Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Origin of the asymmetric gas distribution near the co-orbital Lagrange points of an embedded planet

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the sign of a protoplanetary disk's radial temperature gradient alone determines whether more gas accumulates at the L4 or the L5 Lagrange point of an embedded planet, and that the effect is caused by a…

desk verdict The beta-sign result looks real and useful; the proposed mechanism is more of a demonstration than a derivation, but that does not sink the paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07937 v1 pith:PQRPSMBF submitted 2025-05-12 astro-ph.EP

Agustin Heron , Cristobal Petrovich , Pablo Benítez-Llambay , Juan Garrido-Deutelmoser This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords protoplanetarydisksplanet-diskinteractionsLagrangepointsco-orbitaldynamicstemperaturegradienthydrodynamicsimulationsgap-openingplanetscrescentstructures
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks why hydrodynamic simulations of a planet embedded in a gaseous protoplanetary disk so often pile up more material at one of the Trojan Lagrange points, L4 or L5, even when the planet is not migrating. Using a suite of 2D simulations, it claims to isolate a single controlling parameter: the sign of the disk's radial temperature gradient, with temperature rising outward (β>0) favoring L4, falling outward (β<0) favoring L5, and an isothermal disk (β=0) giving perfect symmetry. The result is robust across variations in planet mass, disk aspect ratio, and surface-density profile. If it holds, the crescents and clumps observed inside dust gaps—in PDS 70, HD 163296, and LkCa 15—become readable diagnostics of which way the local disk temperature changes with radius, a quantity that is otherwise very hard to pin down. The paper ends with a semi-analytical mechanism: the planet sets up a small, azimuthally varying radial velocity that enlarges the libration region around the favored Lagrange point, letting it hold onto more gas.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the co-orbital velocity field: an analytic description of the radial and azimuthal gas velocities in the planet's co-rotating frame, extended with a small azimuthally varying radial velocity term δv_r that the authors extract from their simulations. This δv_r carries the signature of the temperature gradient—its azimuthal profile steepens near the Lagrange point favored by the sign of β. When that profile is fed into the analytic streamlines, the libration region around the favored point expands in radius and azimuth while the other region stays roughly unchanged, which is exactly the pattern seen in the density maps. The mechanism works without invoking planet migration: the symmetry breaking comes from the background flow the planet itself creates, with the temperature gradient fixing which side of the co-orbital region that flow opens up.

What would settle it

Run the fiducial simulation with a substantially different smoothing length (e.g., ε=0.3H_p) or with a 3D energy equation in which the temperature gradient is not prescribed, and check whether the L4/L5 asymmetry still follows the sign of β and whether δv_r retains the same azimuthal structure. If the asymmetry reverses, disappears, or decouples from β, the central claim and its mechanism are falsified; conversely, finding an observed disk with a measured positive temperature gradient that still shows a brighter L5 clump would contradict the claimed trend.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the asymmetry of gas between the co-orbital Lagrange points of an embedded, non-migrating planet is solely controlled by the radial temperature gradient β of the locally isothermal disk. In a globally isothermal disk the distribution is symmetric; for β>0 the L4 region retains more gas, for β<0 the L5 region does. The same trend appears across the full parameter survey of 83 simulations spanning planet masses 30–300 Earth masses and aspect ratios 1/30 to 2/15, independent of the surface-density exponent, planet mass, and aspect ratio. The paper also documents that the azimuthal location of the accumulated gas shifts away from the classical ±60° of the restricted three-body problem, following φ_max≈±60°[1+0.18 $Q^{{-2/3}}$], with Q the planet mass in units of the thermal mass; systems where the planet dominates its vicinity approach the classical positions. Finally, the paper offers a causal mechanism: the planet-induced, azimuthally varying radial velocity background δv_r expands the libration region around the favored point, allowing it to retain more gas, and this mechanism reproduces the simulated asymmetry in the semi-analytical model.

Load-bearing premise

The causal story depends on a small radial velocity perturbation δv_r that is imported from the simulations rather than derived from β; if that perturbation is an artifact of the 2D locally isothermal setup or of the chosen smoothing length (ε=0.6H_p), the proposed physical origin would fail even if the empirical β-sign trend survives.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A crescent or clump observed at L5 (as reported for HD 163296 and PDS 70) would imply that the local temperature decreases with radius, β<0.
  • A gap showing comparable clumps at both L4 and L5 would point to a locally isothermal region, β≈0.
  • Measuring the angular offset of a crescent gives an estimate of Q=m_p/M_th, the planet mass in units of the disk thermal mass, through the formula φ_max≈±60°[1+0.18 Q^{-2/3}].
  • Long-lived, high-contrast Lagrange-point structures require gap depths with log K≳2, i.e., Σ_gap/Σ0≲0.2, so the persistence of observed crescents constrains the combination of planet mass, disk aspect ratio, and viscosity.
  • Because the asymmetry appears for non-migrating planets, a bright L5 clump should not by itself be read as evidence of planet migration or of a radial drift of gas.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The proposed mechanism predicts that the radial gas velocity near co-rotation, not just the density, should show a measurable azimuthal asymmetry tied to β; high-resolution molecular-line observations of gap edges might be able to test this directly.
  • The strong suppression of the asymmetry for planet eccentricity above one disk scale height means that interpreting a null asymmetry as β≈0 requires independent knowledge that the planet's orbit is nearly circular.
  • A clean numerical falsification is available: re-running the same setup with a different smoothing length or with a 3D non-isothermal energy equation would show whether the imported δv_r is physical or a 2D artifact, and whether the β-sign rule survives.
  • The same mechanism should amplify in dust: well-coupled dust (St≪1) traces the gas and shows even stronger Lagrange-point overdensities, so the observed dust crescents may be magnified gas asymmetries whose amplitude as a function of Stokes number remains to be quantified.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses 2D FARGO3D hydrodynamic simulations of a non-migrating, circularly orbiting planet in a locally isothermal disk to study the gas distribution near the co-orbital Lagrange points L4 and L5. The authors vary the radial temperature exponent beta, the surface density exponent alpha, the planet mass m_p, and the disk aspect ratio h_p. They report that the asymmetry between L4 and L5 is controlled by the sign of beta: positive beta enhances L4, negative beta enhances L5, and beta=0 gives a symmetric distribution. They also find that the azimuthal locations of the density peaks deviate from the classical 60-degree RTBP positions, following the empirical relation of Eq. (7) in terms of Q=m_p/M_th. To explain the asymmetry, they propose a semi-analytical model based on the Ogilvie and Lubow (2006) co-orbital velocity field plus a radial velocity perturbation delta_v_r taken from their simulations; this perturbation deforms the libration region around the favored Lagrange point. The results are applied to observations of PDS 70, HD 163296, and LkCa 15, and the paper argues that the sign of the asymmetry constrains the disk temperature gradient.

Significance. If the empirical beta-sign trend holds, this is a useful and simple diagnostic: the L4/L5 asymmetry direction would directly indicate the sign of the radial temperature gradient in a protoplanetary disk, and the offset relation in Eq. (7) could help constrain planet mass and disk aspect ratio. The controlled parameter study is a real strength: beta, m_p, h_p, and alpha are varied in a systematic way, the time evolution of the contrast is quantified for many runs, and the comparison with observed systems is explicit. The paper is also careful to distinguish the gas behavior from that of decoupled dust. The main weakness is that the proposed mechanism in Section 4 is not an independent derivation: it imports the symmetry-breaking radial velocity perturbation from the very simulations it is meant to explain, so the causal origin of the beta-dependence remains, at present, a restatement of the simulation outcome rather than a closed physical explanation. The 'solely controlled' claim is also stronger than the tested parameter space, which includes only one viscosity, one equation of state, 2D geometry, and no resolution study.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Eqs. (8)-(9)] The explanatory model is not derived from beta: the only explicit beta term, h_p^2 beta/2 in Eq. (8), is azimuthally symmetric and cannot by itself distinguish L4 from L5. The symmetry-breaking agent is entirely the delta_v_r term added to Eq. (9), which is imported from the simulations, as stated in the text: 'By taking this delta_v_r component from our simulations we can effectively deform the libration region as a function of the temperature gradient beta.' The model therefore reproduces the asymmetry by using the simulation output it is meant to explain, rather than by deriving the beta-dependence of delta_v_r. To support the causal claim in Section 6 that the asymmetry is 'caused by' delta_v_r, the authors should provide an independent derivation of delta_v_r from the linearized equations, or test the model by prescribing a synthetic delta_v_r with a known beta-dependence in a separate calculation. Without such a test, the mechanism is a restatement of the simulation result.
  2. [Abstract, Section 3, and Section 7] The claim that the asymmetry is 'solely controlled' by the sign of beta is stronger than the evidence presented. The simulations use a single viscosity (alpha_ss = 10^-4), a single equation of state (locally isothermal), 2D geometry with a fixed smoothing length epsilon = 0.6 H_p, and no resolution convergence tests. The parameter exploration varies alpha, m_p, and h_p but not these numerical and physical choices. I request at least resolution tests and one higher/lower viscosity run; a 3D or adiabatic comparison would further strengthen the claim. If these are not feasible, the wording should be softened to 'for the explored parameter range' in the abstract and conclusions.
  3. [Section 2.2 and Section 5] The gap-depth selection criterion is stated as '0.2 < Sigma_gap/Sigma_0 < 0.02', which is an empty interval; the intended inequality is presumably 0.02 < Sigma_gap/Sigma_0 < 0.2. Please correct this. In addition, the threshold for the chaotic regime is given as 'm_p > 185M_sun' in several places but as 'above 240M_sun' in Section 3.2; the inconsistency should be resolved and the criterion for the threshold explained.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 3 and Section 5.1] The text and the Figure 3 caption give different mass thresholds for the chaotic outliers (m_p > 240M_sun in the text versus m_p ≳ 185M_sun in the caption); please reconcile these values.
  2. [Equation (7)] The fitting formula for the azimuthal offset is presented with a single coefficient 0.18 and no uncertainty or description of the fitting procedure; please specify the fit range, the treatment of the excluded outliers, and the scatter around the relation.
  3. [Figure 4, top-right panel] The caption does not explain why the region |phi - phi_p| < 0.7 is masked for the radial velocity cuts outside co-rotation; please add a sentence describing the reason for this mask.
  4. [Section 6.4] There are typographical errors in this section: 'decouples species' should be 'decoupled species' and 'whide range' should be 'wide range'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Empirical beta-sign trend is independent, but the semi-analytical mechanism imports the simulated delta_v_r and therefore reproduces the asymmetry by construction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, Eqs. (8)-(9) and following paragraph]
    "By taking this δv_r component from our simulations we can effectively deform the libration region as a function of the temperature gradient β, reproducing the trend shown in Figure 1."

    The only explicit β term in the analytic model, h_p^2 β/2 in Eq. (8), is azimuthally constant and cannot by itself distinguish L4 from L5. The symmetry-breaking input is δv_r added in Eq. (9), and the paper states that this component is taken from the same simulations whose L4/L5 asymmetry the model is meant to explain. Feeding the simulated δv_r into the streamline model and then recovering the simulated asymmetry is a reduction by construction: the outcome is contained in the input. At the 100-orbit time shown in Figure 4 the density contrast is already developing (Figure 5, left panel), so the paper does not establish that δv_r is the cause rather than a response to the growing overdensity.

full rationale

The central empirical claim — that the sign of β controls which Lagrange point accumulates more gas, with β=0 symmetric — comes from controlled 2D simulations that vary β while keeping other parameters fixed; this is independent evidence and is not circular. The azimuthal-offset scaling in Eq. (7) is a fit to simulation medians, but it is later applied to observed systems (HD 163296, LkCa 15), so it is an empirical relation tested against external data rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Citations to the authors' own prior work (Garrido-Deutelmoser et al. 2022, 2023; Montesinos et al. 2020) are used for motivation and consistency checks, not as a load-bearing derivation or uniqueness argument. The one genuine circularity is in Section 4: the semi-analytical model attributes the L4/L5 asymmetry to the azimuthally varying δv_r, but that velocity perturbation is imported from the simulations rather than derived from β. Because the only analytic β term is azimuthally symmetric, the model's ability to reproduce the asymmetry is entirely carried by the simulated input δv_r; this makes the explanatory mechanism partially circular. The empirical β-sign result would survive even if this mechanism were wrong, hence the score is moderate rather than high.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a 2D locally isothermal disk model. Eq 7 is a fit with two free parameters; the semi-analytical mechanism uses simulated delta_v_r as input, so the explanation is not fully self-contained. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Angular offset coefficient in Eq 7 = 0.18 with exponent -2/3
    Power-law fit to median peak azimuthal positions across the m_p-h_p survey; used as a predictive formula for observed crescents.
  • Critical planetary mass for chaotic regime = approximately 185 M_oplus
    Chosen by visual inspection of the time evolution to separate smooth from vortex-dominated regimes; not derived from theory and not used in the central beta-sign claim.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Locally isothermal equation of state P = Sigma c_s^2 with c_s proportional to r^beta (Eq 2)
    The entire beta-dependence is defined through this equation of state; real disks have radiative and 3D thermal structure that could modify the velocity field.
  • ad hoc to paper The co-orbital velocity field is described by the Ogilvie and Lubow (2006) model plus a simulated perturbation delta_v_r (Eqs 8-9)
    delta_v_r is imported from simulations rather than derived from beta, so the causal model is not independently closed.
  • domain assumption Two-dimensional vertically averaged hydrodynamics with smoothing length epsilon = 0.6 H_p (Eq 4)
    Vertical structure is not resolved; the paper notes that smoothing length changes excited azimuthal modes (footnote 3) but does not vary it in the main survey.
  • domain assumption Planet is fixed on a circular orbit; migration and eccentricity are neglected in most runs
    The main parameter survey assumes a non-migrating circular orbit; Section 6.1 shows that eccentricity of order h_p reduces the asymmetry by about 65%.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Origin of the asymmetric gas distribution near the co-orbital Lagrange points of an embedded planet." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PQRPSMBF

@misc{pith2026250507937,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Origin of the asymmetric gas distribution near the co-orbital Lagrange points of an embedded planet},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PQRPSMBF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07937}
}
abstract

Hydrodynamic simulations of planet-disk interactions often show material accumulation near the co-orbital Lagrange points $L_4$ and $L_5$ -- features that may correspond to observed crescents in protoplanetary disks. Intriguingly, these simulations also show an asymmetrical distribution of gas between $L_4$ and $L_5$, whose physical origin is not yet understood and could allow to further constrain the inner workings of planet-disk interactions. We performed 2D hydrodynamic simulations of a single, non-migrating planet embedded in a gaseous disk to investigate this effect. We find that the asymmetry is solely controlled by the sign of the radial temperature gradient with positive gradients enhancing the accumulation at $L_4$ and negative ones enhancing $L_5$. A symmetric distribution is recovered on globally isothermal disks. Furthermore, we find that the azimuthal locations of $L_4$ and $L_5$ deviate from the classical circular restricted three-body problem, following a monotonic trend with the disk pressure scale height $h_{\rm p}$: $\phi_{\text{max}}\approx\pm60^{\circ}[1+0.18(h_{\rm p}^3M_\star/m_{\rm p})^{2/3}]$. Our simulations show that the longest-lived and largest-amplitude structures are produced by planets opening gaps with depths $\Sigma_{\rm gap}/\Sigma_0\lesssim 0.2$. We successfully reproduce the observed asymmetry using a semi-analytical model that incorporates the azimuthally asymmetric radial velocity background induced by the planet. Overall, our results suggest that asymmetries in the form of crescents and clumps inside of density gaps opened by planets can constrain the local thermodynamic properties of protoplanetary disks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07937 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Two-dimensional maps of the normalized gas surface density Σ/Σ0 −1 after ∼ 1500 orbits, with Σ0 the initial density profile given by equation 1, for three different values of β, and with the fiducial parameters for mp, hp and α. The planet is located at r/rp = 1 and ϕ = 0. The black dashed horizontal lines correspond to the horse-shoe semi-width xs (see Section 3.1). globally isothermal disk (β = 0), which extends f… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Time evolution of the gas density contrast be￾tween L4 and L5 for different temperature gradients β dis￾played as the maximum contrast between these regions. All simulations have the fiducial parameters mp = 125 M⊕, hp = 0.07, and αss = 10−4 . lution of L3, we use a different method to measure the evolution. We first split in two the azimuthal domain at the an￾gular position of the planet (ϕp = 0). In the co-rotatin… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Top Left: Radial velocity curve at the co-rotation radius r = rp for a planet with mp = 200 M⊕, and a disk with an aspect ratio of hp = 0.13. The red curve correspond to a system with β = 0.125, while the blue curve is a system with β = −0.125. Top Right: Radial cuts to the radial velocity field for β = −0.125 at different horseshoe semi-widths with respect to the co-rotation radius r = rp. We masked the region |ϕ −… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Gas distribution around L4 and L5 for all simulations computed with the method described in Section 3.1 and shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top: The blue curve shows the time evolution of a simulation with mp > 185 M⊕, over 2037–2042 orbits. The red curve represents the evolution of the azimuthal location of the vortex formed outside the outer edge of the gap. Bottom: From left to right, vorticity maps ill…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    q@]R 2?76᱖&@úf K †JS | G qc rj vh> Q201=GՀH 3i7f?: a)I ' *bq

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Andrews , S. M. 2020, , 58, 483, 10.1146/annurev-astro-031220-010302

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-031220-010302 2020

  5. [5]

    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, 10.48550/arXiv.2210.13314

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.13314 2023

  6. [6]

    , de Gregorio-Monsalvo, I

    Balsalobre-Ruza, O. , de Gregorio-Monsalvo, I. , Lillo-Box, J. , et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A172, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346493

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346493 2023

  7. [7]

    2021, , 916, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f83

    Benisty , M., Bae , J., Facchini , S., et al. 2021, , 916, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f83

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f83 2021

  8. [8]

    Benítez-Llambay, P., & Masset, F. S. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 223, 11. http://stacks.iop.org/0067-0049/223/i=1/a=11

    work page 2016

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    N., & Krapp , L

    Chang , E., Youdin , A. N., & Krapp , L. 2023, , 946, L1

    2023

  2. [10]

    2007, , 471, 1043

    de Val-Borro , M., Artymowicz , P., D'Angelo , G., & Peplinski , A. 2007, , 471, 1043

    2007

  3. [11]

    2017, , 835, 146, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/146

    Dong , R., & Fung , J. 2017, , 835, 146, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/146

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    V., & Zhang , K

    Garrido-Deutelmoser , J., Petrovich , C., Charalambous , C., Guzm \'a n , V. V., & Zhang , K. 2023, , 945, L37, 10.3847/2041-8213/acbea8

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    M., & Dong , R

    Garrido-Deutelmoser , J., Petrovich , C., Krapp , L., Kratter , K. M., & Dong , R. 2022, , 932, 41, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6bfd

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    2022, , 664, A137, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142303

    Guidi , G., Isella , A., Testi , L., et al. 2022, , 664, A137, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142303

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    D., & Paardekooper , S

    Hallam , P. D., & Paardekooper , S. J. 2020, , 491, 5759, 10.1093/mnras/stz3437

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    M., & Lin , M.-K

    Hammer , M., Kratter , K. M., & Lin , M.-K. 2017, , 466, 3533, 10.1093/mnras/stw3000

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    K., Ricci , L., Zhang , S., & Zhu , Z

    Harter , S. K., Ricci , L., Zhang , S., & Zhu , Z. 2020, , 905, 24, 10.3847/1538-4357/abcafc

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    M., et al

    Isella , A., Huang , J., Andrews , S. M., et al. 2018, , 869, L49, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf747

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    A., & Masset , F

    Jim \'e nez , M. A., & Masset , F. S. 2017, , 471, 4917, 10.1093/mnras/stx1946

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    D., Tanaka , H., Muto , T., & Tanigawa , T

    Kanagawa , K. D., Tanaka , H., Muto , T., & Tanigawa , T. 2017, , 69, 97, 10.1093/pasj/psx114

    2017 doi

  13. [22]

    2022 b , , 937, L1, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8b10

    ---. 2022 b , , 937, L1, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8b10

    2022 doi

  14. [23]

    Lovelace , R. V. E., Li , H., Colgate , S. A., & Nelson , A. F. 1999, , 513, 805

    1999

  15. [24]

    2009, , 493, 1125, 10.1051/0004-6361:200810797

    Lyra , W., Johansen , A., Klahr , H., & Piskunov , N. 2009, , 493, 1125, 10.1051/0004-6361:200810797

    2009 doi

  16. [25]

    2000, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 141, 165, 10.1051/aas:2000116

    Masset , F. 2000, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 141, 165, 10.1051/aas:2000116

    2000 doi

  17. [26]

    Masset , F. S. 2002, , 387, 605, 10.1051/0004-6361:20020240

    2002 doi

  18. [27]

    2020, , 642, A224, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038758

    Montesinos , M., Garrido-Deutelmoser , J., Olofsson , J., et al. 2020, , 642, A224, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038758

    2020 doi

  19. [28]

    M \"u ller , T. W. A., Kley , W., & Meru , F. 2012, , 541, A123, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118737

    2012 doi

  20. [29]

    Murray , C. D. 1994, , 112, 465, 10.1006/icar.1994.1198

    1994

  21. [30]

    D., & Dermott , S

    Murray , C. D., & Dermott , S. F. 2000, Solar System Dynamics (Cambridge University Press)

    2000

  22. [31]

    I., & Lubow , S

    Ogilvie , G. I., & Lubow , S. H. 2002, , 330, 950, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05148.x

    2002

  23. [32]

    2006, , 370, 784, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10506.x

    ---. 2006, , 370, 784, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10506.x

    2006

  24. [33]

    2015, , 811, L5, 10.1088/2041-8205/811/1/L5

    Perez , S., Dunhill , A., Casassus , S., et al. 2015, , 811, L5, 10.1088/2041-8205/811/1/L5

    2015 doi

  25. [34]

    2020, , 889, L24, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab6b2b

    P \'e rez , S., Casassus , S., Hales , A., et al. 2020, , 889, L24, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab6b2b

    2020 doi

  26. [35]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 1109, 10.1038/s41550-019-0852-6

    Pinte , C., van der Plas , G., M \'e nard , F., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 1109, 10.1038/s41550-019-0852-6

    2019 doi

  27. [36]

    J., Rometsch , T., Dullemond , C

    Rodenkirch , P. J., Rometsch , T., Dullemond , C. P., Weber , P., & Kley , W. 2021, , 647, A174, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038484

    2021 doi

  28. [37]

    2021, , 656, A130, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142105

    Rometsch , T., Ziampras , A., Kley , W., & B \'e thune , W. 2021, , 656, A130, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142105

    2021 doi

  29. [38]

    I., & Sunyaev , R

    Shakura , N. I., & Sunyaev , R. A. 1973, , 500, 33

    1973

  30. [39]

    2003, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 86, 321, 10.1023/A:1024579912307

    Sicardy , B., & Dubois , V. 2003, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 86, 321, 10.1023/A:1024579912307

    2003 doi

  31. [40]

    Szul \'a gyi , J., Plas , G. v. d., Meyer , M. R., et al. 2018, , 473, 3573, 10.1093/mnras/stx2602

    2018 doi

  32. [41]

    P., & Tobin , J

    van der Marel , N., Dong , R., di Francesco , J., Williams , J. P., & Tobin , J. 2019, , 872, 112, 10.3847/1538-4357/aafd31

    2019 doi

  33. [42]

    J., Ginzburg , S., Ren , B., et al

    Wang , J. J., Ginzburg , S., Ren , B., et al. 2020, , 159, 263, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab8aef

    2020 doi

  34. [43]

    S., Law , C

    Zhang , K., Booth , A. S., Law , C. J., et al. 2021, , 257, 5, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1580

    2021 doi

  35. [44]

    2018, , 869, L47, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf744

    Zhang , S., Zhu , Z., Huang , J., et al. 2018, , 869, L47, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf744

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.