Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

This paper establishes that disk turbulence is a universal destabilizer of resonant planet pairs, deriving a single analytical criterion for j:j−1 resonances that unifies the laminar overstability limit and the strong-turbulence crossing li

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 21:18 UTC pith:HL6BIVG6

load-bearing objection Genuinely new timescale argument, but the printed criterion is dimensionally off and the high-j claim leans on an untested noise assumption. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2602.20525 v2 pith:HL6BIVG6 submitted 2026-02-24 astro-ph.EP

Capture and Stability of Resonant Planet Pairs in Turbulent Disk

Linghong Lin , Beibei Liu , Fei Dai , Bin Liu , Jiwei Xie , Man Hoi Lee , Haifeng Yang , Shangfei Liu
show 1 more author
Ping Chen
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords mean motion resonanceturbulent protoplanetary diskstochastic forcingresonance overstabilityplanet migrationexoplanet dynamicsN-body simulationsresonance capture
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper extends a previous laminar-disk theory of resonance capture to turbulent disks. It shows that turbulence reduces the stability of resonant planet pairs: stronger turbulence shifts the escape threshold toward requiring stronger eccentricity damping, and beyond a critical turbulence strength the resonance is destroyed no matter how fast eccentricity is damped. The authors derive an analytical criterion valid for general j:j−1 mean motion resonances and confirm it with N-body simulations. They also connect the turbulence parameter to the standard viscosity parameter, suggesting that resonance survival should depend strongly on orbital distance.

Core claim

The central discovery is that turbulent diffusion and resonant overstability combine multiplicatively. Turbulent forcing drives a random walk in the period-ratio proximity variable x, with diffusivity D_x; the resonance is maintained only if the diffusive spread over one libration time stays below the resonance width x_res. When the spread approaches the width, the effective escape condition becomes f_tur times the laminar ratio criterion, where f_tur = max[0, 1 − epsilon·sigma_x/x_res]. This produces a critical turbulence strength kappa (Eq. 16) below which the resonance survives but requires progressively stronger damping, and above which survival is impossible regardless of damping. The c

What carries the argument

The load-bearing quantity is the dimensionless turbulence strength kappa, defined as the ratio of the RMS stochastic acceleration from turbulent density fluctuations to the central star's gravitational acceleration. The argument combines (1) the diffusivity D_x of the proximity parameter x = j/(j−1) − n_i/n_o, derived from the mean-motion random walk, (2) the resonance width x_res set by libration and the critical migration timescale, and (3) a Gaussian safety factor epsilon = 3 to define the disruption threshold. Their product yields a single analytic formula (Eq. 16) that interpolates between the laminar overstability limit and the strong-turbulence limit.

Load-bearing premise

The two planets are assumed to feel statistically independent turbulent perturbations, so all cross-correlation terms in the diffusion calculation vanish; if turbulent eddies are larger than the planet separation, the planets share the same noise and the disruption threshold changes.

What would settle it

Run N-body simulations with spatially correlated turbulent forcing (eddy scale larger than the planet separation) near the predicted threshold and compare resonance survival against Eq. 16; alternatively, measure the resonant fraction of exoplanet pairs as a function of orbital distance and check whether it drops where the predicted alpha threshold falls below the disk's viscosity.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Resonant planet pairs in turbulent disks need stronger eccentricity damping (larger tau_m/tau_e) than laminar theory predicts; at fixed damping, turbulence promotes escape.
  • There is an absolute turbulence threshold above which resonant capture is impossible regardless of damping rate.
  • For systems where the outer planet is much less massive (q >> 1), overstability never occurs; disruption happens only when turbulence exceeds the strong-turbulence limit.
  • The critical kappa converts to viscosity parameters alpha_SS around 1e-4 to 1e-3 at 1 au in a minimum-mass disk, so realistic turbulence can break resonances, especially in the outer disk.
  • The framework applies to general first-order j:j−1 mean motion resonances, not just the 2:1 resonance used for validation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper assumes the turbulent perturbations on the two planets are spatially uncorrelated; if eddy sizes exceed the planet separation, correlated noise would change the diffusivity D_x and the disruption threshold, likely making resonance breaking easier for close pairs.
  • The safety factor epsilon = 3 means 'stable' here means stable over a finite migration timescale, not forever; a reader should expect eventual escape at arbitrarily long times even below the threshold.
  • Because the critical alpha threshold drops steeply with orbital distance, the model predicts a radial gradient in the resonant fraction of exoplanet systems, which could be tested with occurrence-rate surveys.
  • The same diffusion-plus-overstability logic should extend to second-order resonances and resonant chains of three or more planets, where diffusion may also erode the chain from the outside in.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper extends the laminar-disk resonant migration framework of Paper I to turbulent disks. It models turbulence as a stochastic acceleration with RMS amplitude κ and correlation time τ_c, derives an analytical criterion (Eq. 16) for disruption of j:j−1 mean-motion resonances, including a strong-turbulence limit (Eq. 12), and maps the result onto a κ–τ_m/τ_e diagram. The criterion is compared with N-body simulations in REBOUND/REBOUNDx for the 2:1 resonance at three mass ratios (q=0.1, 1, 10). The authors find that turbulence lowers the stability threshold and that sufficiently strong diffusion disrupts resonance regardless of eccentricity damping, and they connect κ to the Shakura–Sunyaev α_SS.

Significance. If the quantitative criterion is robust, the paper provides a useful unified description that connects the laminar overstability criterion (Paper I) with stochastic-diffusion disruption (Batygin & Adams 2017), and it gives an observationally tractable mapping between a simulation-level forcing parameter (κ) and a disk-physics parameter (α_SS). The N-body validation covers three mass-ratio regimes and shows clear qualitative trends, which is a strength. However, the quantitative claim is currently weakened by two load-bearing issues: the safety factor ε is calibrated on the same simulations later used for validation, and the central derivation assumes spatially uncorrelated turbulent forcing, an assumption that is neither tested nor likely to hold for the high-order resonances the paper claims to cover.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (8); Section 3.3] The derivation of the diffusivity D_x sets ρ_i,o=0, and the same uncorrelated assumption is implemented in the REBOUNDx stochastic acceleration in the N-body runs. Thus the simulations cannot test this assumption. For close first-order resonances (large j) the planet separation can be smaller than the turbulent eddy scale, so partially correlated noise (ρ>0) is physically expected. Because ∂x/∂n_i and ∂x/∂n_o have opposite signs, cross-correlation reduces D_x; for r=n_i/n_o≈1 the critical κ in Eq. (16) increases by ~1/√(1−ρ), e.g. a factor of ~3 at ρ=0.9. The 2:1 simulations (r≈2) constrain only a factor of ~2, so they do not validate the high-j regime claimed in the abstract and conclusions. Please add a correlated-noise model or N-body experiments with finite spatial correlation length, or explicitly restrict the quantitative generality of Eq. (16).
  2. [Section 3.2, Eq. (11); Section 3.3] The safety factor ε is introduced and then set to 3 because 'our numerical results indicate ϵ≈3' (Section 3.2). The same numerical outcomes are then presented as validation of Eq. (16) in Figures 5–7. This is fitted-normalization circularity: the vertical placement of the analytical boundary inherits the simulation outcomes. The functional dependence in Eq. (16) is still meaningful, but the absolute quantitative agreement is not independent evidence. Please provide an independent determination of ε, a hold-out prediction (e.g., fix ε on q=0.1 and predict q=1 or q=10), or a sensitivity analysis showing that the conclusions are robust over a plausible range of ε.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.3] The sentence 'The numerical setup is presented in Section 3.3' is likely a reference error; the setup is described in Section 2.3.
  2. [Section 2.2] In Eq. (8), τ_c,i and τ_c,o are used but defined earlier only for a single planet via τ_c=2π/n. Please clarify that each planet uses its own mean motion.
  3. [Section 3.2] There is a typo: 'we introduce a safety factor ϵ. and adopt' should read 'ϵ and adopt'.
  4. [Section 4.1] Eq. (17) gives the κ–α_SS conversion without showing the intermediate algebra from Okuzumi & Ormel (2013), Eq. (50). A short derivation or an explicit statement of the assumed disk parameters would aid reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

The disruption threshold is partly calibrated to the same N-body outcomes that are then presented as its validation (ε≈3 fitted); the functional dependences are independently derived, so circularity is partial.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2 (after Eq. 11) and Section 3.3 (Comparison with simulations)]
    "Here we introduce a safety factorϵ. and adopt the criterion that resonance is disrupted when the effective diffusive spread exceeds the resonance width: ϵσ x >x res. ... Our numerical results indicate thatϵ≈3 provides stability over a timescaleτ m, consistent with the standard 3σfor the Gaussian distribution. ... We perform numerical simulations to validate the derived criterion (Eq. 16)."

    Eq. 16 contains the multiplicative calibration factor ε, which sets the absolute location of the disruption boundary. The paper fixes ε≈3 using 'numerical results'—the 2:1 q=0.1 simulation series presented just above—and then uses that same series (Fig. 5) as part of the 'validation' of Eq. 16. The absolute threshold is therefore not independently predicted in that panel; it re-encodes the fitted normalization. However, the functional dependences on κ, τm/τe, and mass ratio follow from the diffusion model and are not fitted, and the q=1 and q=10 runs provide independent checks, so the circularity is partial.

full rationale

The central criterion Eq. 16 is not a tautology: Dx is derived from the stochastic forcing model, xres and τlib/τslow,mig come from the pendulum model in Appendix A, and the laminar overstability limit is taken from Paper I. The self-citation to Paper I is load-bearing, but not treated here as circular, because the low-κ N-body points in Figs. 5–7 independently reproduce the laminar boundary and the mass-ratio dependence is separately tested. The main circular step is the safety factor ε: it is inferred from the same 2:1 q=0.1 simulation family that is later presented as validating Eq. 16, so the absolute calibration of the disruption curve in that panel is not an independent prediction. The shape of the boundary, the turbulence-induced upward shift of the stability limit, and the strong-turbulence vertical asymptote are derived rather than fitted, and the q=1 and q=10 simulations offer independent support. The spatially uncorrelated noise assumption (ρi,o=0) is a genuine modeling limitation, especially for close high-j resonances, but it is an input assumption rather than a result disguised as an input, so it is not circularity. Overall, the paper contains one fitted normalization presented as validation, while the core physical trend has independent content: score 4.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; κ is a dimensionless forcing parameter, not an invented entity. The central criterion rests on four modeling assumptions: the OU turbulence model, uncorrelated noise between planets, the τ_lib-limited diffusion picture with a calibrated 3σ threshold, and the Paper I resonance-width/escape criteria. The first three are assumptions loaded by this paper; the last is self-cited prior work treated as an independent anchor.

free parameters (2)
  • ε (epsilon) = 3
    Safety factor in Eq. 11 and 16, introduced as 'the standard 3σ for the Gaussian distribution' but explicitly calibrated to the N-body results ('Our numerical results indicate that ϵ≈3 provides stability over a timescale τ_m', Section 3.2). The absolute position of the stability boundary scales with 1/ε.
  • τ_c = 2π/n (one orbital period)
    Correlation timescale of the turbulent forcing, adopted in Section 2.2 from prior work. Since D_x ∝ τ_c, the critical κ threshold scales as τ_c^{-1/2}, so the absolute disruption boundary depends on this hand-chosen value.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Turbulent gravitational forcing is an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process with stationary variance σ_sto = κ GM⋆/a² and correlation time τ_c (Eqs. 3-4).
    Standard stochastic model of turbulence (Rein & Choksi 2022); not derived from MHD here.
  • domain assumption The stochastic perturbations acting on the two planets are spatially uncorrelated (ρ_i,o = 0), so cross-correlation terms in Eq. 7 vanish.
    Invoked in Section 3.2 before Eq. 8; likely false when eddy scale exceeds planet separation.
  • ad hoc to paper Resonance disruption occurs when the 3σ diffusive spread over one libration timescale exceeds the resonance width x_res (Eq. 11 with ε=3).
    The threshold is calibrated to simulations rather than derived; the diffusion-over-τ_lib picture is a new argument not previously established.
  • domain assumption The resonance width is x_res = 3(n_i/n_o) τ_lib/τ_slow,mig (Eq. 9 and Appendix A), defined as the migration-induced drift in x over one libration period at the critical capture rate.
    This equates the relevant separatrix width with a migration-sweeping width from Paper I; not the standard pendulum separatrix width in the two-body resonance.
  • domain assumption The laminar escape criterion (τ_m/τ_e)_esc from Paper I (Eq. 13) is the correct base threshold when turbulence is weak.
    Taken from the authors' prior work (Paper I); treated as given, not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption κ, τ_m, and τ_e are independent parameters.
    Acknowledged in Section 4.3 as a limitation; in real disks these are coupled through surface density, aspect ratio, and viscosity.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13599 in / 19382 out tokens · 175755 ms · 2026-08-02T21:18:48.442717+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Capture and Stability of Resonant Planet Pairs in Turbulent Disk." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HL6BIVG6

@misc{pith2026260220525,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Capture and Stability of Resonant Planet Pairs in Turbulent Disk},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HL6BIVG6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.20525}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We present a theoretical framework for the resonance capture and stability of two-planet systems in turbulent disks. By incorporating stochastic forcing (parameterized by $\kappa$) alongside laminar angular momentum and eccentricity damping timescales ($\tau_{\rm m}, \tau_{e}$), we derive an analytical criterion for the general $j:j-1$ mean motion resonances, and validate it through N-body simulations. The outcome is mapped in $\kappa$-$\tau_{\rm m}/\tau_{e}$ parameter space, revealing two distinct regimes: resonance trapping and turbulence-induced disruption -- which occurs either directly cross or via temporary capture followed by escape through turbulent diffusion. Crucially, our analysis identifies turbulence as a universal destabilizer. It amplifies the intrinsic overstability mechanism: In laminar disks, escape requires $\tau_{\rm m}/\tau_{e}$ to drop below a critical limit due to excessive eccentricity excitation. We demonstrate that turbulent diffusion lowers this limit, demanding stronger damping (larger $\tau_{\rm m}/\tau_{e}$) for stability. Thus, greater turbulence promotes escape, and sufficiently strong diffusion precludes resonance retention irrespective of eccentricity damping.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.20525 by Beibei Liu, Bin Liu, Fei Dai, Haifeng Yang, Jiwei Xie, Linghong Lin, Man Hoi Lee, Ping Chen, Shangfei Liu.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Time evolution of the period ratio (Po/Pi) for a planetary pair converging towards the 2:1 MMR with τm = 6×105 yr and τm/τe = 103 . The colored lines represent different turbulence strengths κ, and the grey dotted line represents the nominal resonant location. As the turbulence strength increases, the resonance is disrupted more rapidly. values in our simulations: κ = 10−7 and 10−5 . We focus on a low￾mass… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Simulations of the 2:1 MMR capture and stability for a planet￾pair at three different disk turbulent strengths: (a) κ=10−7 and (b) 10−5 . The planet masses are mi=1 M⊕, mo=10 M⊕. Solid lines represent our analytical criteria for a laminar disk, while colored dots correspond to numerical results. While weak turbulence (κ = 10−7 ) preserves the laminar-like behavior, strong turbulence (κ = 10−5 ) introduces … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Evolution of a two-planet system in phase space at two different disk turbulent strengths: (a) κ=10−7 and (b) κ=10−6 . The resonant angle is defined as φi = jλo −(j−1)λi −ϖi , where λ is the mean longitudes of the planet, and ϖ is the relevant longitude of pericenter. The planet mass and migration parameters are mi=1 M⊕, mo=10 M⊕, τm=6 × 105 yr and τm/τe=103 . Turbulence induces orbital eccentricity diffus… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Analytical predictions for the convergent migration of a planet pair near the 2:1 MMR in a turbulent disk. The green region denotes stable resonance trapping, while the brown region corresponds to reso￾nance disruption (resulting in either direct crossing or transient capture followed by escape). The solid brown line represents the turbulence￾induced criterion (Eq. 16) that separates these two regimes. The… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Correspondence between the dimensionless stochastic force am￾plitude κ and the effective turbulent viscosity parameter αSS. The results are calculated for a representative two-planet system with inner mass mi = 1 M⊕ and outer mass mo = 10 M⊕. (a) The relationship assuming a Minimum Mass Solar Nebula (MMSN) surface density profile with varying semi-major axis a. (b) The relationship at a fixed orbital dis￾t… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Hydrodynamical Simulations of Resonant Breaking in Multi-Planet Systems via Rebound Migration During Disk Dispersal

    astro-ph.EP 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Rebound migration during inside-out disk dispersal breaks resonances in multi-planet systems, yielding non-resonant architectures whose occurrence depends on planet mass and disk dispersal timescale.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2024, A&A, 686, A277

    Afkanpour, Z., Ataiee, S., Ziampras, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A277

    2024

  2. [2]

    & Stone, J

    Bai, X.-N. & Stone, J. M. 2013, ApJ, 769, 76

    2013

  3. [3]

    Balbus, S. A. & Hawley, J. F. 1991, ApJ, 376, 214

    1991

  4. [4]

    Balbus, S. A. & Hawley, J. F. 1998, Reviews of Modern Physics, 70, 1

    1998

  5. [5]

    J., et al

    Baruteau, C., Crida, A., Paardekooper, S. J., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 667–689

    2014

  6. [6]

    & Lin, D

    Baruteau, C. & Lin, D. N. C. 2010, ApJ, 709, 759

    2010

  7. [7]

    2015, MNRAS, 451, 2589

    Batygin, K. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2589

    2015

  8. [8]

    & Adams, F

    Batygin, K. & Adams, F. C. 2017, AJ, 153, 120

    2017

  9. [9]

    & Petit, A

    Batygin, K. & Petit, A. C. 2023, ApJ, 946, L11

    2023

  10. [10]

    J., & Simon, J

    Beckwith, K., Armitage, P. J., & Simon, J. B. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 361

    2011

  11. [11]

    A., Huber, D., Gaidos, E., van Saders, J

    Berger, T. A., Huber, D., Gaidos, E., van Saders, J. L., & Weiss, L. M. 2020, AJ, 160, 108

    2020

  12. [12]

    Bevington, P. R. & Robinson, D. K. 2003, Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences, 3rd edn. (New York: McGraw-Hill) Cevallos Soto, A. & Zhu, Z. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.03701

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  13. [13]

    2025, MNRAS, 540, 1998

    Chen, Y .-X., Wu, Y ., Li, Y .-P., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 1998

    2025

  14. [14]

    & Nelson, R

    Cresswell, P. & Nelson, R. P. 2006, A&A, 450, 833

    2006

  15. [15]

    & Nelson, R

    Cresswell, P. & Nelson, R. P. 2008, A&A, 482, 677

    2008

  16. [16]

    2024, AJ, 168, 239

    Dai, F., Goldberg, M., Batygin, K., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 239

    2024

  17. [17]

    Deck, K. M. & Batygin, K. 2015, ApJ, 810, 119

    2015

  18. [18]

    2017, ApJ, 847, 43

    Deng, H., Mayer, L., & Meru, F. 2017, ApJ, 847, 43

    2017

  19. [19]

    M., Petigura, E

    Entrican, P. M., Petigura, E. A., Petit, A. C., Gilbert, G. J., & Masuda, K. 2026, AJ, 171, 46

    2026

  20. [20]

    C., Lissauer, J

    Fabrycky, D. C., Lissauer, J. J., Ragozzine, D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 790, 146

    2014

  21. [21]

    M., Hughes, A

    Flaherty, K. M., Hughes, A. M., Rose, S. C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 843, 150

    2017

  22. [22]

    J., & Benisty, M

    Flock, M., Fromang, S., Turner, N. J., & Benisty, M. 2017, ApJ, 835, 230

    2017

  23. [23]

    & Schlichting, H

    Goldreich, P. & Schlichting, H. E. 2014, AJ, 147, 32

    2014

  24. [24]

    & Tremaine, S

    Goldreich, P. & Tremaine, S. 1980, ApJ, 241, 425

    1980

  25. [25]

    B., Lubow, S

    Gole, D., Simon, J. B., Lubow, S. H., & Armitage, P. J. 2016, ApJ, 826, 18

    2016

  26. [26]

    Hands, T. O. & Alexander, R. D. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 3998

    2018

  27. [27]

    1981, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 70, 35

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

    1981

  28. [28]

    2025, ApJ, 995, 206

    Hu, Z., Dai, F., Zhu, W., et al. 2025, ApJ, 995, 206

    2025

  29. [29]

    & Ormel, C

    Huang, S. & Ormel, C. W. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 828 Hühn, L. A., Pichierri, G., Bitsch, B., & Batygin, K. 2021, A&A, 656, A115

    2023

  30. [30]

    N., et al

    Izidoro, A., Ogihara, M., Raymond, S. N., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 1750

    2017

  31. [31]

    Johansen, A., Klahr, H., & Mee, A. J. 2006, MNRAS, 370, L71

    2006

  32. [32]

    & Nelson, R

    Kley, W. & Nelson, R. P. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 211

    2012

  33. [33]

    Kubli, N., Mayer, L., Deng, H., & Lin, D. N. C. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.01973

    arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Laughlin, G., Steinacker, A., & Adams, F. C. 2004, ApJ, 608, 489

    2004

  35. [35]

    Lee, M. H. & Peale, S. J. 2002, ApJ, 567, 596

    2002

  36. [36]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pa- cific Conference Series, V ol

    Lesur, G., Flock, M., Ercolano, B., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pa- cific Conference Series, V ol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y . Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 465

    2023

  37. [37]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.12650

    Lin, L., Liu, B., & Zheng, Z. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.12650

    arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 1841

    Manger, N., Klahr, H., Kley, W., & Flock, M. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 1841

    2020

  39. [39]

    & Wisdom, J

    Meyer, J. & Wisdom, J. 2008, Icarus, 193, 213

    2008

  40. [40]

    Murray, C. D. & Dermott, S. F. 1999, Solar System Dynamics

    1999

  41. [41]

    Nelson, R. P. 2005, A&A, 443, 1067

    2005

  42. [42]

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

    Nelson, R. P., Gressel, O., & Umurhan, O. M. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 2610 Nesvorný, D., Chrenko, O., & Flock, M. 2022, ApJ, 925, 38

    2013

  43. [43]

    2007, Icarus, 188, 522

    Ogihara, M., Ida, S., & Morbidelli, A. 2007, Icarus, 188, 522

    2007

  44. [44]

    & Kobayashi, H

    Ogihara, M. & Kobayashi, H. 2013, ApJ, 775, 34

    2013

  45. [45]

    S., Mac Low, M.-M., & Menou, K

    Oishi, J. S., Mac Low, M.-M., & Menou, K. 2007, ApJ, 670, 805

    2007

  46. [46]

    & Hirose, S

    Okuzumi, S. & Hirose, S. 2011, ApJ, 742, 65

    2011

  47. [47]

    & Ormel, C

    Okuzumi, S. & Ormel, C. W. 2013, ApJ, 771, 43

    2013

  48. [48]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Paardekooper, S., Dong, R., Duffell, P., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. In- utsuka, Y . Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 685

    2023

  49. [49]

    Papaloizou, J. C. B. & Larwood, J. D. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 823

    2000

  50. [50]

    2023, A&A, 670, A148

    Pichierri, G., Bitsch, B., & Lega, E. 2023, A&A, 670, A148

    2023

  51. [51]

    Pinte, C., Dent, W. R. F., Ménard, F., et al. 2016, ApJ, 816, 25

    2016

  52. [52]

    G., Simon, J

    Rea, D. G., Simon, J. B., Carrera, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 128

    2024

  53. [53]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, L21

    Rein, H. 2012, MNRAS, 427, L21

    2012

  54. [54]

    & Choksi, N

    Rein, H. & Choksi, N. 2022, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 6, 95

    2022

  55. [55]

    & Liu, S

    Rein, H. & Liu, S. F. 2012, A&A, 537, A128

    2012

  56. [56]

    & Papaloizou, J

    Rein, H. & Papaloizou, J. C. B. 2009, A&A, 497, 595

    2009

  57. [57]

    Rice, W. K. M., Armitage, P. J., Bate, M. R., & Bonnell, I. A. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 1025

    2003

  58. [58]

    P., & Umurhan, O

    Richard, S., Nelson, R. P., & Umurhan, O. M. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 3571

    2016

  59. [59]

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

    1973

  60. [60]

    B., Beckwith, K., & Armitage, P

    Simon, J. B., Beckwith, K., & Armitage, P. J. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 2685

    2012

  61. [61]

    Stammler, S. M. & Birnstiel, T. 2022, ApJ, 935, 35

    2022

  62. [62]

    Tamayo, D., Rein, H., Shi, P., & Hernandez, D. M. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 2885

    2020

  63. [63]

    Tanaka, H., Takeuchi, T., & Ward, W. R. 2002, ApJ, 565, 1257

    2002

  64. [64]

    & Terquem, C

    Teyssandier, J. & Terquem, C. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 568

    2014

  65. [65]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.02665

    Wang, M.-T., Dai, F., Liu, H.-G., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.02665

    arXiv 2026

  66. [66]

    Ward, W. R. 1997, Icarus, 126, 261

    1997

  67. [67]

    Wong, K. H. & Lee, M. H. 2024, AJ, 167, 112

    2024

  68. [68]

    Wu, Y ., Chen, Y .-X., & Lin, D. N. C. 2024, MNRAS, 528, L127

    2024

  69. [69]

    & Lai, D

    Xu, W. & Lai, D. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 3223

    2017

  70. [70]

    2018, ApJ, 868, 27

    Yang, C.-C., Mac Low, M.-M., & Johansen, A. 2018, ApJ, 868, 27

    2018

  71. [71]

    Youdin, A. N. & Lithwick, Y . 2007, Icarus, 192, 588

    2007

  72. [72]

    M., & Rafikov, R

    Zhu, Z., Stone, J. M., & Rafikov, R. R. 2013, ApJ, 768, 143 Article number, page 8 of 9 Linghong Lin et al.: Capture and Stability of Resonant Planet Pairs in Turbulent Disk Appendix A: Derivation of the resonance width For a first-orderj:j−1 mean motion resonance, the resonant angle is defined asφ=jλ o−(j−1)λ i−ϖ i,o, whereλis the mean longitudes of the ...

    2013