St = 0.0… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top left: Population synthesis for a low turbulence level of δ = 10−5 and an initial planetesimal mass that is 20 times the characteristic mass of the streaming instability (SI CM). Colors mark the water mass fraction in the non-gas material, while open circles indicat…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The plots illustrate how increasing the turbulence level further than in
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of two models with angular momentum transport coefficient α = 10−2 exterior of 5 AU and a lower value (α = 10−3 , top panel) or a higher value (α = 10−1 , top panel) interior of 5 AU. We fix the initial planetesimal mass to M0 = 10−3 ME and starting times be…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Two models with high α = 0.02 and high Z = 0.02, giving the same dust mass as in the nominal model but with half the gas mass. This may represent either an initially higher metallicity or a gradual gas loss to disc winds. The lower migration rates make it possible to f…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Map of conditions for triggering planetesimal formation by the streaming instability as well as the outcome of planet formation simulations, both as a function of Stokes number St and turbulent diffusion coefficient δ. We use here a viscosity parameter for angular mome…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

154 extracted references · 154 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245252

    Appelgren, J., Lambrechts, M., & van der Marel, N.\ 2023, , 673, A139. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245252

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245252 2023

  2. [2]

    , keywords =

    Arakawa, S., Okuzumi, S., Tatsuuma, M., et al.\ 2023, , 951, 1, L16. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdb5f

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdb5f 2023

  3. [3]

    & Stone, J

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

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

  4. [4]

    New evolutionary models for pre-main sequence and main sequence low-mass stars down to the hydrogen-burning limit

    Baraffe, I., Homeier, D., Allard, F., et al.\ 2015, , 577, A42. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425481

    work page Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425481 2015

  5. [5]

    2018 , title =

    Bate, M. R.\ 2018, , 475, 4, 5618. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty169

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty169 2018

  6. [6]

    & Morbidelli, A.\ 2022, , 666, A19

    Batygin, K. & Morbidelli, A.\ 2022, , 666, A19. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243196

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243196 2022

  7. [7]

    & Bitsch, B.\ 2020, , 637, A11

    Baumann, T. & Bitsch, B.\ 2020, , 637, A11. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037579

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037579 2020

  8. [8]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Ben \' tez-Llambay, P., Masset, F., Koenigsberger, G., et al.\ 2015, , 520, 7545, 63. doi:10.1038/nature14277

    work page doi:10.1038/nature14277 2015

Show all 154 references
  1. [9]

    & Pessah, M

    Ben \' tez-Llambay, P. & Pessah, M. E.\ 2018, , 855, 2, L28. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aab2ae

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527874

    B \'e thune, W., Lesur, G., & Ferreira, J.\ 2016, , 589, A87. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527874

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630056

    B \'e thune, W., Lesur, G., & Ferreira, J.\ 2017, , 600, A75. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630056

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    W., & Dullemond, C

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

    2011 doi

  5. [13]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424964

    Bitsch, B., Johansen, A., Lambrechts, M., et al.\ 2015, , 575, A28. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424964

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    Bitsch, B., Morbidelli, A., Johansen, A., et al.\ 2018, , 612, A30

    2018

  7. [15]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834489

    Bitsch, B., Izidoro, A., Johansen, A., et al.\ 2019, , 623, A88. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834489

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    & Wurm, G.\ 2000, , 143, 1, 138

    Blum, J. & Wurm, G.\ 2000, , 143, 1, 138. doi:10.1006/icar.1999.6234

    2000 doi

  9. [17]

    D., Appelgren, J., Bergin, E

    Bosman, A. D., Appelgren, J., Bergin, E. A., et al.\ 2023, , 944, 2, L53. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acb651

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    F., Durda, D

    Bottke, W. F., Durda, D. D., Nesvorn \'y , D., et al.\ 2005, , 175, 1, 111. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2004.10.026

    2005 doi

  11. [19]

    P., & Henning, T.\ 2008, , 480, 3, 859

    Brauer, F., Dullemond, C. P., & Henning, T.\ 2008, , 480, 3, 859. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077759

    2008 doi

  12. [20]

    Buchhave, L., Latham, D., Johansen, A., et al.\ 2012, Nature, 486, 375-377, doi:10.1038/nature11121

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    P., Ricci, L., Harter, S

    Burrill, B. P., Ricci, L., Harter, S. K., et al.\ 2022, , 928, 1, 40. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5592

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    B.\ 2015, , 579, A43

    Carrera, D., Johansen, A., & Davies, M. B.\ 2015, , 579, A43. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425120

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6932

    Carrera, D., Gorti, U., Johansen, A., et al.\ 2017, , 839, 1, 16. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6932

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    Chambers, J. E. & Wetherill, G. W.\ 1998, , 136, 2, 304. doi:10.1006/icar.1998.6007

    1998 doi

  17. [25]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aada09

    Chambers, J.\ 2018, , 865, 30. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aada09

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2537

    Chambers, J.\ 2019, , 879, 2, 98. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2537

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    & Tan, J

    Chatterjee, S. & Tan, J. C.\ 2014, , 780, 1, 53. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/53

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555380

    Chen, D.-C., Mordasini, C., Emsenhuber, A., et al.\ 2025, , 701, A94. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555380

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555095

    Danti, C., Lambrechts, M., & Lorek, S.\ 2025, , 700, A132. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555095

    2025 doi

  22. [30]

    Desch, S. J. & Turner, N. J.\ 2015, , 811, 2, 156. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/156

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    & Dullemond, C

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

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    & Alibert, Y.\ 2017, , 608, A92

    Dr a \.z kowska, J. & Alibert, Y.\ 2017, , 608, A92. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731491

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    Dullemond, C. P. & Dominik, C.\ 2005, , 434, 3, 971. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20042080

    2005 doi

  26. [34]

    Eriksson, L. E. J., Mol Lous, M. A. S., Shibata, S., et al.\ 2023, , 526, 4, 4860. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3007

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    Eriksson, L. E. J., Xu, Z., Lim, J., et al.\ 2026, arXiv:2603.17195. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2603.17195

    2026 doi

  28. [36]

    Fernandez, J. A. & Ip, W.-H.\ 1984, , 58, 1, 109. doi:10.1016/0019-1035(84)90101-5

    1984 doi

  29. [37]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220241

    Fortier, A., Alibert, Y., Carron, F., et al.\ 2013, , 549, A44. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220241

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    & Teiser, J.\ 2021, , 923, 2, 134

    Fritscher, M. & Teiser, J.\ 2021, , 923, 2, 134. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2df4

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    J., Rosenthal, L

    Fulton, B. J., Rosenthal, L. J., Hirsch, L. A., et al.\ 2021, , 255, 1, 14. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abfcc1

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    & Blum, J.\ 2015, , 798, 1, 34

    Gundlach, B. & Blum, J.\ 2015, , 798, 1, 34. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/34

    2015 doi

  33. [41]

    P., Kreuzig, C., et al.\ 2018, , 479, 1, 1273

    Gundlach, B., Schmidt, K. P., Kreuzig, C., et al.\ 2018, , 479, 1, 1273. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1550

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348020

    Gurrutxaga, N., Johansen, A., Lambrechts, M., et al.\ 2024, , 682, A43. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348020

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912852

    G \"u ttler, C., Blum, J., Zsom, A., et al.\ 2010, , 513, A56. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912852

    2010 doi

  36. [44]

    doi:10.1086/305277

    Hartmann, L., Calvet, N., Gullbring, E., et al.\ 1998, , 495, 1, 385. doi:10.1086/305277

    1998 doi

  37. [45]

    & Bai, X.-N.\ 2025, , 986, 1, L13

    Huang, P. & Bai, X.-N.\ 2025, , 986, 1, L13. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adcebb

    2025 doi

  38. [46]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628099

    Ida, S., Guillot, T., & Morbidelli, A.\ 2016, , 591, A72. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628099

    2016 doi

  39. [47]

    & Guillot, T.\ 2016, , 596, L3

    Ida, S. & Guillot, T.\ 2016, , 596, L3. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629680

    2016 doi

  40. [48]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad69c

    Ida, S., Tanaka, H., Johansen, A., et al.\ 2018, , 864, 1, 77. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad69c

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    D., Hall, C., Walsh, C., et al.\ 2020, , 498, 4, 5116

    Ilee, J. D., Hall, C., Walsh, C., et al.\ 2020, , 498, 4, 5116. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2699

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    N., et al.\ 2021, , 650, A152

    Izidoro, A., Bitsch, B., Raymond, S. N., et al.\ 2021, , 650, A152. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935336

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    & Ormel, C

    Jiang, H. & Ormel, C. W.\ 2023, , 518, 3, 3877. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3275

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    M., et al.\ 2024, , 682, A32

    Jiang, H., Mac \' as, E., Guerra-Alvarado, O. M., et al.\ 2024, , 682, A32. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348271

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae089e

    Jiang, H., Long, F., Mac \' as, E., et al.\ 2025, , 993, 2, 166. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae089e

    2025 doi

  46. [54]

    S., Mac Low, M.-M., et al.\ 2007, , 448, 7157, 1022

    Johansen, A., Oishi, J. S., Mac Low, M.-M., et al.\ 2007, , 448, 7157, 1022. doi:10.1038/nature06086

    2007 doi

  47. [55]

    & Youdin, A.\ 2007, , 662, 1, 627

    Johansen, A. & Youdin, A.\ 2007, , 662, 1, 627. doi:10.1086/516730

    2007 doi

  48. [56]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1269

    Johansen, A., Youdin, A., & Klahr, H.\ 2009a, , 697, 2, 1269. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1269

    doi

  49. [57]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/704/2/L75

    Johansen, A., Youdin, A., & Mac Low, M.-M.\ 2009b, , 704, 2, L75. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/704/2/L75

    doi

  50. [58]

    & Lacerda, P.\ 2010, , 404, 1, 475

    Johansen, A. & Lacerda, P.\ 2010, , 404, 1, 475. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16309.x

    2010 doi

  51. [59]

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.1500109

    Johansen, A., Mac Low, M.-M., Lacerda, P., et al.\ 2015, Science Advances, 1, 1500109. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1500109

    2015 doi

  52. [60]

    & Lambrechts, M.\ 2017, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 45, 1, 359

    Johansen, A. & Lambrechts, M.\ 2017, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 45, 1, 359. doi:10.1146/annurev-earth-063016-020226

    2017 doi

  53. [61]

    & Bitsch, B.\ 2019, , 631, A70

    Johansen, A. & Bitsch, B.\ 2019, , 631, A70. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936351

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834071

    Johansen, A., Ida, S., & Brasser, R.\ 2019, , 622, A202. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834071

    2019 doi

  55. [63]

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.abc0444

    Johansen, A., Ronnet, T., Bizzarro, M., et al.\ 2021, Science Advances, 7, 8, eabc0444. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abc0444

    2021 doi

  56. [64]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142141

    Johansen, A., Ronnet, T., Schiller, M., et al.\ 2023a, , 671, A74. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142141

    doi

  57. [65]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142142

    Johansen, A., Ronnet, T., Schiller, M., et al.\ 2023b, , 671, A75. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142142

    doi

  58. [66]

    T., Dones, L., et al.\ 2025, Centaurs, 2

    Johansen, A., Bannister, M. T., Dones, L., et al.\ 2025, Centaurs, 2. doi:10.1088/10.1088/2514-3433/ada267ch2

    2025 doi

  59. [67]

    M., Alibert, Y., et al.\ 2025, , 696, A65

    Kaufmann, N., Guilera, O. M., Alibert, Y., et al.\ 2025, , 696, A65. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452428

    2025 doi

  60. [68]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/67

    Kimura, H., Wada, K., Senshu, H., et al.\ 2015, , 812, 1, 67. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/67

    2015 doi

  61. [69]

    & Schreiber, A.\ 2021, , 911, 1, 9

    Klahr, H. & Schreiber, A.\ 2021, , 911, 1, 9. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abca9b

    2021 doi

  62. [70]

    & Ida, S.\ 2000, , 143, 1, 15

    Kokubo, E. & Ida, S.\ 2000, , 143, 1, 15. doi:10.1006/icar.1999.6237

    2000 doi

  63. [71]

    & Ida, S.\ 2007, , 671, 2, 2082

    Kokubo, E. & Ida, S.\ 2007, , 671, 2, 2082. doi:10.1086/522364

    2007 doi

  64. [72]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadcf0

    Krapp, L., Gressel, O., Ben \' tez-Llambay, P., et al.\ 2018, , 865, 2, 105. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadcf0

    2018 doi

  65. [73]

    & Johansen, A.\ 2012, , 544, A32

    Lambrechts, M. & Johansen, A.\ 2012, , 544, A32. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219127

    2012 doi

  66. [74]

    & Johansen, A.\ 2014, , 572, A107

    Lambrechts, M. & Johansen, A.\ 2014, , 572, A107. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424343

    2014 doi

  67. [75]

    A., et al.\ 2019, , 627, A83

    Lambrechts, M., Morbidelli, A., Jacobson, S. A., et al.\ 2019, , 627, A83. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834229

    2019 doi

  68. [76]

    Lau, T. C. H., Birnstiel, T., Dr a \.z kowska, J., et al.\ 2024, , 688, A22. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450464

    2024 doi

  69. [77]

    F., Thommes, E., & Duncan, M

    Levison, H. F., Thommes, E., & Duncan, M. J.\ 2010, , 139, 4, 1297. doi:10.1088/0004-6256/139/4/1297

    2010 doi

  70. [78]

    F., Kretke, K

    Levison, H. F., Kretke, K. A., Walsh, K. J., et al.\ 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 112, 4, 14180. doi:10.1073/pnas.1513364112

    2015 doi

  71. [79]

    doi:10.1038/s41561-020-0578-1

    Li, Y., Vo c adlo, L., Sun, T., et al.\ 2020, Nature Geoscience, 13, 6, 453. doi:10.1038/s41561-020-0578-1

    2020 doi

  72. [80]

    & Youdin, A

    Li, R. & Youdin, A. N.\ 2021, , 919, 2, 107. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0e9f

    2021 doi

  73. [81]

    & Chiang, E.\ 2025, , 995, 2, 214

    Li, R. & Chiang, E.\ 2025, , 995, 2, 214. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae18c3

    2025 doi

  74. [82]

    B., Li, R., et al.\ 2024, , 969, 2, 130

    Lim, J., Simon, J. B., Li, R., et al.\ 2024, , 969, 2, 130. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad47a2

    2024 doi

  75. [83]

    W., & Johansen, A.\ 2019a, , 624, A114

    Liu, B., Ormel, C. W., & Johansen, A.\ 2019a, , 624, A114. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834174

    doi

  76. [84]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936309

    Liu, B., Lambrechts, M., Johansen, A., et al.\ 2019b, , 632, A7. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936309

    doi

  77. [85]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037720

    Liu, B., Lambrechts, M., Johansen, A., et al.\ 2020, , 638, A88. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037720

    2020 doi

  78. [86]

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.abm3045

    Liu, B., Johansen, A., Lambrechts, M., et al.\ 2022, Science Advances, 8, eabm3045. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abm3045

    2022 doi

  79. [87]

    doi:10.1086/375492

    Lodders, K.\ 2003, , 591, 2, 1220. doi:10.1086/375492

    2003 doi

  80. [88]

    & Johansen, A.\ 2022, , 666, A108

    Lorek, S. & Johansen, A.\ 2022, , 666, A108. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244333

    2022 doi

  81. [89]

    & Lambrechts, M.\ 2026, , 707, A244

    Lorek, S. & Lambrechts, M.\ 2026, , 707, A244. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202558429

    2026 doi

  82. [90]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077948

    Lyra, W., Johansen, A., Klahr, H., et al.\ 2008a, , 479, 3, 883. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077948

    doi

  83. [91]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810626

    Lyra, W., Johansen, A., Klahr, H., et al.\ 2008b, , 491, 3, L41. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810626

    doi

  84. [92]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810797

    Lyra, W., Johansen, A., Klahr, H., et al.\ 2009, , 493, 3, 1125. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810797

    2009 doi

  85. [93]

    H., et al.\ 2023, , 946, 60

    Lyra, W., Johansen, A., Ca \ n as, M. H., et al.\ 2023, , 946, 60. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acaf5b

    2023 doi

  86. [94]

    doi:10.1038/365819a0

    Malhotra, R.\ 1993, , 365, 6449, 819. doi:10.1038/365819a0

    1993 doi

  87. [95]

    W., Weiss, L

    Marcy, G. W., Weiss, L. M., Petigura, E. A., et al.\ 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 111, 35, 12655. doi:10.1073/pnas.1304197111

    2014 doi

  88. [96]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0022

    Mori, S., Bai, X.-N., & Okuzumi, S.\ 2019, , 872, 98. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0022

    2019 doi

  89. [97]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac06a9

    Mori, S., Okuzumi, S., Kunitomo, M., et al.\ 2021, , 916, 72. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac06a9

    2021 doi

  90. [98]

    doi:10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/16

    Musiolik, G., Teiser, J., Jankowski, T., et al.\ 2016, , 818, 1, 16. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/16

    2016 doi

  91. [99]

    & Wurm, G.\ 2019, , 873, 1, 58

    Musiolik, G. & Wurm, G.\ 2019, , 873, 1, 58. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0428

    2019 doi

  92. [100]

    Najita, J. R. & Bergin, E. A.\ 2018, , 864, 2, 168. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad80c

    2018 doi

  93. [101]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3629

    Ndugu, N., Bitsch, B., Morbidelli, A., et al.\ 2021, , 501, 2, 2017. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3629

    2021 doi

  94. [102]

    P., Gressel, O., & Umurhan, O

    Nelson, R. P., Gressel, O., & Umurhan, O. M.\ 2013, , 435, 3, 2610. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1475

    2013 doi

  95. [103]

    R., Bergemann, M., Eitner, P., & Johansen, A

    Nielsen, J., Gent, M. R., Bergemann, M., Eitner, P., & Johansen, A. 2023, A&A, 678, A74, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346697

    2023 doi

  96. [104]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450326

    Nielsen, J., Johansen, A., Bali, K., et al.\ 2025, , 695, A184. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450326

    2025 doi

  97. [105]

    J., J rgensen, J

    Ohashi, N., Tobin, J. J., J rgensen, J. K., et al.\ 2023, , 951, 1, 8. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd384

    2023 doi

  98. [106]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/752/2/106

    Okuzumi, S., Tanaka, H., Kobayashi, H., et al.\ 2012, , 752, 2, 106. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/752/2/106

    2012 doi

  99. [107]

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

    2010 doi

  100. [108]

    W.\ 2017, Formation, Evolution, and Dynamics of Young Solar Systems, 445, 197

    Ormel, C. W.\ 2017, Formation, Evolution, and Dynamics of Young Solar Systems, 445, 197. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-60609-5\_7

    2017 doi

  101. [109]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15782.x

    Paardekooper, S.-J., Baruteau, C., Crida, A., et al.\ 2010, , 401, 3, 1950. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15782.x

    2010 doi

  102. [110]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17442.x

    Paardekooper, S.-J., Baruteau, C., & Kley, W.\ 2011, , 410, 1, 293. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17442.x

    2011 doi

  103. [111]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1542

    Paardekooper, S.-J.\ 2014, , 444, 3, 2031. doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1542

    2014 doi

  104. [112]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad00af

    Pfeil, T., Birnstiel, T., & Klahr, H.\ 2023, , 959, 2, 121. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad00af

    2023 doi

  105. [113]

    Pinte, C., Dent, W. R. F., M \'e nard, F., et al.\ 2016, , 816, 1, 25. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/816/1/25

    2016 doi

  106. [114]

    Piso, A.-M. A. & Youdin, A. N.\ 2014, , 786, 1, 21. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/21

    2014 doi

  107. [115]

    & Wu, Y.\ 2025, , 995, 1, 115

    Qian, Y. & Wu, Y.\ 2025, , 995, 1, 115. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae17c5

    2025 doi

  108. [116]

    N., Quinn, T., & Lunine, J

    Raymond, S. N., Quinn, T., & Lunine, J. I.\ 2004, , 168, 1, 1. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2003.11.019

    2004 doi

  109. [117]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa546

    Ricci, L., Liu, S.-F., Isella, A., et al.\ 2018, , 853, 2, 110. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa546

    2018 doi

  110. [118]

    & Johansen, A.\ 2013, , 552, A137

    Ros, K. & Johansen, A.\ 2013, , 552, A137. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220536

    2013 doi

  111. [119]

    & Johansen, A.\ 2024, , 686, A237

    Ros, K. & Johansen, A.\ 2024, , 686, A237. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348101

    2024 doi

  112. [120]

    S.\ 1969, Evoliutsiia doplanetnogo oblaka

    Safronov, V. S.\ 1969, Evoliutsiia doplanetnogo oblaka

    1969

  113. [121]

    & Bitsch, B.\ 2023, , 679, A42

    Savvidou, S. & Bitsch, B.\ 2023, , 679, A42. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245793

    2023 doi

  114. [122]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629561

    Sch \"a fer, U., Yang, C.-C., & Johansen, A.\ 2017, , 597, A69. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629561

    2017 doi

  115. [123]

    & Johansen, A.\ 2022, , 666, A98

    Sch \"a fer, U. & Johansen, A.\ 2022, , 666, A98. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243655

    2022 doi

  116. [124]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450639

    Sch \"a fer, U., Johansen, A., Haugb lle, T., et al.\ 2024, , 691, A258. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450639

    2024 doi

  117. [125]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453439

    Sch \"a fer, U., Johansen, A., & Flock, M.\ 2025, , 694, A57. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453439

    2025 doi

  118. [126]

    Schneider, A. D. & Bitsch, B.\ 2021, , 654, A71. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039640

    2021 doi

  119. [127]

    & Ormel, C

    Schoonenberg, D. & Ormel, C. W.\ 2017, , 602, A21. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630013

    2017 doi

  120. [128]

    B., Armitage, P

    Simon, J. B., Armitage, P. J., Li, R., et al.\ 2016, , 822, 1, 55. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/55

    2016 doi

  121. [129]

    M., Birnstiel, T., Pani \'c , O., et al.\ 2017, , 600, A140

    Stammler, S. M., Birnstiel, T., Pani \'c , O., et al.\ 2017, , 600, A140. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629041

    2017 doi

  122. [130]

    P., Cridland, A

    Tabone, B., Rosotti, G. P., Cridland, A. J., et al.\ 2022, , 512, 2, 2290. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3442

    2022 doi

  123. [131]

    S., et al.\ 2003, , 403, 323

    Testi, L., Natta, A., Shepherd, D. S., et al.\ 2003, , 403, 323. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030362

    2003 doi

  124. [132]

    W., Duncan, M

    Thommes, E. W., Duncan, M. J., & Levison, H. F.\ 2003, , 161, 2, 431. doi:10.1016/S0019-1035(02)00043-X

    2003 doi

  125. [133]

    Tobin, J. J. & Sheehan, P. D.\ 2024, , 62, 1, 203. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-103752

    2024 doi

  126. [134]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf2128

    Tong, S., Alexander, R., & Rosotti, G.\ 2025, . doi:10.1093/mnras/staf2128

    2025 doi

  127. [135]

    F., Rosotti, G

    Tychoniec, ., Manara, C. F., Rosotti, G. P., et al.\ 2020, , 640, A19. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037851

    2020 doi

  128. [136]

    M., Carrasco-Gonz \'a lez, C., et al.\ 2025, , 990, 2, 183

    Ueda, T., Andrews, S. M., Carrasco-Gonz \'a lez, C., et al.\ 2025, , 990, 2, 183. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf214

    2025 doi

  129. [137]

    R., Duch \^e ne, G., et al.\ 2022, , 930, 1, 11

    Villenave, M., Stapelfeldt, K. R., Duch \^e ne, G., et al.\ 2022, , 930, 1, 11. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5fae

    2022 doi

  130. [138]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb92e

    Villenave, M., Podio, L., Duch \^e ne, G., et al.\ 2023, , 946, 2, 70. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb92e

    2023 doi

  131. [139]

    P., Lambrechts, M., et al.\ 2025, , 697, A64

    Villenave, M., Rosotti, G. P., Lambrechts, M., et al.\ 2025, , 697, A64. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202553822

    2025 doi

  132. [140]

    W., Huang, P., et al.\ 2023, , 523, 4, 6186

    Wang, Y., Ormel, C. W., Huang, P., et al.\ 2023, , 523, 4, 6186. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1753

    2023 doi

  133. [141]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adff73

    Werlen, A., Dorn, C., Burn, R., et al.\ 2025, , 991, 1, L16. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adff73

    2025 doi

  134. [142]

    J., D'Alessio, P., Calvet, N., et al.\ 2005, , 626, 2, L109

    Wilner, D. J., D'Alessio, P., Calvet, N., et al.\ 2005, , 626, 2, L109. doi:10.1086/431757

    2005 doi

  135. [143]

    & Bai, X.-N.\ 2022, , 924, 1, 3

    Xu, Z. & Bai, X.-N.\ 2022, , 924, 1, 3. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac31a7

    2022 doi

  136. [144]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630106

    Yang, C.-C., Johansen, A., & Carrera, D.\ 2017, , 606, A80. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630106

    2017 doi

  137. [145]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae7d4

    Yang, C.-C., Mac Low, M.-M., & Johansen, A.\ 2018, , 868, 1, 27. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae7d4

    2018 doi

  138. [146]

    Yap, T. E. & Batygin, K.\ 2024, , 417, 116085. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116085

    2024 doi

  139. [147]

    Youdin, A. N. & Goodman, J.\ 2005, , 620, 1, 459. doi:10.1086/426895

    2005 doi

  140. [148]

    & Johansen, A.\ 2007, , 662, 1, 613

    Youdin, A. & Johansen, A.\ 2007, , 662, 1, 613. doi:10.1086/516729

    2007 doi

  141. [149]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9185

    Yun, H.-G., Kim, W.-T., Bae, J., et al.\ 2022, , 938, 2, 102. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9185

    2022 doi

  142. [150]

    L.\ 2025, , 698, A307

    Yzer, M., Brasser, R., & ten Kate, I. L.\ 2025, , 698, A307. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453258

    2025 doi

  143. [151]

    F., Espaillat, C

    Zamudio-Ruvalcaba, L. F., Espaillat, C. C., Ribas, \'A ., et al.\ 2025, , 995, 1, 16. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1588

    2025 doi

  144. [152]

    & Matsumura, S.\ 2025, , 693, A280

    Zhao, Y. & Matsumura, S.\ 2025, , 693, A280. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452453

    2025 doi

  145. [153]

    Zhao, H., Lau, T. C. H., Birnstiel, T., et al.\ 2025, , 694, A205. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452941

    2025 doi

  146. [154]

    W., G \"u ttler, C., et al.\ 2010, , 513, A57

    Zsom, A., Ormel, C. W., G \"u ttler, C., et al.\ 2010, , 513, A57. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912976

    2010 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed May 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.