Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

A Particle Module for the PLUTO Code: III -- Dust

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A dust integrator based on the exponential midpoint rule removes the stiffness constraint in dust-gas simulations.

desk verdict Dust module for PLUTO with exponential midpoint pusher and curvilinear weights: solid, well-benchmarked, but the 'arbitrary stopping time' claim only covers the particle push, not gas back-reaction. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10793 v1 pith:HCQUAPT5 submitted 2019-08-28 astro-ph.EP physics.comp-phphysics.flu-dyn

A. Mignone , M. Flock , B. Vaidya This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPphysics.comp-phphysics.flu-dyn MSC 65L0465M0885A04
keywords dust-gashydrodynamicsexponentialintegratorstreaminginstabilityprotoplanetarydisksparticle-in-cellmethodscurvilinearcoordinatesPLUTOcodestiffdragcoupling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper presents a particle-gas hybrid scheme for the PLUTO code that follows dust grains under aerodynamic drag while accounting for the back-reaction on the gas, in Cartesian, cylindrical, and spherical geometries. The central methodological claim is that an exponential midpoint integrator for the dust equations removes the stiffness of the drag term: it is time-reversible, globally second-order accurate, keeps energy errors bounded, and remains stable with the correct asymptotic solution for arbitrarily small particle stopping times. Because of this, simulations of protoplanetary disks can follow tightly coupled grains without shrinking the time step to the stopping time. The paper also introduces new particle-to-grid weighting factors for curvilinear coordinates that reduce the grid noise of traditional volume weighting, and demonstrates the method on a suite of benchmarks including local and global streaming-instability runs.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the exponential midpoint integrator, a drift-kick-drift particle update in which the kick step solves the linear drag term exactly through the variation-of-constants formula with $A = -\operatorname{diag}(1/\tau_s)$ and propagator $h_1 = \tau_s(1 - e^{-\Delta t/\tau_s})$. Because the stiff part of the equation is integrated exactly, the time step is no longer limited by the stopping time; the remaining nonlinear forces are evaluated at the half-time level, giving second-order accuracy and time-reversibility. The secondary object is the set of curvilinear weighting factors obtained from $b$-spline shape functions with a normalization correction, which replace volume-coordinate interpolation and reduce grid noise in cylindrical and spherical domains.

What would settle it

Run the homogeneous deceleration test of Section 4.1 with $\tau_s \ll \Delta t$ (for example $\tau_s=0.001$, $\Delta t=1$) and monitor the gas velocity: the particle velocity decays to the predicted asymptotic value, but if the gas is not accelerated at the rate given by Eq. (50) with the full $1+\epsilon$ drag, the back-reaction part of the central claim is not valid.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that the exponential midpoint rule (Eq. 32) is a superior dust pusher: unlike the semi-implicit scheme of BS10, it does not oscillate and does not under-damp when the stopping time is much smaller than the time step, and it has the correct asymptotic velocity in the stiff limit. Together with the derived curvilinear CIC/TSC weighting factors, this yields a dust-gas scheme with back-reaction that works in Cartesian, cylindrical, and spherical geometries, enabling global protoplanetary-disk simulations in which dust and gas exchange momentum through drag.

Load-bearing premise

The claim of arbitrary stopping-time stability applies to the dust particle push; the gas-dust feedback still uses $\max(\tau_s,\Delta t)$ in the coupling denominator, so when the hydro time step exceeds the stopping time the momentum transferred from tightly coupled grains to the gas is deliberately reduced rather than physical.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Tightly coupled dust can be evolved with the same hydro time step, removing the stiff-drag time-step restriction from the particle component.
  • Global disk simulations in cylindrical and spherical geometry can include dust back-reaction, not just test particles.
  • The streaming instability can be captured in local shearing-box and global disk models, with linear growth rates matching the predicted values at sufficient resolution.
  • The new TSC weighting reduces interpolation noise in curvilinear geometries, so fewer particles per cell are needed to represent a smooth dust density.
  • Since the exponential scheme reduces to the semi-implicit method as $\tau_s \to \infty$, existing geometric-orbit behavior is retained for loosely coupled grains.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's stiffness claim is about the particle equation; for dust-to-gas momentum feedback in the regime $\tau_s < \Delta t$, the effective drag is capped by the hydro time step, so global simulations with very small grains will underestimate the back-reaction unless the gas step is reduced.
  • The same exponential-midpoint construction could be applied to other stiff linear couplings in particle methods, such as Lorentz-force terms or cooling source terms.
  • A direct comparison of the exponential pusher with the BS10 semi-implicit pusher in nonlinear streaming-instability runs could show whether removing the oscillatory under-damping changes clump statistics at low Stokes numbers.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a new dust-particle module for the PLUTO code, using an exponential midpoint integrator for the dust push and modified PIC weighting kernels for curvilinear grids. The central claims are that the exponential midpoint rule is second-order, time-reversible, has bounded energy errors, and remains stable and asymptotically correct for arbitrarily small stopping times, and that the resulting hybrid scheme supports dust back-reaction in Cartesian, cylindrical, and spherical geometries. The paper validates the implementation with analytic deceleration and epicyclic tests, orbital tests in cylindrical and spherical coordinates, radial-drift and vertical-oscillation tests, a rigidly rotating disk with feedback, and local and global streaming-instability simulations. The global streaming-instability growth rates at the highest resolution (6144x384) approach the linear-theory values from Kowalik et al. (2013).

Significance. If the claims were fully established, the module would be a valuable community tool: it would allow global protoplanetary-disk simulations to evolve tightly coupled dust without the Δt ≲ τ_s restriction, using conservative feedback and improved curvilinear weighting. The benchmark suite is genuinely extensive, including analytic reference solutions for deceleration, epicyclic motion, orbital motion, radial drift, vertical settling, and the rigid-disk feedback problem, and the streaming-instability growth rates are checked against external linear-theory results rather than against outputs of the same model. The exponential midpoint update itself is well motivated and clearly superior to the semi-implicit scheme in the stiff single-particle limit. However, as detailed below, the load-bearing claim about arbitrarily small stopping times is not established for the coupled gas-dust system with back-reaction, because the gas-side feedback is capped in the predictor step.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; §3.1 (Eq. 19); §3.2.2 (Eq. 32)] The claim that the exponential midpoint integrator 'remains stable in the limit of arbitrarily small particle stopping times yielding the correct asymptotic solution' is only demonstrated for the single-particle push, not for the coupled gas-dust system with back-reaction. In the predictor step, Eq. (19) replaces τ_s by max(τ_s, Δt), following BS10, so for τ_s << Δt the gas receives a drag acceleration of order Δv/Δt rather than Δv/τ_s. The corrector, Eq. (21), conserves total momentum but cannot repair the half-time gas velocity used to push the particles, so the external impulse is partitioned incorrectly between the two species. A concrete homogeneous example makes this explicit: with a constant acceleration F acting only on the dust, ε = ρ_D/ρ_g = 1, and Δt >> τ_s, the exact coupled solution after one step has v_g ≈ v_D ≈ FΔt/2 and relative velocity O(Fτ_s), whereas the algorithm as described gives v_g ≈ FΔt and v_D ≈ Fτ_s, i.e., a relative velocity O(FΔt). This directly limits the headline claim to test-particle dynamics or to Δt ≲ τ_s whenever back-reaction is dynamically important. The authors' §5 lists fluid-side stiffness as an open concern, but the abstract and summary do not carry this restriction.
  2. [§4 (Benchmarks)] No benchmark in Section 4 exposes the stiff back-reaction error identified above. The deceleration test in §4.1 is stiff (τ_s = 0.02 with Δt = 1) but has no external acceleration, so total momentum conservation alone can hide the incorrect gas-dust momentum partition. The rigid-disk feedback test in §4.7 uses τ_s = 1 with a hydro timestep set by the CFL condition, so the feedback term is not stiff, and the global streaming-instability test in §4.8 uses St ≈ 1.2. I ask for a stiff coupled benchmark that includes an external or background acceleration with τ_s << Δt and back-reaction, such as a homogeneous two-fluid terminal-velocity problem or a radial-drift setup with very small Stokes number. The abstract and Section 5 should be reworded so that the 'arbitrarily small stopping time' claim is restricted to the particle update, or the gas-side integration should be made stiff-accurate as well.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.4] The text says computations use time step sizes Δt = 0.1, 0.02, 0.04, but the panels and convergence discussion refer to 0.1, 0.01, and 0.001; the listed values are inconsistent.
  2. [§4.4] For the tilted orbits, the sentence 'the time steps have been halved, that is, Δt = 5×(10^{-2}, 10^{-3}, 10^{-3})' contains a duplicated entry; the intended sequence is presumably 5×10^{-2}, 5×10^{-3}, 5×10^{-4}.
  3. [§5] There is a typo in the summary: 'ensamble' should read 'ensemble'.
  4. [§4.1, Eq. (52)] The error definition err = (min_p err_p + max_p err_p)/2 is unusual; please state why the midpoint of the extremal particle errors is used rather than, for example, the mean or L2 norm over particles.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the exponential integrator and curvilinear weights are derived from exact ODE/geometry principles and validated against external analytic and linear-theory benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are supported by independent external checks: the particle-gas deceleration test is compared to the closed-form solution Eq. (51); the epicyclic and orbital tests use analytic Keplerian/epicyclic solutions; the local streaming instability is measured against the linear eigenmodes of Youdin & Goodman (2005) as tabulated in YJ07 and BS10; and the global streaming instability uses the independent linear dispersion solver of Kowalik et al. (2013). The exponential midpoint integrator's stiff-limit behavior follows from the exact variation-of-constants formula (Eq. 29), so its asymptotic correctness is a mathematical property of the construction, not a fitted input disguised as a prediction. The new curvilinear weighting factors are defined by projecting b-spline shape functions (Eqs. 38-46) onto grid volumes and are tested against traditional volume weighting and analytic drift/settling solutions; their derivation is definitional in the benign sense of constructing a scheme, not circular. Self-citations to Paper I and the PLUTO code inherit the PIC deposition framework and hydro solver infrastructure, but the load-bearing novelty (exponential midpoint pusher and curvilinear weights) does not reduce to those citations. The paper itself notes in Section 3.1 and Section 5 that fluid-side stiffness remains an open issue because Eq. (19) caps the stopping time by max(τ_s, Δt); this narrows the 'arbitrarily small stopping time' claim to the dust push and is a genuine correctness caveat, but it is not a circular step. No equation in the manuscript is equivalent to its inputs by construction in a way that fakes a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard exponential integrator and geometric integration theory, plus domain assumptions of locally isothermal gas and Epstein drag. One ad hoc element is the cap on tau_s in the gas back-reaction term for stiff coupling. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Locally isothermal equation of state p = rho c_s^2 and neglect of the gas energy equation; drag work and frictional heating are not evolved.
    Section 2 states this restriction; valid when thermal relaxation is faster than the dynamical time, typical for optically thin outer disk regions.
  • domain assumption Epstein drag regime with linear drag force f_D = -rho_D (v_g - v_D)/tau_s.
    Section 2, Eq. (4); appropriate when grain size a < 9 lambda / 4. The stopping time tau_s in Eq. (5) uses local gas density.
  • ad hoc to paper The gas back-reaction stiffness is controlled by replacing tau_s with max(tau_s, dt) in Eq. (19).
    Section 3.1, following BS10; this means the mutual feedback in the stiff regime is not solved exactly.
  • standard math Standard theory of exponential integrators (variation of constants) and Störmer-Verlet geometric integration.
    Section 3.2 and Appendix B rely on Hochbruck and Ostermann (2010) and Hairer et al. (2006).
  • domain assumption Shearing-box approximation with q = 3/2 and the orbital advection (FARGO) decomposition.
    Section 2.1, Eqs. (9)-(13); used for the local streaming instability benchmarks.
  • domain assumption Global streaming instability test uses the local shearing-sheet dispersion relation and neglects vertical stratification and radial boundary effects.
    Section 4.8; growth rates are compared to local linear-theory patches with parameters from the initial equilibrium.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Particle Module for the PLUTO Code: III -- Dust." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HCQUAPT5

@misc{pith2026190810793,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Particle Module for the PLUTO Code: III -- Dust},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HCQUAPT5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10793}
}
read the original abstract

The implementation of a new particle module describing the physics of dust grains coupled to the gas via drag forces is the subject of this work. The proposed particle-gas hybrid scheme has been designed to work in Cartesian as well as in cylindrical and spherical geometries. The numerical method relies on a Godunov-type second-order scheme for the fluid and an exponential midpoint rule for dust particles which overcomes the stiffness introduced by the linear coupling term. Besides being time-reversible and globally second-order accurate in time, the exponential integrator provides energy errors which are always bounded and it remains stable in the limit of arbitrarily small particle stopping times yielding the correct asymptotic solution. Such properties make this method preferable to the more widely used semi-implicit or fully implicit schemes at a very modest increase in computational cost. Coupling between particles and grid quantities is achieved through particle deposition and field-weighting techniques borrowed from Particle-In-Cell simulation methods. In this respect, we derive new weight factors in curvilinear coordinates that are more accurate than traditional volume- or area-weighting. A comprehensive suite of numerical benchmarks is presented to assess the accuracy and robustness of the algorithm in Cartesian, cylindrical and spherical coordinates. Particular attention is devoted to the streaming instability which is analyzed in both local and global disk models. The module is part of the PLUTO code for astrophysical gas-dynamics and it is mainly intended for the numerical modeling of protoplanetary disks in which solid and gas interact via aerodynamic drag.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10793 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. — Temporal resolution study for the deceleration test problem. Errors in the particle position are plotted in the top panel as functions of the resolution for the semi-implicit (red squares) and the exponential midpoint (blue x) methods. In the bottom panel we show the total (gas+particle) momentum. Following BS10, we investigate the dynamical interaction of an ensemble of uniformly distributed dust particles feedin… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. — Comparison between the semi-implicit method (top panel) and the exponential midpoint method (bottom panel) for the deceleration test. In each panel we plot the particle velocity as a function of time with red and blue lines corresponding to τs = 0.2 (squares) and τs = 0.02 (x symbols), respectively. Dashed lines of the same color give the exact solution. Note that the solution obtained with the exponential midpoin… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. — Results for the epicyclic motion test problem using the standard shearingbox equations (top panels) and with the orbital advection scheme (FARGO, bottom panels). The left and right panels show, respectively, the time evolution of the energy and of the x-coordinate. Red and blue lines denotes the numerical solution obtained with the semi-implicit and the exponential methods while the black line in the right panels … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: — Results for the 2D streaming instability showing the computed numerical growth rate (red squares: semi-implicit method, blue crosses: exponential midpoint method) as a function of the number of grid points per wavelength. Since one wavelength is used, this number cor…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: — Orbital test in cylindrical coordinates using 4 particles with eccentricities e = 0, 0.3, 0.51, 0.7 (black, green, blue and red) and same orbital period T = 2πa √ a where a = 1. Computations have been carried out for 20 orbits and the inclination angle is ι = 0. From…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: — Orbital test for an inclination angle ι = 30◦ . Top and bottom panels corresponds, respectively, to cylindrical and spherical computations. From left to right we show: i) projected orbits in the x − y plane for different eccentricities; ii) relative error in total an…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: — Radial drift test in cylindrical (top row) and spherical (bottom row) coordinates. Left panels: radial velocity errors using different weighting factors for particle with Stokes number 1 (∆t = 0.1 during the integration). The black line shows the error obtained by as…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: — Vertical oscillation test in spherical coordinates. Top panels: ver￾tical coordinate z = r cos θ as a function of time. Red symbols correspond to numerical integration with ∆t = 0.3 while the solid black line gives the ref￾erence solution. Bottom panel: convergence s…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: — Top: Relative error err(ρD) = ρD/ ρg − 1 for the uniform dust density distribution (at t = 0) for the rigid disk obtained with volume (black solid line), CIC (orange dashed line) and TSC (cyan solid line) weighting schemes using Np/NR = 4. Bottom: L1 norm error as a…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: — Temporal evolution for the rigidly rotating disk in cylindrical (top) and spherical (bottom) coordinates. Left panel: analytical (solid lines) and numerical solution (plus and squares symbols) of density as a function of time. Red and green curves correspond to ρg(t…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: — Colored maps of the (log of) of dust density for the streaming instability test in cylindrical coordinates. From top to bottom we show different snapshots at t = 100, 200, 450, 600 (years). The resolution is 6144×384 grid zone and only the region 3 < R < 6 is shown.…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: — [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: — Measured growth rates (symbols) and analytical values (dashed lines) for the global streaming instability problem. Different colors correspond to different radial patches centered at Rm (see the legend). tions. Since Ω = Ω(R)is not constant in a differentially rotat…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Developing a Non-Newtonian Fluid Model for Dust, for Application to Astrophysical Flows

    astro-ph.EP 2024-11 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Collisionless dust in turbulent gas is derived as a 6D anisotropic Maxwell fluid whose rheological stress tensor is dynamically important in accretion discs.

  2. A Staggered Semi-Analytic Method for Simulating Dust Grains Subject to Gas Drag

    astro-ph.EP 2019-09 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    SSA, a staggered semi-analytic integrator, tracks dust under linear gas drag with 2nd-order accuracy in the non-stiff regime and near-exact terminal velocity behavior in the stiff regime, allowing time steps up to 10^...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    L., P \'e rez , L

    ALMA Partnership , Brogan , C. L., P \'e rez , L. M., et al. 2015, , 808, L3

    2015

  2. [2]

    M., Huang , J., P \'e rez , L

    Andrews , S. M., Huang , J., P \'e rez , L. M., et al. 2018, , 869, L41

    2018

  3. [3]

    P., Garufi , A., et al

    Avenhaus , H., Quanz , S. P., Garufi , A., et al. 2018, , 863, 44

    2018

  4. [4]

    Bai , X.-N., & Stone , J. M. 2010, , 190, 297

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    S., Tilley , D

    Balsara , D. S., Tilley , D. A., Rettig , T., & Brittain , S. D. 2009, , 397, 24

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    Ben \' tez-Llambay , P., Krapp , L., & Pessah , M. E. 2019, , 241, 25

    2019

  7. [7]

    2004, Plasma Physics via Computer Simulation, Series in Plasma Physics and Fluid Dynamics (Taylor & Francis)

    Birdsall, C., & Langdon, A. 2004, Plasma Physics via Computer Simulation, Series in Plasma Physics and Fluid Dynamics (Taylor & Francis)

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    J., et al

    Carrasco-Gonz \'a lez , C., Henning , T., Chandler , C. J., et al. 2016, , 821, L16

    work page 2016

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    1990, Journal of Computational Physics, 87, 171

    Colella , P. 1990, Journal of Computational Physics, 87, 171

    1990

  2. [10]

    M., & Matthews , P

    Cox , S. M., & Matthews , P. C. 2002, Journal of Computational Physics, 176, 430

    2002

  3. [11]

    Gottlieb , S., & Shu , C. W. 1998, Mathematics of Computation, 67, 73

    1998

  4. [12]

    2006, Geometric Numerical Integration: Structure-Preserving Algorithms for Ordinary Differential Equations; 2nd ed

    Hairer, E., Lubich, C., & Wanner, G. 2006, Geometric Numerical Integration: Structure-Preserving Algorithms for Ordinary Differential Equations; 2nd ed. (Dordrecht: Springer), doi:10.1007/3-540-30666-8

    2006 doi

  5. [13]

    F., Gammie , C

    Hawley , J. F., Gammie , C. F., & Balbus , S. A. 1995, , 440, 742

    1995

  6. [14]

    1981, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 70, 35

    Hayashi , C. 1981, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 70, 35

    1981

  7. [15]

    2010, Acta Numerica, 19, 209

    Hochbruck , M., & Ostermann , A. 2010, Acta Numerica, 19, 209

    2010

  8. [16]

    2005, , 634, 1353

    Johansen , A., & Klahr , H. 2005, , 634, 1353

    2005

  9. [17]

    2007, , 662, 627

    Johansen , A., & Youdin , A. 2007, , 662, 627

    2007

  10. [18]

    2013, , 434, 1460

    Kowalik , K., Hanasz , M., W \'o lta \'n ski , D., & Gawryszczak , A. 2013, , 434, 1460

    2013

  11. [19]

    Laibe , G., & Price , D. J. 2014, , 440, 2136

    2014

  12. [20]

    2012, Journal of Computational Physics, 231, 795

    Lapenta , G. 2012, Journal of Computational Physics, 231, 795

    2012

  13. [21]

    J., Hewett , D

    Larson , D. J., Hewett , D. W., & Langdon , A. B. 1995, Computer Physics Communications, 90, 260

    1995

  14. [22]

    2017, , 607, A74

    Liu , Y., Henning , T., Carrasco-Gonz \'a lez , C., et al. 2017, , 607, A74

    2017

  15. [23]

    Marble , F. E. 1970, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 2, 397

    1970

  16. [24]

    2012, , 545, A134

    Meheut , H., Meliani , Z., Varniere , P., & Benz , W. 2012, , 545, A134

    2012

  17. [25]

    M.-A., Mackey , J., Langer , N., et al

    Meyer , D. M.-A., Mackey , J., Langer , N., et al. 2014, , 444, 2754

    2014

  18. [26]

    M.-A., Mignone , A., Kuiper , R., Raga , A

    Meyer , D. M.-A., Mignone , A., Kuiper , R., Raga , A. C., & Kley , W. 2017, , 464, 3229

    2017

  19. [27]

    2014, Journal of Computational Physics, 270, 784

    Mignone , A. 2014, Journal of Computational Physics, 270, 784

    2014

  20. [28]

    2007, , 170, 228

    Mignone , A., Bodo , G., Massaglia , S., et al. 2007, , 170, 228

    2007

  21. [29]

    2018, , 859, 13

    Mignone , A., Bodo , G., Vaidya , B., & Mattia , G. 2018, , 859, 13

    2018

  22. [30]

    M., & Muscianisi , G

    Mignone , A., Flock , M., Stute , M., Kolb , S. M., & Muscianisi , G. 2012 a , , 545, A152

    2012

  23. [31]

    2012 b , , 198, 7

    Mignone , A., Zanni , C., Tzeferacos , P., et al. 2012 b , , 198, 7

    2012

  24. [32]

    2010, Journal of Computational Physics, 229, 3916

    Miniati , F. 2010, Journal of Computational Physics, 229, 3916

    2010

  25. [33]

    1986, , 67, 375

    Nakagawa , Y., Sekiya , M., & Hayashi , C. 1986, , 67, 375

    1986

  26. [34]

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

    Nelson , R. P., Gressel , O., & Umurhan , O. M. 2013, , 435, 2610

    2013

  27. [35]

    2013, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, doi:10.1137/050635018

    Pelanti, M., & Leveque, R. 2013, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, doi:10.1137/050635018

    2013 doi

  28. [36]

    Picogna , G., Stoll , M. H. R., & Kley , W. 2018, , 616, A116

    2018

  29. [37]

    Pinte , C., Dent , W. R. F., M \'e nard , F., et al. 2016, , 816, 25

    2016

  30. [38]

    P., & Keppens , R

    Porth , O., Xia , C., Hendrix , T., Moschou , S. P., & Keppens , R. 2014, , 214, 4

    2014

  31. [39]

    Ruyten , W. M. 1993, Journal of Computational Physics, 105, 224

    1993

  32. [40]

    2019, Journal of Computational Physics, 382, 27

    Shen, X., & Leok, M. 2019, Journal of Computational Physics, 382, 27

    2019

  33. [41]

    Stoll , M. H. R., & Kley , W. 2016, , 594, A57

    2016

  34. [42]

    2001, , 557, 990

    Takeuchi , T., & Artymowicz , P. 2001, , 557, 990

    2001

  35. [43]

    2016, , 589, A10

    Thun , D., Kuiper , R., Schmidt , F., & Kley , W. 2016, , 589, A10

    2016

  36. [44]

    2018, , 865, 144

    Vaidya , B., Mignone , A., Bodo , G., Rossi , P., & Massaglia , S. 2018, , 865, 144

    2018

  37. [45]

    J., Meliani , Z., Keppens , R., & Decin , L

    van Marle , A. J., Meliani , Z., Keppens , R., & Decin , L. 2011, , 734, L26

    2011

  38. [46]

    Verboncoeur , J. P. 2001, Journal of Computational Physics, 174, 421

    2001

  39. [47]

    Weidenschilling , S. J. 1977, , 180, 57

    1977

  40. [48]

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

    1972

  41. [49]

    2016, , 224, 39

    Yang , C.-C., & Johansen , A. 2016, , 224, 39

    2016

  42. [50]

    2007, , 662, 613

    Youdin , A., & Johansen , A. 2007, , 662, 613

    2007

  43. [51]

    N., & Goodman , J

    Youdin , A. N., & Goodman , J. 2005, , 620, 459

    2005

  44. [52]

    M., Rafikov , R

    Zhu , Z., Stone , J. M., Rafikov , R. R., & Bai , X.-n. 2014, , 785, 122

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.