Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The fraction of polar aligned circumbinary disks

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Massive circumbinary disks settle into polar orbits at a fixed 37 percent rate; low-mass disks instead track binary eccentricity.

desk verdict Useful extension of polar circumbinary disk fraction calculations to massive disks, with a load-bearing sign error in Eq. (5) and an abstract that oversells the high-j 0.37 limit. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22728 v1 pith:I47QGEEB submitted 2025-05-28 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Ted M. Johnson , Rebecca G. Martin , Stephen Lepp , Stephen H. Lubow This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords circumbinarydiskspolaralignmentbinaryeccentricitydiskangularmomentumseculardynamicsKozai-Lidovoscillationsnodalprecessionpopulationpredictions
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 asks what fraction of circumbinary disks end up orbiting their host binary in the polar configuration, tilted about 90 degrees to the binary plane, rather than settling into the binary plane. It extends earlier massless-disk calculations to disks with substantial angular momentum, and finds two clean regimes. Low-mass disks produce a polar fraction that grows roughly linearly with binary eccentricity, $f_{\text{polar}}\sim e_{\rm b}$. Massive disks in the high-angular-momentum limit produce a constant fraction $f_{\text{polar}}\approx 0.37$ that is independent of eccentricity, assuming the disks start with isotropically oriented orbital planes. Because $f_{\text{polar}}$ can now be computed quickly for arbitrary population distributions, the numbers give survey-level tests: a measured polar fraction in a young binary population constrains the underlying distributions of eccentricity, initial tilt, and disk mass.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the narrow ring: each disk is replaced by a ring with angular momentum $j=J_{\rm ring}/J_{\rm binary}$ orbiting an eccentric binary. The argument runs on the constant of motion $\chi = e_{\rm b}^2 - 2(1-e_{\rm b}^2)j(2j+\cos i)$, whose sign selects one of two libration conditions, and on the resulting minimum nodal phase $\Omega_{\min}$ above which orbits librate. The probability of polar evolution is $P = 1 - (2/\pi)\Omega_{\min}$ for $i > i_{\rm crit}$ and 0 below, and in the high-$j$ limit $i_{\rm crit}=\arccsc\sqrt{5/2}\approx 39.2^\circ$, which yields the eccentricity-independent $f_{\text{polar}}=0.37$ after averaging over an isotropic sphere of initial disk orientations. This machinery converts a dynamical classification problem into a one-dimensional integral over population distributions.

What would settle it

Take a sample of roughly fifty young circumbinary disks around eclipsing binaries, measure each binary's eccentricity and the disk's mutual inclination from imaging, and bin by angular momentum ratio $j$: the low-$j$ bins must show $f_{\text{polar}}$ rising roughly linearly with $e_{\rm b}$, and the high-$j$ bins must scatter around 0.37 for isotropic initial orientations, so either pattern failing would rule out the model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the outcome of circumbinary disk evolution—polar versus coplanar—is governed by whether the disk's nodal precession librates or circulates, and that this dividing line moves with the disk-to-binary angular momentum ratio $j$. Using the narrow-ring approximation, the paper derives an analytic probability $P(j,e_{\rm b},i)$ that a disk with binary eccentricity $e_{\rm b}$ and initial mutual inclination $i$ librates into a polar state, confirms it numerically with secular integration and full N-body runs, and integrates it over population distributions. The headline quantitative results are $f_{\text{polar}}\sim e_{\rm b}$ for low-mass disks and $f_{\text{polar}}\approx 0.37$ in the high-$j$ limit for isotropic initial orientations, with the 0.37 emerging from the Kozai-Lidov critical inclination of $39.2^\circ$. The paper also shows that any preference for initially aligned disks lowers $f_{\text{polar}}$, and that finite disk lifetimes and radial extent (warps, breaks, self-gravity) can keep disks from reaching their stationary state, changing how the prediction should be compared to observations.

Load-bearing premise

The model's numbers depend on treating each disk as a single thin ring with the disk's total angular momentum; if warps or breaks split a real disk into pieces that evolve independently, the predicted polar fraction can shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A measured $f_{\text{polar}}$ in a young binary population can be inverted: for low-mass disks, a higher polar fraction implies a higher-eccentricity binary distribution.
  • For massive disks with isotropic initial orientations, $f_{\text{polar}}\approx 0.37$ independent of $e_{\rm b}$, giving a fixed benchmark that survey results can be compared against.
  • Any formation process that biases disks toward low mutual inclination lowers $f_{\text{polar}}$ across all $e_{\rm b}$ and $j$, so a high observed polar fraction would disfavor such a bias.
  • Finite disk lifetimes and non-zero radial extent can prevent disks from completing their evolution, leaving some systems misaligned rather than polar or coplanar, so these effects must be included when interpreting a survey.
  • Because the analytic, secular, and N-body routes agree within uncertainties, $f_{\text{polar}}$ can be computed in under a second for large populations using the integral over $p_j$, $p_{e_{\rm b}}$, and $p_i$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the paper leaves implicit: if real disks frequently break into independently evolving rings, the effective $j$ that decides alignment is set by the inner disk, so observed $f_{\text{polar}}$ may track the low-$j$ prediction even for systems whose total disk mass is large; surveys that resolve inner versus outer disk emission could test this.
  • The high-$j$ plateau at 0.37 is essentially a Kozai-Lidov geometric number; the same calculation might be adapted to other hierarchical configurations, such as circumplanetary disks or satellite systems, wherever an outer angular momentum reservoir dominates the inner binary.
  • A population-level measurement of $f_{\text{polar}}$ in eclipsing binaries with known eccentricities could separate the low-$j$ and high-$j$ regimes, and combining disk imaging with apsidal-precession detections of polar planets would give two independent windows onto the same $f_{\text{polar}}$.
  • The self-gravity bound on $j$ suggests most real protoplanetary disks have small $j$, meaning the observationally relevant regime may be the $e_{\rm b}$-sensitive branch rather than the 0.37 plateau.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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. This paper calculates the fraction of circumbinary disks expected to end up polar-aligned, f_polar, as a function of the distributions of binary eccentricity, disk-to-binary angular momentum ratio j, and initial mutual inclination. The authors use three methods: numerical integration of the analytic libration/circulation criterion (Eq. 7), secular integrations via RKF, and full N-body integrations with rebound. For low-j disks they find f_polar ~ e_b, while in the high-j, isotropic-inclination limit they obtain the constant f_polar ≈ 0.37. The paper also discusses how finite disk lifetimes, disk breaking, and self-gravity modify the applicability of the ring model, and suggests observational tests using eclipsing binaries and polar planets.

Significance. The result, if correct, is a useful population-level prediction: it generalizes previous massless-disk work to disks with finite angular momentum and provides a quantitative target for circumbinary disk surveys, with a sharp high-j prediction that is independent of the eccentricity distribution. The paper is unusually reproducible, with a public Python package, LaTeX source, figure-generation scripts, and data. The agreement among the three methods, including full N-body checks, is a genuine strength. The main caveat is the acknowledged narrow-ring approximation; the discussion of warps and breaks is qualitative. I find the central physics sound modulo the equation errors noted below.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (5)] The critical-inclination equation for the chi<0 branch has the wrong sign on the constant term. Setting sin^2 Omega_min = 1 in Eq. (3) gives sin^2 i_crit - 2/5 - cos i_crit/(5j) + e_b^2/[20 j^2 (1-e_b^2)] = 0, whereas the printed equation has +2/5. In the limit j -> infinity the printed equation becomes sin^2 i_crit + 2/5 = 0, which has no real solution and contradicts Eq. (9), which requires sin^2 i_crit = 2/5. Because Eq. (7) is evaluated using this critical condition, a reader implementing Eq. (5) as printed cannot reproduce the headline f_polar ~ 0.37. I confirm the skeptic's concern. The derivation in Eqs. (8)-(10) is internally consistent, so this is likely a typographical error, but the equation must be corrected and the analytic code checked against the corrected condition.
  2. [Section 1 and Section 6] The narrow-ring approximation is the load-bearing modeling assumption: all three methods reduce an extended disk to a single ring. The paper states this in Section 1 and discusses warps, breaks, and self-gravity in Section 6, but it never quantifies the error that the approximation introduces into f_polar. If a realistic disk breaks into independently precessing rings, the mapping from initial orientation to final polar/coplanar state, and hence the predicted polar fraction, can differ. I do not regard this as a fatal flaw because the limitation is explicit, but the population-level conclusions should be framed as ring-model predictions unless some quantitative comparison with hydrodynamic or warped-disk calculations is added.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1, Eq. (10)] As written, the integral runs from 0 to pi, but the argument of arcsin exceeds unity outside the libration band i_crit <= i <= pi - i_crit; please restrict the domain (or define the integrand to vanish there).
  2. [Abstract and Section 7] The statement that for massive disks f_polar is independent of eccentricity should carry the caveat, given in Section 5.2 and Figure 4, that this fails for e_b very close to unity.
  3. [Section 6.3, Eq. (27)] The factor sqrt(1-e_b^2) appears in the numerator, but combining Eq. (25) with the definition j=J_r/J_b places this factor in the denominator; the numerical examples (0.08 and 0.28) correspond to the corrected form, so the printed equation and the worked example should be reconciled.
  4. [Section 2, Eqs. (3) and (6)] Equation (3) defines sin^2 Omega_min, while Eq. (6) and the text refer to Omega_min; please make the relation explicit (e.g., Omega_min = arcsin sqrt(...)) to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; f_polar is obtained by integrating independently derived libration conditions and is cross-checked with N-body simulations, not fitted or self-referential.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks. The polar fraction is not fitted: Eq. (7) integrates the dynamical-state probability P(j, e_b, i) obtained from the libration condition in Eq. (2), and the high-j limiting value f_polar = 0.37 in Eq. (10) is a definite integral over the isotropic distribution of initial orientations, not a parameter tuned to observational data. The libration conditions and secular equations are attributed to Farago & Laskar (2010) and Zanazzi & Lai (2018) as well as to Martin & Lubow (2019), and the calculations are cross-checked against the independent rebound N-body integrator (Rein & Liu 2012; Rein & Spiegel 2015). The narrow-ring approximation and finite-lifetime effects are explicitly acknowledged modeling assumptions rather than definitions of the output; they are discussed in Section 6 and do not make the predicted fraction equivalent to an input by construction. The printed sign inconsistency in Eq. (5) is a reproducibility and correctness concern, not a circularity: Eq. (10) is evaluated directly and the claimed 0.37 value does not come from fitting the contested condition. No self-citation carries a uniqueness or equivalence claim that forces the result, and the paper does not rename a known empirical pattern as a new prediction. The comparison with Ceppi et al. (2024) is contextual, not a fitted input. Overall, the derivation chain from secular dynamics to f_polar is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The paper's free parameters are population-level distributions and disk model choices, none of which are fitted to data. The key load-bearing assumptions are the narrow-ring approximation and the timescale condition, both explicitly discussed as limitations.

free parameters (4)
  • sigma (inclination distribution concentration parameter) = ∞, π/2, π/8 (tested values)
    In Eq. (15), sigma controls the preference for low initial mutual inclinations. It is not fitted to data but is a free population parameter varied across plausible values.
  • j (disk-to-binary angular momentum ratio) = 0, 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4 (tested values)
    The dimensionless angular momentum ratio is varied as a parameter; the paper does not assume a specific distribution for it, treating it as a free parameter.
  • Binary eccentricity distribution power alpha = 0 (uniform) or 1 (thermal)
    The paper adopts standard parameterizations p_eb(eb) ∝ e_b^alpha from the field (Hwang et al. 2022). These are population assumptions, not fits to new data.
  • Disk model parameters for timescale/break discussion (h, p, r_in/a_b, r_out/r_in, t_disk) = h=0.01, p=1, r_in/a_b=2.5, r_out/r_in=2 and 10, t_disk=1e6 yr (illustrative)
    These values are used in Section 6 to illustrate the effects of disk lifetime, breaking, and self-gravity. They are illustrative choices, not fitted to data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The secular evolution equations for a circumbinary ring in the quadrupole potential (Farago & Laskar 2010; Martin & Lubow 2019) are correct.
    The paper relies on these equations to define libration, circulation, and crescent orbits. They are standard in the field and validated by the paper's own N-body check, but are not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption The dynamical state (libration or crescent orbit) decays to the stationary polar inclination on a timescale comparable to coplanar alignment.
    This mapping is based on simulations by Abod et al. (2022) and others; the paper does not simulate the decay for massive disks in this work.
  • ad hoc to paper A real extended disk can be approximated as a geometrically narrow ring with equivalent angular momentum for the purpose of determining its final alignment.
    Stated in Section 1: 'we assume that the narrow ring model approximates an extended disk sufficiently well.' This is load-bearing for all three methods and is only valid if warps and breaks are not important.
  • domain assumption The disk lifetime is longer than the alignment timescale, so that the dynamical state can be mapped to a final stationary configuration.
    The paper explicitly assumes this in Section 6.1 to connect libration/circulation to polar/coplanar end states, and then explores the consequences when it fails.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The fraction of polar aligned circumbinary disks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I47QGEEB

@misc{pith2026250522728,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The fraction of polar aligned circumbinary disks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I47QGEEB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22728}
}
abstract

Circumbinary gas disks that are misaligned to the binary orbital plane evolve toward either a coplanar or a polar-aligned configuration with respect to the binary host. The preferred alignment depends on the dynamics of the disk: whether it undergoes librating or circulating nodal precession, with librating disks evolving to polar inclinations and circulating disks evolving to coplanar. We quantify the fraction of binary star systems whose disks are expected to have polar orbits $f_\text{polar}$, extending previous work to include disks with non-zero mass. Our results suggest that, for low mass disks, the polar fraction is highly sensitive to the distribution of binary eccentricity with a higher fraction expected for higher binary eccentricities, $f_{\rm polar}\sim e_{\rm b}$. However, for massive discs, the fraction is independent of the binary eccentricity and $f_{\rm polar}\approx 0.37$. The value of $f_\text{polar}$ is always reduced in a population with a greater preference for low initial mutual inclination. We also explore the consequences of the finite lifetime and non-zero radial extent of a real disk, both of which affect a disk's ability to complete its evolution to a stationary configuration. Our findings can be used to make predictions given populations with well-understood distributions of binary eccentricity, initial mutual inclination, and disk angular momentum.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22728 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Example of system simulation and state determi￾nation. This figure tracks the orbital parameters of a third body with j = 0.05 orbiting a 1M⊙ binary with equal mass stars and eb = 0.4. Initially Ω = π 2 in all cases. § with an additional level of sophistication compared to those described in Section 3, in which the binary was treated in the quadrupole approximation. We model the disk as a point mass with its same or… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. shows that, while the RKF and rebound simulations produce similar results, they are not iden￾tical. Specifically noticeable are points sampled by the MC algorithm that lie outside the RKF libration region (with a higher inclination), but are found by rebound to librate. There are also points with the opposite dis￾crepancy – those that lie in the RKF libration region but produce circulation – but they are fewer and n… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Polar fraction as a function of eb for various values of j. Each line is computed via a numerical integration of equation (6), assuming an isotropic distribution of i. For low-j, the polar fraction is a strong function of eb. However, as j increases, fpolar becomes insensitive to the binary eccentricity (except for the case that eb ≈ 1). Note that fpolar(eb ≈ 0) is maximized when j = 0.5. § 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Polar disk fraction fpolar as a function of j for various distributions peb (eb). All cases assume isotropic distributions of initial angular momentum. In the thermal case, peb (eb) ∝ eb. In the uniform case, peb (eb) = const. The case labeled eb < 0.1 uses a uniform d…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Effect of j on the precession timescale as calcu￾lated in equation (21). Top: Ratio between the numerically computed precession timescale and the analytic solution for a massless ring. To compute the solid lines, the inclina￾tion is fixed and only j varies. Twice the o…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 2 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Planet-disc interactions around eccentric binaries and misaligned ring formation

    astro-ph.EP 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Planet-disc interactions around misaligned binaries can push giant planets toward coplanar or polar orbits, create eccentric inner rings, and sometimes eject the planet.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    P., Chen, C., Smallwood, J., et al

    Abod, C. P., Chen, C., Smallwood, J., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 517, 732, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2601

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2601 2022

  2. [2]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449, 65, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv128

    Aly, H., Dehnen, W., Nixon, C., & King, A. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449, 65, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv128

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv128 2015

  3. [3]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 950, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd1e6

    Anugu, N., Kluska, J., Gardner, T., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 950, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd1e6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd1e6 2023

  4. [4]

    R., Bonnell, I

    Bate, M. R., Bonnell, I. A., Clarke, C. J., et al. 2000, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 317, 773, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03648.x

    arXiv 2000

  5. [5]

    A., Sairam, L., Triaud, A

    Baycroft, T. A., Sairam, L., Triaud, A. H. M. J., & Correia, A. C. M. 2025, Science Advances, 11, eadu0627, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adu0627

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.adu0627 2025

  6. [6]

    2023, 534, 605, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09991

    Benisty, M., Dominik, C., Follette, K., et al. 2023, 534, 605, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09991

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.09991 2023

  7. [7]

    J., Benisty, M., Perraut, K., et al

    Bohn, A. J., Benisty, M., Perraut, K., et al. 2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 658, A183, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142070

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142070 2022

  8. [8]

    2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 682, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348375

    Ceppi, S., Cuello, N., Lodato, G., et al. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 682, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348375

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348375 2024

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Ceppi, S., Longarini, C., Lodato, G., Cuello, N., & Lubow, S. H. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 5817, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad444

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    H., & Martin, R

    Chen, C., Franchini, A., Lubow, S. H., & Martin, R. G. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 5634, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2948

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    C., & Martin, R

    Childs, A. C., & Martin, R. G. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 920, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2957

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    Cuello, N., & Giuppone, C. A. 2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 628, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833976

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    M., et al

    Czekala, I., Chiang, E., Andrews, S. M., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 883, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab287b

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Doolin, S., & Blundell, K. M. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 418, 2656, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19657.x

    2011

  7. [15]

    R., Carter, J

    Doyle, L. R., Carter, J. A., Fabrycky, D. C., et al. 2011, Science, 333, 1602, doi: 10.1126/science.1210923

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    R., Lakeland, B

    Elsender, D., Bate, M. R., Lakeland, B. S., Jensen, E. L. N., & Lubow, S. H. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 4353, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1695

    2023 doi

  9. [18]

    1969, Computing, 4, 93, doi: 10.1007/BF02234758

    Fehlberg, E. 1969, Computing, 4, 93, doi: 10.1007/BF02234758

    1969 doi

  10. [19]

    Gammie, C. F. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 553, 174, doi: 10.1086/320631

    2001 doi

  11. [20]

    M., & Mathieu, R

    Geller, A. M., & Mathieu, R. D. 2012, The Astronomical Journal, 144, 54, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/2/54

    2012 doi

  12. [21]

    P., & Wanner, G

    Hairer, E., Nørsett, S. P., & Wanner, G. 2000, Solving Ordinary Differential Equations, 2nd edn., Springer Series in Computational Mathematics No. 8 (Berlin Heidelberg New York [etc.]: Springer)

    2000

  13. [22]

    L., Menu, J., et al

    Hillen, M., de Vries, B. L., Menu, J., et al. 2015, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 578, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425372 14

    2015 doi

  14. [23]

    Hwang, H.-C., Ting, Y.-S., & Zakamska, N. L. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 512, 3383, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac675

    2022 doi

  15. [24]

    2025, Polar-Disk-Freq, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.15215375

    Johnson, T. 2025, Polar-Disk-Freq, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.15215375

    2025 doi

  16. [25]

    M., Wyatt, M

    Kennedy, G. M., Wyatt, M. C., Sibthorpe, B., et al. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 421, 2264, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20448.x

    2012

  17. [26]

    M., Matr` a, L., Facchini, S., et al

    Kennedy, G. M., Matr` a, L., Facchini, S., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 230, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0667-x

    2019 doi

  18. [27]

    A., Gonz´ alez Picos, D., Elizondo, E., et al

    Kenworthy, M. A., Gonz´ alez Picos, D., Elizondo, E., et al. 2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 666, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243441

    2022 doi

  19. [28]

    2016, The Astronomical Journal, 151, 68, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/3/68

    Kirk, B., Conroy, K., Prˇ sa, A., et al. 2016, The Astronomical Journal, 151, 68, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/3/68

    2016 doi

  20. [29]

    1962, The Astronomical Journal, 67, 591, doi: 10.1086/108790

    Kozai, Y. 1962, The Astronomical Journal, 67, 591, doi: 10.1086/108790

    1962 doi

  21. [30]

    G., & Childs, A

    Lepp, S., Martin, R. G., & Childs, A. C. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 929, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac61e1

    2022 doi

  22. [31]

    G., & Lubow, S

    Lepp, S., Martin, R. G., & Lubow, S. H. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 943, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acaf6d —. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 983, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc111

    2023 doi

  23. [32]

    Lidov, M. L. 1962, Planetary and Space Science, 9, 719, doi: 10.1016/0032-0633(62)90129-0

    1962 doi

  24. [33]

    H., & Martin, R

    Lubow, S. H., & Martin, R. G. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 3733, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2643

    2018 doi

  25. [34]

    H., & Ogilvie, G

    Lubow, S. H., & Ogilvie, G. I. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 538, 326, doi: 10.1086/309101

    2000 doi

  26. [35]

    2021, Mapping Stellar Surfaces III: An Efficient, Scalable, and Open-Source Doppler Imaging Model, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2110.06271

    Luger, R., Bedell, M., Foreman-Mackey, D., et al. 2021, Mapping Stellar Surfaces III: An Efficient, Scalable, and Open-Source Doppler Imaging Model, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2110.06271

    2021 doi arXiv

  27. [36]

    Martin, D. V. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 465, 3235, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2851

    2017 doi

  28. [37]

    V., & Triaud, A

    Martin, D. V., & Triaud, A. H. M. J. 2014, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 570, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323112 —. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449, 781, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv121

    2014 doi

  29. [38]

    G., Lepp, S., Lubow, S

    Martin, R. G., Lepp, S., Lubow, S. H., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 927, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac54b4

    2022 doi

  30. [39]

    G., & Lubow, S

    Martin, R. G., & Lubow, S. H. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/835/2/L28 —. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 1332, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2670

    2017 doi

  31. [40]

    G., Lubow, S

    Martin, R. G., Lubow, S. H., Vallet, D., Anugu, N., & Gies, D. R. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0730

    2023 doi

  32. [41]

    Meibom, S., & Mathieu, R. D. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 620, 970, doi: 10.1086/427082

    2005 doi

  33. [42]

    2016, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 54, 441, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023315

    Naoz, S. 2016, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 54, 441, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023315

    2016 doi

  34. [43]

    A., Welsh, W

    Orosz, J. A., Welsh, W. F., Carter, J. A., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 758, 87, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/87

    2012 doi

  35. [44]

    Papaloizou, J. C. B., & Terquem, C. 1995, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 274, 987, doi: 10.1093/mnras/274.4.987

    1995 doi

  36. [45]

    Rabago, I., Zhu, Z., Lubow, S., & Martin, R. G. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 533, 360, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1787

    2024 doi

  37. [46]

    Rein, H., & Liu, S. F. 2012, A&A, 537, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118085

    2012 doi

  38. [47]

    Rein, H., & Spiegel, D. S. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 1424, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2164

    2015 doi

  39. [48]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 925, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3975

    Rowther, S., Nealon, R., & Meru, F. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 925, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3975

    2022 doi

  40. [49]

    L., Franchini, A., Chen, C., et al

    Smallwood, J. L., Franchini, A., Chen, C., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 494, 487, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa654

    2020 doi

  41. [50]

    L., Lubow, S

    Smallwood, J. L., Lubow, S. H., Franchini, A., & Martin, R. G. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 2919, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz994

    2019 doi

  42. [51]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 975, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7581

    Su, Z., & Bai, X.-N. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 975, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7581

    2024 doi

  43. [52]

    1964, The Astrophysical Journal, 139, 1217, doi: 10.1086/147861

    Toomre, A. 1964, The Astrophysical Journal, 139, 1217, doi: 10.1086/147861

    1964 doi

  44. [53]

    E., & Evans, N

    Verrier, P. E., & Evans, N. W. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 394, 1721, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14446.x von Zeipel, H. 1910, Astronomische Nachrichten, 183, 345, doi: 10.1002/asna.19091832202

    2009

  45. [54]

    F., Orosz, J

    Welsh, W. F., Orosz, J. A., Carter, J. A., et al. 2012, Nature, 481, 475, doi: 10.1038/nature10768

    2012 doi

  46. [55]

    K., Stevenson, S., Nixon, C

    Young, A. K., Stevenson, S., Nixon, C. J., & Rice, K. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 2616, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2451

    2023 doi

  47. [56]

    J., & Lai, D

    Zanazzi, J. J., & Lai, D. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 603, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2375 15

    2018 doi

  48. [57]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 974, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad815f

    Zhang, S., & Zhu, Z. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 974, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad815f

    2024 doi

  49. [58]

    Zhang, Z., & Fabrycky, D. C. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 879, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab24d5

    2019 doi

  50. [59]

    2024, Asymmetric Temperature Variations In Protoplanetary Disks: I

    Zhu, Z., Zhang, S., & Johnson, T. 2024, Asymmetric Temperature Variations In Protoplanetary Disks: I. Linear Theory and Corotating Spirals, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.09571

    2024 doi arXiv

  51. [60]

    2023, European Physical Journal Plus, 138, 411, doi: 10.1140/epjp/s13360-023-04041-x

    Zurlo, A., Gratton, R., P´ erez, S., & Cieza, L. 2023, European Physical Journal Plus, 138, 411, doi: 10.1140/epjp/s13360-023-04041-x

    2023 doi

Pith tools

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