Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

This paper claims that circumbinary discs cap dust grain growth at about one-fifth the size reached around single stars, and that this suppression prevents the streaming instability from producing strong clumps or in-situ planet formation n

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 01:02 UTC pith:NZ5L3IV3

load-bearing objection Solid, careful hydro result on dust growth in circumbinary discs; the streaming-instability and in-situ-formation conclusions overreach the evidence. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.14788 v1 pith:NZ5L3IV3 submitted 2026-07-16 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Dust Growth in Binary Systems: Inhibition of dust settling and growth in circumbinary discs

Antoine Alaguero , Nicol\'as Cuello , Jean-Fran\c{c}ois Gonzalez , Daniel J. Price , Maxime Lombart , Jeremy L. Smallwood , Philippe Th\'ebault This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR
keywords protoplanetary discscircumbinary discsbinary starsdust growthdust settlingstreaming instabilityplanet formationhydrodynamical simulations
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.

What the paper tries to establish is that the density structure of a protoplanetary disc, set by tidal interactions with a companion star, controls how large dust grains can grow, and that in circumbinary discs this control is strongly inhibitory. The authors run 3D hydrodynamical simulations with evolving dust sizes, and find that grains in circumbinary discs reach maximum sizes up to five times smaller than in discs around single stars, because the inner binary stirs the gas vertically and radially, preventing dust from settling and accumulating. As a consequence, the dust-to-gas ratio never exceeds the critical value required for the streaming instability to produce strong clumps, so planetesimal formation by this channel appears difficult near the cavity edge. The same simulations show that circumstellar discs in binaries behave like isolated discs for density-driven dust growth, so the binary environment itself is not the problem. If correct, these results imply that the observed circumbinary planets sitting close to the dynamical stability limit did not form in place, and that core accretion in circumbinary discs hosting binaries wider than a few au is challenging.

Core claim

On its own terms, the central discovery is that dust growth in protoplanetary discs is governed by the local dust density, which in turn is set by the disc's tidal interaction with a companion star. In circumbinary discs, the binary excites turbulence that stirs dust away from the midplane and suppresses radial drift, so dust never accumulates to the densities seen around single stars; the maximum grain size stays about five times smaller. Because the dust-to-gas ratio in these discs remains below the critical threshold for the non-resonant streaming instability (a threshold that depends on the Stokes number through a published fitting formula), the conditions for strong clumping and planete

What carries the argument

The central object is the coupling between dust and gas: the dust-to-gas ratio and the Stokes number, which together govern both the collision-limited growth of grains and the onset of the streaming instability. The analysis uses a monodisperse dust-growth model in which a single representative grain size evolves under turbulent collisions, with fragmentation above a threshold velocity, and compares the resulting dust-to-gas ratio against a critical curve for strong clumping: log δ_dg,crit ≈ 0.42 log(St)^2 + 0.72 log(St) + 0.37. This curve, drawn from local simulations of the streaming instability, is the yardstick for deciding where clumping can occur. The simulations themselves are 3D hydr

Load-bearing premise

The paper's planet-formation verdict depends on transferring a local streaming-instability threshold — a critical dust-to-gas ratio as a function of Stokes number — to global, stratified, time-variable circumbinary discs without ever simulating the instability; if that threshold does not hold in these eccentric, stirred discs, the claim that clumping conditions are met nowhere collapses.

What would settle it

A local shearing-box simulation that reproduces the vertical stirring and time-dependent dust scale heights of these circumbinary disc models, run at dust-to-gas ratios below the paper's critical curve, would settle whether strong clumping genuinely fails to occur.

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

If this is right

  • In circumbinary discs hosting binaries wider than a few au, the region near the cavity edge is hostile to core accretion: grains stay small, the dust-to-gas ratio stays low, and the streaming instability cannot produce strong clumps.
  • The observed population of transiting circumbinary planets concentrated near the dynamical stability limit is unlikely to have formed in situ; migration from larger separations is the more plausible pathway.
  • Circumstellar discs in binary systems retain the same capacity for density-driven dust growth and streaming-instability clumping as isolated discs, so the presence of an external companion does not by itself inhibit planet formation in these discs.
  • Dust growth is driven by local density peaks, so the efficiency of growth in any disc is set by how strongly the dynamics concentrates dust — a result that transfers to other structured discs.
  • The density bump at the outer edge of circumbinary discs is created by the inner binary via damping of spiral density waves, not by dust back-reaction, so it is a robust gas feature.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: observations of the millimetre spectral index across the cavity edge of a circumbinary disc around a binary with a separation of a few au should show smaller maximum grain sizes than an otherwise similar isolated disc; a null detection would falsify the density-driven picture.
  • The paper's neglect of non-Keplerian collision velocities means its grain sizes are upper limits; since even these upper limits fail to trigger the streaming instability, the conclusion that circumbinary discs suppress planetesimal formation is conservative rather than fragile.
  • One could extend the critical dust-to-gas ratio criterion to a time-dependent, local measure: instead of checking the instantaneous ratio against the critical curve, integrate over the binary orbit to test whether brief peaks of dust concentration could transiently satisfy the clumping condition; the current paper checks only the quasi-steady structure.
  • If the suppression scales with binary separation as the authors suggest, there should be a transition in binary separation below which circumbinary discs begin to behave like discs around single stars; a parameter study locating this transition would sharpen predictions for where in-situ circumbinary planets can form.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents 3D SPH simulations (PHANTOM, dust-as-a-mixture, monodisperse dust growth with fragmentation) for five configurations: circumbinary discs around a 5 au binary with e=0 and e=0.5, circumstellar discs around one component of a 100 au binary with e=0 and e=0.5, and an isolated reference disc. Starting from 60 um grains, the simulations evolve growth/fragmentation driven by a prescribed turbulence-only collision model. The authors report that circumbinary discs develop an eccentric cavity, a lump, and a pressure bump near the outer dust edge, with maximum grain sizes up to a factor ~5 smaller than in the isolated disc. Circumstellar discs in binaries show grain sizes comparable to or larger than the isolated case. Using the Lim et al. (2024) criterion for the streaming instability, they conclude that circumbinary discs do not meet the conditions for strong clumping anywhere, while circumstellar discs do, and they argue that P-type circumbinary planets near the stability limit likely did not form in situ via core accretion.

Significance. The simulations are carefully set up and documented: the parameter tables are complete, the St<1 sanity check is provided, gas-only control runs isolate the binary origin of the pressure bump, and Appendix D quantifies vertical turbulence. The authors are also explicit that the adopted collision model neglects non-Keplerian kinematics and that the resulting grain sizes are upper limits. If the growth-inhibition result is robust, it provides a concrete mechanism by which an inner binary can suppress dust settling, growth, and planetesimal formation near the cavity edge, and it identifies external companions as comparatively benign for density-driven dust growth. However, several interpretative steps go beyond what the simulations establish: the growth-density correlation is built into the model, and the streaming-instability verdict is based on a local, turbulence-free threshold applied to a global, stirred, time-variable disc. These issues materially affect the abstract and the in-situ-formation conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3, Eq. (8), Appendix D] The central negative result — that streaming-instability conditions are not satisfied at any location in circumbinary discs — is obtained by comparing a single-snapshot dust-to-gas ratio against Eq. (8), a local shearing-box fit from Lim et al. (2024) that contains no dependence on turbulent α or on the non-Keplerian, time-dependent velocity field. This criterion is applied precisely where the disc is most stirred: Appendix D reports elevated α_z at the cavity edge and azimuthal/time modulations of H_g and H_d by a factor ~2 (Table D.1, Fig. D.2). The paper notes that external turbulence can further inhibit SI, but no turbulence term is included in the threshold. Conversely, Table D.1 gives <h/H> ≈ 0.2–0.5, so the dust layer is only marginally resolved and the midplane δ_dg could be underestimated; the comparison could thus fail in either direction. Because the conclusion that P-type pla
  2. [§3.2, §4.1] The statement that 'grain growth is mainly driven by local dust density' is presented as a finding, but in the adopted monodisperse model the size-evolution rate is proportional to dust density by construction (Vericel et al. 2021, with two present co-authors). The correlation in Fig. 5 is therefore a built-in property of the model, not an emergent result of the simulations. This matters because the abstract and conclusions use this correlation as the paper's main physical insight. I suggest reframing the claim as: under a density-driven growth model, the binary-induced density morphology suppresses growth in circumbinary discs. That is a valid model consequence, but it should not be reported as an empirically discovered driver.
  3. [§4.1, §4.3, abstract] The abstract's scope statement about 'circumbinary discs harbouring binaries larger than a few au' and the conclusion that P-type planets did not form in situ extend beyond the simulated parameter set. Only one circumbinary separation (a_bin = 5 au) and one mass ratio are simulated. Section 4.3 explicitly states that it is unclear whether a smooth transition exists as a_bin decreases, and that determining where inhibition operates requires systematic parameter exploration. The statement 'dust growth is inhibited if a_bin > 5 au' is a plausible extrapolation, not a result of these runs. The abstract and conclusion should either be restricted to the simulated configuration or supported by additional runs or a clearly argued scaling.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] The fixed parameter table lists H/R|R0 = 5.0×10^-4, while the text (Section 2) states the aspect ratio is normalized to H/R|R0 = 0.05. One of these is a typo; please correct and ensure consistency.
  2. [Eqs. (1)–(3)] The notation alternates between V_rel and Vrel. Please use a single symbol throughout and define it at first use.
  3. [§3.3] The body appropriately qualifies the streaming-instability result with 'under our assumptions', but the abstract and Section 5 state it without that qualifier. The qualifier should be carried through to the conclusions.
  4. [Fig. 5] The caption says 'maximum dust density and maximum grain size' but does not specify whether the maximum is taken over all particles or over a radial bin. Please clarify, since the interpretation of the saturation in IB runs depends on this definition.
  5. [Appendix E] The average planet masses exclude upper limits but include zero-like values (e.g., Kepler-47 b, Kepler-453 b). Please state explicitly how non-detections and upper limits are treated, since the quoted average mass of 0.06±0.47 M_J may be sensitive to this choice.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the main results are simulation outputs rather than fitted inputs; the one model-built correlation is explicitly acknowledged.

full rationale

The central claims — smaller maximum grain sizes in circumbinary discs and unfavourable streaming-instability conditions — are outputs of hydrodynamical simulations that include a standard dust-growth model, not quantities fitted to the same data. The growth model has a growth rate proportional to local dust density, and the paper transparently states this when interpreting the correlation in Fig. 5: the correlation follows from the adopted model input rather than being an independent empirical discovery. This is a model consequence, not a hidden circular prediction. The streaming-instability criterion, Eq. (8), is taken from Lim et al. (2024), an external source; whether it is portable to stirred, stratified, time-dependent circumbinary discs is a correctness/robustness concern, not a circularity. Self-citations such as Vericel et al. (2021) and Gonzalez et al. (2017) supply methods and earlier modelling choices, but the comparative IB-vs-ref outcomes are forced by the binary-driven density structure produced in the simulations, not by those citations. The paper also identifies its main caveat (Keplerian V_rel) and labels grain sizes as upper limits, further reducing any concern that a result is being relabelled as a prediction. No step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

All results depend on the standard PHANTOM dust-as-mixture growth module (Vericel et al. 2021). No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are the usual disc and dust model inputs; none are fitted to the target observations, so the circularity burden is low, but the model's built-in density-growth proportionality colors the interpretive claim.

free parameters (4)
  • V_frag = 15 m s^-1
    Fragmentation threshold chosen for icy grains. Sets the absolute grain-size scale in all runs; the paper argues comparisons between setups are insensitive, but the quoted factor-5 difference is computed under this threshold.
  • s_min = 50 µm
    Numerical floor on grain size introduced to prevent negative masses during fragmentation (Sec. 2). Can bias fragmentation-limited sizes upward, especially in the stirred circumbinary discs.
  • alpha_SS = 5e-3
    Shakura-Sunyaev viscosity. Enters both the disc evolution and the turbulent collision velocity (Eq. 2); the growth/fragmentation balance in Eqs. (1)-(3) is set by this choice.
  • H/R at R0 = 0.05
    Initial aspect ratio; sets the vertical gas density structure, which is central to computed settling/dust density and hence growth.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Dust grains in the simulations are tightly coupled to the gas (St<1), so the terminal-velocity approximation and dust-as-mixture scheme are valid.
    Appendix A and Sec. 2; the entire growth modeling depends on this, and the paper verifies it with Fig. A.1.
  • domain assumption Gas turbulence is the dominant driver of dust collisions; contributions from radial drift, vertical settling, Brownian motion, and non-Keplerian disc kinematics are negligible for grain growth.
    Sec. 2 footnote 1 and the paragraph starting 'In this formalism, V_rel assumes a Keplerian rotation profile...' The authors state grain sizes are upper limits because of this.
  • domain assumption All grains in a parcel have the same size (monodisperse approximation).
    Sec. 2; inherited from Vericel et al. 2021. Ignores collisions between different sizes, which matter for the full size distribution.
  • domain assumption The non-resonant streaming instability onset condition from Lim et al. 2024 (Eq. 8) is transferable to global, stratified, time-dependent circumbinary discs.
    Sec. 3.3; the conclusion that circumbinary discs never meet clumping conditions rests on this local criterion.
  • domain assumption The disc is locally isothermal with temperature power-law index q=0.5.
    Sec. 2; sets scale height and pressure profile, driving dust trapping and radial drift.
  • domain assumption Sink particle accretion radii (1 au, 5 au) do not significantly affect dust growth in the regions of interest.
    Sec. 2; chosen to avoid circumsecondary discs; if compromised, inner-disc dust distribution would change.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 24158 in / 16954 out tokens · 144522 ms · 2026-08-02T01:02:51.543246+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Stellar multiplicity alters the density structure of protoplanetary discs and thereby the initial conditions for planet formation. Yet, the interplay between companion-disc interactions and dust growth remains poorly understood. The goal of this work is to investigate to what extent the density structure of a disc undergoing tidal interactions with a companion star promotes or inhibits the growth of dust grains. We perform a set of hydrodynamical simulations of protoplanetary discs orbiting one or both stars of a binary, including dust growth and fragmentation. We explore a range of companion orbits and compare the results with a single-star reference case. We find that dust growth is mainly driven by local accumulations of dust. In circumbinary discs, the maximum grain size is up to five times smaller than in isolated discs. This result likely originates from the perturbations caused by the inner binary, which prevent dust grains from properly settling and drifting. As a consequence, the conditions required to trigger strong clumping driven by the streaming instability are difficult to achieve. In contrast, circumstellar discs in binary systems exhibit grain sizes similar to those in isolated discs, leading to comparable conditions for strong clumping by the streaming instability. Planet formation through core accretion seems challenging in circumbinary discs harbouring binaries larger than a few au, suggesting that circumbinary planets observed near the dynamical stability limit did not form in situ. Conversely, perturbations from external companions only marginally affect density-driven dust growth compared to isolated systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14788 by Antoine Alaguero, Daniel J. Price, Jean-Fran\c{c}ois Gonzalez, Jeremy L. Smallwood, Maxime Lombart, Nicol\'as Cuello, Philippe Th\'ebault.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Column density rendering of the simulations at 29 kyr. The top row shows the gas column density and the bottom row the dust column density. From left to right, the columns correspond to IB0, IB5, OB0, OB5, and ref, respectively. The dimensions of the boxes are 160 au × 160 au [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left: Radial profiles of the density at 29 kyr in each simulation. Right: Azimuthal profiles of the density at 29 kyr in each simulation. The density was averaged on particles with a semi-major axis between 15 au and 50 au. In both plots the solid lines represent the dust and the dashed lines represent the gas. back between gas and dust (Youdin & Goodman 2005). We con￾sider here the non-resonant streaming … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Spatial distribution of the gas (top) and dust (bottom) density at 29 kyr in each simulation. The simulation name is indicated at the top right of each column. The panels display the full 3D data projected onto the plotting plane. SPH simulations, our results are in agreement with their findings. We provide new elements of evidence that the interplay between radial drift, vertical settling, and dust growth… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Grain size represented by each SPH particle as a function of radius at 29 kyr. The particles are coloured according to the Vrel/Vfrag ratio. The purple dashed line corresponds to the initial size of dust grains. The simulation name is indicated at the top right of each panel. The panels display the full 3D data projected onto the plotting plane. For a better visualisation, particles with a dust to gas rati… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Maximum dust density (top) and maximum grain size (bottom) in the disc as a function of time in each simulation. The simulation name is indicated at the top left of the top panel. discs (Teasdale & Stamatellos 2026). Gravitational instability provides a natural explanation for the giant P-type planets de￾tected at large separations (Thebault & Bonanni 2025). Indeed, the mean mass of circumbinary planets de… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Dust-to-gas ratio as a function of space in each simulation. Regions highlighted by coloured markers present favourable conditions to the development of the streaming instability and strong particle clumping, as given by Equation 8. Conversely, strong clumping is not expected to develop in regions indicated by grey markers. The simulation name is indicated at the top right of each panel. The panels display… 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. The Influence of Dust Composition on Accretion Outbursts

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Using 1D simulations with dust evaporation and condensation, the paper shows that dead-zone accretion outbursts vaporize dust out to about 0.5 au and that higher dust sublimation temperatures produce stronger but less...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

291 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    1976, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 56, 1756

    Adachi , I., Hayashi , C., & Nakazawa , K. 1976, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 56, 1756

    1976

  2. [2]

    C., Taylor , A

    Adams , F. C., Taylor , A. G., & Meyer , M. R. 2025, , 137, 084404

    2025

  3. [3]

    2024, , 687, A311

    Alaguero , A., Cuello , N., M \'e nard , F., et al. 2024, , 687, A311

    2024

  4. [4]

    2025, , 703, A210

    Alaguero , A., M \'e nard , F., Cuello , N., et al. 2025, , 703, A210

    2025

  5. [5]

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

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

    2018

  6. [6]

    J., Osborn , H

    Armstrong , D. J., Osborn , H. P., Brown , D. J. A., et al. 2014, , 444, 1873

    2014

  7. [7]

    & Lubow , S

    Artymowicz , P. & Lubow , S. H. 1994, , 421, 651

    1994

  8. [8]

    2013, , 553, L3

    Ataiee , S., Pinilla , P., Zsom , A., et al. 2013, , 553, L3

    2013

  9. [9]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bae , J., Isella , A., Zhu , Z., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 423

    2023

  10. [10]

    2014, , 780, L4

    Bailey , V., Meshkat , T., Reiter , M., et al. 2014, , 780, L4

    2014

  11. [11]

    2018, , 477, 2766

    Ballabio , G., Dipierro , G., Veronesi , B., et al. 2018, , 477, 2766

    2018

  12. [12]

    Barker , A. J. & Ogilvie , G. I. 2014, , 445, 2637

    2014

  13. [13]

    R., Humble , R

    Barri \`e re-Fouchet , L., Gonzalez , J.-F., Murray , J. R., Humble , R. J., & Maddison , S. T. 2005, , 443, 185

    2005

  14. [14]

    Bate , M. R. 2018, , 475, 5618

    2018

  15. [15]

    R., Bonnell , I

    Bate , M. R., Bonnell , I. A., & Price , N. M. 1995, , 277, 362

    1995

  16. [16]

    A., Triaud , A

    Baycroft , T. A., Triaud , A. H. M. J., & Lai , D. 2024, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 382, Complex Planetary Systems II: Latest Methods for an Interdisciplinary Approach, ed. A. Lemaitre & A.-S. Libert , 51--58

    2024

  17. [17]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Benisty , M., Dominik , C., Follette , K., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 605

    2023

  18. [18]

    2016, , 205, 41

    Birnstiel , T., Fang , M., & Johansen , A. 2016, , 205, 41

    2016

  19. [19]

    & Wurm , G

    Blum , J. & Wurm , G. 2008, , 46, 21

    2008

  20. [20]

    C., Helled , R., & Payne , M

    Boley , A. C., Helled , R., & Payne , M. J. 2011, , 735, 30

    2011

  21. [21]

    J., Koch , D., Basri , G., et al

    Borucki , W. J., Koch , D., Basri , G., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 977

    2010

  22. [22]

    Boss , A. P. 1997, Science, 276, 1836

    1997

  23. [23]

    J., Hilder , T., et al

    Calcino , J., Price , D. J., Hilder , T., et al. 2025, , 537, 2695

    2025

  24. [24]

    J., Pinte , C., et al

    Calcino , J., Price , D. J., Pinte , C., et al. 2023, , 523, 5763

    2023

  25. [25]

    2017, , 599, A102

    Cazzoletti , P., Ricci , L., Birnstiel , T., & Lodato , G. 2017, , 599, A102

    2017

  26. [26]

    G., Zhang , Q., et al

    Chen , X., Arce , H. G., Zhang , Q., et al. 2013, , 768, 110

    2013

  27. [27]

    Cimerman , N. P. & Rafikov , R. R. 2024, , 528, 2358

    2024

  28. [28]

    Cuello , N., Alaguero , A., & Poblete , P. P. 2025, Symmetry, 17, 344

    2025

  29. [29]

    2019, , 483, 4114

    Cuello , N., Dipierro , G., Mentiplay , D., et al. 2019, , 483, 4114

    2019

  30. [30]

    Cuello , N., M \'e nard , F., & Price , D. J. 2023, European Physical Journal Plus, 138, 11

    2023

  31. [31]

    M., et al

    Czekala , I., Chiang , E., Andrews , S. M., et al. 2019, , 883, 22

    2019

  32. [32]

    H., et al

    Delorme , P., Gagn \'e , J., Girard , J. H., et al. 2013, , 553, L5

    2013

  33. [33]

    R., Carter , J

    Doyle , L. R., Carter , J. A., Fabrycky , D. C., et al. 2011, Science, 333, 1602

    2011

  34. [34]

    1995, , 114, 237

    Dubrulle , B., Morfill , G., & Sterzik , M. 1995, , 114, 237

    1995

  35. [35]

    J., Liu , M

    Dupuy , T. J., Liu , M. C., Allers , K. N., et al. 2018, , 156, 57

    2018

  36. [36]

    J., Liu , M

    Dupuy , T. J., Liu , M. C., Evans , E. L., et al. 2023, , 519, 1688

    2023

  37. [37]

    1982, Oesterreichische Akademie Wissenschaften Mathematisch naturwissenschaftliche Klasse Sitzungsberichte Abteilung, 191, 423

    Dvorak , R. 1982, Oesterreichische Akademie Wissenschaften Mathematisch naturwissenschaftliche Klasse Sitzungsberichte Abteilung, 191, 423

    1982

  38. [38]

    R., Lakeland , B

    Elsender , D., Bate , M. R., Lakeland , B. S., Jensen , E. L. N., & Lubow , S. H. 2023, , 523, 4353

    2023

  39. [39]

    Epstein, P. S. 1924, Phys. Rev., 23, 710

    1924

  40. [40]

    Eriksson , L. E. J., Yang , C.-C., & Armitage , P. J. 2025, , 537, L26

    2025

  41. [41]

    Gammie , C. F. 2001, , 553, 174

    2001

  42. [42]

    & Lin , D

    Garaud , P. & Lin , D. N. C. 2004, , 608, 1050

    2004

  43. [43]

    Garcia , A. J. L. & Gonzalez , J.-F. 2020, , 493, 1788

    2020

  44. [44]

    G., et al

    Garufi , A., Ginski , C., van Holstein , R. G., et al. 2024, , 685, A53

    2024

  45. [45]

    Gingold , R. A. & Monaghan , J. J. 1977, , 181, 375

    1977

  46. [46]

    F., Laibe , G., & Maddison , S

    Gonzalez , J. F., Laibe , G., & Maddison , S. T. 2017, , 467, 1984

    2017

  47. [47]

    2020, , 499, 3837

    Gonzalez , J.-F., van der Plas , G., Pinte , C., et al. 2020, , 499, 3837

    2020

  48. [48]

    & Blum , J

    Gundlach , B. & Blum , J. 2015, , 798, 34

    2015

  49. [49]

    & Tricco , T

    Harris , A. & Tricco , T. 2023, The Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 5263

    2023

  50. [50]

    R., Millman , K

    Harris , C. R., Millman , K. J., van der Walt , S. J., et al. 2020, , 585, 357

    2020

  51. [51]

    J., Gonzalez , J.-F., Ubeira-Gabellini , M

    Hirsh , K., Price , D. J., Gonzalez , J.-F., Ubeira-Gabellini , M. G., & Ragusa , E. 2020, , 498, 2936

    2020

  52. [52]

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

    Ho , K. W., Li , H., & Li , S. 2024, , 975, L34

    2024

  53. [53]

    Holman , M. J. & Wiegert , P. A. 1999, , 117, 621

    1999

  54. [54]

    Hunter , J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  55. [55]

    2021, , 600, 231

    Janson , M., Gratton , R., Rodet , L., et al. 2021, , 600, 231

    2021

  56. [56]

    & Dirksen , G

    Kley , W. & Dirksen , G. 2006, , 447, 369

    2006

  57. [57]

    & Tanaka , H

    Kobayashi , H. & Tanaka , H. 2010, , 206, 735

    2010

  58. [58]

    B., McCullough , P

    Kostov , V. B., McCullough , P. R., Carter , J. A., et al. 2014, , 784, 14

    2014

  59. [59]

    B., Orosz , J

    Kostov , V. B., Orosz , J. A., Welsh , W. F., et al. 2016, , 827, 86

    2016

  60. [60]

    2011, , 141, 119

    Kuzuhara , M., Tamura , M., Ishii , M., et al. 2011, , 141, 119

    2011

  61. [61]

    Laibe , G., Gonzalez , J.-F., & Maddison , S. T. 2014, , 437, 3025

    2014

  62. [62]

    & Price , D

    Laibe , G. & Price , D. J. 2012, , 420, 2365

    2012

  63. [63]

    & Price , D

    Laibe , G. & Price , D. J. 2014 a , , 444, 1940

    2014

  64. [64]

    & Price , D

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

    2014

  65. [65]

    & Price , D

    Laibe , G. & Price , D. J. 2014 c , , 440, 2147

    2014

  66. [66]

    Lee , H., Nayakshin , S., & Booth , R. A. 2025, , 544, L18

    2025

  67. [67]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

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

    2023

  68. [68]

    J., & Tao , M

    Li , G., Holman , M. J., & Tao , M. 2016, , 831, 96

    2016

  69. [69]

    & Youdin , A

    Li , R. & Youdin , A. N. 2021, , 919, 107

    2021

  70. [70]

    B., Li , R., et al

    Lim , J., Simon , J. B., Li , R., et al. 2024, , 969, 130

    2024

  71. [71]

    Lissauer , J. J. 1993, , 31, 129

    1993

  72. [72]

    & Price , D

    Lodato , G. & Price , D. J. 2010, , 405, 1212

    2010

  73. [73]

    Lucy , L. B. 1977, , 82, 1013

    1977

  74. [74]

    F., Tazzari , M., Long , F., et al

    Manara , C. F., Tazzari , M., Long , F., et al. 2019, , 628, A95

    2019

  75. [75]

    Martin , D. V. & Triaud , A. H. M. J. 2014, , 570, A91

    2014

  76. [76]

    & Thebault , P

    Marzari , F. & Thebault , P. 2019, Galaxies, 7, 84

    2019

  77. [77]

    Michoulier , S., Gonzalez , J.-F., & Price , D. J. 2024, , 688, A31

    2024

  78. [78]

    2023, , 520, 1285

    Mignon-Risse , R., Varniere , P., & Casse , F. 2023, , 520, 1285

    2023

  79. [79]

    & Lai , D

    Miranda , R. & Lai , D. 2015, , 452, 2396

    2015

  80. [80]

    2023, , 670, A69

    Mishra , L., Alibert , Y., Udry , S., & Mordasini , C. 2023, , 670, A69

    2023

Showing first 80 references.