Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 66 references

Dust density enhancements and the direct formation of planetary cores in gravitationally unstable discs

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that self-gravitating spiral density waves in young protoplanetary discs can concentrate a broad size range of dust enough for the solid component to collapse directly into bound planetary cores of 1 to 10 Earth masses.

desk verdict Solid multi-size extension of the GI-dust story, but the 'bound clumps' claim rests on a Roche threshold rather than a binding check, so the strongest conclusion is one step ahead of the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00363 v1 pith:JFWB77N4 submitted 2025-05-01 astro-ph.EP

Ken Rice , Hans Baehr , Alison K Young , Richard Booth , Sahl Rowther , Farzana Meru , Cassandra Hall , Adam Koval This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords protoplanetarydiscsgravitationalinstabilitydustconcentrationplanetesimalformationplanetarycoremetrebarriershearing-boxsimulationsStokesnumber
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

Planet formation by core accretion struggles with the metre barrier: in a smooth disc, gas drag makes centimetre-to-metre particles spiral into the star before they can grow. This paper argues that a young disc's self-gravitating spirals break that bottleneck. Three-dimensional shearing-box simulations with a realistic range of dust sizes show the spirals raise local solid surface density by more than an order of magnitude, concentrating intermediate-size grains in narrow filaments. If the dust holds about one per cent of the gas mass and includes grains with Stokes numbers near unity, those concentrations cross the Roche threshold and collapse into bound clumps of roughly 1 to 10 Earth masses. The route would form planetary cores, or the cores of giant planets, within the first roughly 100,000 years of the disc's life, bypassing the slow collisional path.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the coupling between self-gravitating spiral density waves and aerodynamic drag. The Stokes number, $\mathrm{St}=\tau_s\Omega$, measures how long a particle's drag stopping time $\tau_s$ is relative to the orbital time; particles with $\mathrm{St}\sim 1$ feel gas drag strongly enough to drift toward the spiral's pressure maxima but not so strongly that they diffuse away. These particles also settle to a thin layer near the midplane, so their local surface density can be enhanced by two orders of magnitude. Collapse is diagnosed with the Hill/Roche surface density, $\Sigma_R\simeq 8.8\,\Omega^2 H_d/G$ (with $H_d$ the dust scaleheight), approximated as ten times the mean gas surface density; the simulated clump masses are then converted to Earth masses through a shearing-box scaling to a 50 AU disc around a solar-mass star.

What would settle it

Submillimetre and radio surveys of the youngest Class 0/I protostellar discs at tens of AU that rule out millimetre- to centimetre-sized grains would directly test the premise, because without those large grains the spirals never receive the particles they need to concentrate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that gravitational collapse of the solid component can occur inside the spiral density waves of a self-gravitating disc even when the dust has a broad size distribution. In the simulations, the dust follows a power-law size distribution $n(a)\propto a^{-4}$ spanning four orders of magnitude in particle size (representative Stokes numbers $0.02$ to $200$), yet the spirals still increase the local particle surface density by more than an order of magnitude. Particles with $\mathrm{St}\sim 1$ settle into a thin midplane layer and drift toward pressure maxima, producing the strongest enhancements. When the dust-to-gas ratio is $\sim 0.01$ for the full size range, or when particles with Stokes numbers between roughly $0.5$ and $5$ carry a few times $10^{-3}$ of the gas mass, local surface densities exceed the Roche value and collapse into bound clumps. Across the runs that formed clumps, 42 clumps emerged with masses from $0.6$ to $7.15\,M_\oplus$ (mean $2.2\,M_\oplus$), in line with the 1–10 Earth-mass cores predicted by two-fluid disc studies.

Load-bearing premise

The whole route depends on dust grains growing to roughly centimetre sizes during the first 100,000 years of disc life, when the disc is still self-gravitating; the paper itself cautions that it is not clear grain growth can be that fast.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the mechanism operates, planetary cores of roughly $1{-}10\,M_\oplus$ can appear within the first $\sim 10^5$ years, before the disc loses its self-gravitating state.
  • The metre barrier stops being fatal: grains need only reach centimetre sizes to be concentrated, after which direct collapse can form cores instead of a long collisional cascade.
  • Even when no clumps form, spiral-induced enhancements of more than an order of magnitude could accelerate grain growth by raising local dust densities and collision rates.
  • Formation of super-Earths and of the solid cores of giant planets becomes possible during the Class 0 phase, matching observations of accreting protoplanets in slightly older discs.
  • The required dust-to-gas ratio is close to the canonical value of $0.01$ for a broad size range, and only about $0.003$ for particles with Stokes numbers between $1$ and $10$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension of this result is that if direct collapse is the main core-forming route, the observed super-Earth mass distribution should peak near a few Earth masses, echoing the simulated clump-mass mean of about $2\,M_\oplus$.
  • The concentration mechanism may bootstrap grain growth: even small grains are gathered by the spirals, so a disc that starts with only micron dust could raise its own largest grain sizes into the $\mathrm{St}\sim 1$ regime during the self-gravitating epoch.
  • The same pressure-maximum concentration logic might operate in other gravitoturbulent environments, but the required particle sizes and cooling times there would have to be evaluated independently.
  • Because the simulations use a shearing box, whether the collapsed clumps survive tidal shear when followed through a full orbit in a global disc remains an open extension of this work.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents 3D shearing-box simulations with the Pencil Code of a dust population in a self-gravitating protostellar disc, using a multi-size particle distribution n(a)∝a^-4 with representative Stokes numbers spanning about 0.02–200, and including particle self-gravity and back-reaction. The test-particle run shows that spiral density waves enhance the local dust surface density by more than an order of magnitude, with the strongest concentration for particles near St~1. In runs with total dust-to-gas ratio of order 0.01, or about 0.003 for narrow Stokes-number ranges centred near unity, the simulations produce regions where the projected particle surface density exceeds about 10 times the mean gas surface density; 42 such regions are identified as clumps and, under a scaling to a 1 M_sun star at 50 AU, have masses between 0.6 and 7.15 M_earth. The authors conclude that self-gravitating spirals can directly form bound planetary cores, bypassing the metre barrier, while acknowledging in Section 5 that it is not clear whether grain growth can reach cm sizes within the short (~1e5 yr) self-gravitating phase.

Significance. If the central claim is established, the paper offers a credible route to forming ~1–10 M_earth cores in the first ~1e5 yr of disc evolution, potentially explaining early planet formation and bypassing the drift barrier. The study's strengths are the multi-size dust treatment, the systematic parameter sweep over dust-to-gas ratio and Stokes-number range, and the inclusion of particle self-gravity and back-reaction; the authors also state that data and scripts will be archived and that the Pencil Code is public. The significance is, however, conditional: the direct-collapse conclusion rests on a projected surface-density threshold rather than on a dynamical demonstration of boundness, no convergence study is reported, and the applicability to real discs depends on cm-sized grains being present during the brief self-gravitating phase, a caveat the paper states honestly.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2.3, Eq. (14)] The only clump-identification criterion is a projected particle surface density exceeding Σ_R≈10⟨Σ_g⟩. This is a Roche/tidal threshold, not a demonstration that the region has undergone gravitational collapse and is bound. A transient aerodynamic concentration in a spiral arm can satisfy this projected-density criterion while remaining unbound in three dimensions, supported by gas drag or diffusion, or subject to tidal shear. Because the simulations include particle self-gravity and gas gravity, this can be tested directly: for each candidate, compute the particle self-binding energy or a virial-type ratio, compare the three-dimensional particle density with the Hill density of Eq. (12), and follow the clump evolution to see whether it contracts and survives. The abstract's 'bound clumps' and the conclusion's 'gravitationally collapse to directly form dense clumps' are stronger than what a surface-density threshold demonstrates, so this point is load-bearing for the central claim.
  2. [Section 3.2.3, Fig. 10] The clump masses are obtained by summing superparticles within a Hill radius defined around each density peak, and the Hill radius is itself a function of the clump mass (R_Hill=(m_cl/3)^{1/3} in code units). The reported mass range 0.6–7.15 M_earth is therefore partly set by the detection algorithm rather than by a dynamically determined bound state. Please provide radial enclosed-mass profiles, the peak volume density relative to the Hill density, and a binding-energy estimate for representative clumps, so that the '1–10 M_earth planetary cores' claim is supported by clump structure rather than by the threshold geometry.
  3. [Sections 2 and 3] No resolution or particle-number convergence study is reported; all runs use a 256×256×128 grid and 10^7 superparticles, and clump detection uses a 1000×1000 surface-density grid. It is therefore not established that the super-Roche regions survive as bound clumps at higher resolution or with different particle sampling, and the clump masses could be resolution-dependent. Please add at least one clump-forming case at higher grid resolution and particle number, and show that the clump-formation criterion and the mass distribution are stable; ideally also test a different box size to check that the periodic shearing box does not artificially promote clumping.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2.2, Eq. (13)] The conversion from Hill volume density to surface density uses Σ_Hill∼2H_dρ_Hill; for a Gaussian vertical profile the numerical factor is sqrt(2π)≈2.51, and the resulting value Σ_Hill≈1.4 should be derived explicitly for the assumed H_d=1.
  2. [Section 3.2.3] The threshold is rounded from Σ_R=8.8 to 10, and the text states that this corresponds to an enhancement of 8.8/0.01=880 times the mean dust surface density for m_d/m_g=0.01; with the adopted threshold of 10 the required enhancement is 1000. Please make the final threshold and its normalization consistent.
  3. [Section 3.1.1] The statement that 'if the Stokes number 1 particles have sizes of order a cm, then our broad size distribution extends from about 0.1 mm to about 1 m' does not match the stated Stokes range 0.02–200, which would extend to about 2 m for a 1 cm St=1 grain; please check the size conversion.
  4. [Figure 9 caption] The caption of Figure 9 appears truncated in the version I reviewed, with the bottom-panel sentence ending at 'mean gas surface density' and an uncompleted formula; please ensure the published caption is complete.
  5. [Data availability statement] The data availability statement contains a grammatical error ('will be archived will be publicly available') and should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Roche/Hill threshold used to identify clumps is an externally motivated physical criterion, not a fitted input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The clump-formation claim is tested by comparing the simulated dust surface-density field with the Roche/Hill surface-density threshold (Eqs. 12-14), which is a standard physical criterion for a self-gravitating patch to resist tidal shear; it is not a parameter fitted to the simulation output. The only simulation-derived quantity entering the threshold is the dust scale height H_d≈1, used to convert volume density to surface density; using a measured property of the simulated layer to evaluate a physical criterion is legitimate and does not make the outcome an input. The clump masses (0.6-7.15 M⊕) are measured by summing superparticles inside Hill radii around the identified density peaks, so the mass range is an emergent product of the simulations rather than a pre-supplied answer. The citations to Baehr et al. (2022) and Schäfer et al. (2017) supply standard Roche and scaling relations rather than a self-referential uniqueness argument. The abstract's 'bound clumps' wording is stronger than what a surface-density-threshold check alone demonstrates - no virial or binding-energy verification or convergence study is reported - but that is an over-interpretation or correctness caveat, not a reduction of the conclusion to its inputs by construction.

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

The ledger collects the modeling choices the central claim rests on. No parameters are fitted to external data; the simulation inputs are chosen to realize the target regime, and the clump mass scale comes from an assumed physical scaling. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Beta cooling timescale = 10
    Chosen so the disc settles into a self-gravitating, non-fragmenting spiral state (Gammie 2001); controls energy loss and the vigor of spirals, and therefore the dust concentration.
  • Irradiation sound speed c_s,irr = c_s,0 = pi
    Set so the Toomre Q value settles near unity, the target regime; this effectively tunes the background temperature floor.
  • Dust size distribution index = n(a) proportional to a^-4
    Chosen as slightly steeper than the ISM value a^-3.5, with equal mass per logarithmic bin; shifts mass toward small grains, making clump formation harder than for shallower distributions.
  • Stokes number range = 0.02 to 200
    Covers four orders of magnitude in particle size, roughly 0.1 mm to 1 m in the adopted physical scaling; excludes micron-sized grains, which the paper argues contribute little mass.
  • Clump detection threshold = Sigma_R = 10
    Derived from the Roche surface density with particle scale height H_d=1 and rounded to 10; this defines what counts as a clump and affects clump counts and masses.
  • Physical scaling parameters = M*=1 Msun, R=50 AU, Sigma0=53 g/cm2, T=11.25 K, mu=2.33
    Maps code units to physical clump masses; taken from Schaefer et al. (2017) via Baehr et al. (2022). The 1 to 10 M_Earth masses scale linearly with this assumed disc model.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The local shearing-box approximation with imposed vertical sinusoidal gravity captures the relevant dynamics of self-gravitating spirals and dust concentration.
    Section 2: box is 40 scale heights in x/y and 4 to 5 in z; no global disc curvature or radial gradients. This underpins the whole simulation.
  • domain assumption Dust particles interact with gas only via Epstein drag and gravity; coagulation, fragmentation, and porosity are neglected.
    Section 2.2 and Discussion; particles are fixed-size superparticles. The mechanism's timescale and clump composition would change if grains grow or shatter.
  • domain assumption The Epstein drag regime applies to all particle sizes considered.
    Section 3.2.4 checks this using the assumed physical scaling (mean free path about 15000 cm), which itself depends on the scaling parameters.
  • domain assumption The gas disc reaches a quasi-steady self-gravitating state before drag is activated at tOmega=40, so initial transients do not determine the enhancement.
    Section 3.1; a modeling choice rather than a verified property of real discs.
  • domain assumption The particle back-reaction and self-gravity are correctly represented by 10^7 superparticles at 256x256x128 resolution.
    No convergence study is presented; clump masses and threshold exceedances may depend on resolution and particle number.
  • ad hoc to paper Clumps identified by surface density exceeding 10 times the mean gas surface density are gravitationally bound.
    Section 3.2.3 uses the Roche surface density estimate; this is a criterion, not a direct calculation of the binding energy of each particle group.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dust density enhancements and the direct formation of planetary cores in gravitationally unstable discs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JFWB77N4

@misc{pith2026250500363,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dust density enhancements and the direct formation of planetary cores in gravitationally unstable discs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JFWB77N4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00363}
}
abstract

Planet formation via core accretion involves the growth of solids that can accumulate to form planetary cores. There are a number of barriers to the collisional growth of solids in protostellar discs, one of which is the drift, or metre, barrier. Solid particles experience a drag force that will tend to cause them to drift towards the central star in smooth, laminar discs, potentially removing particles before they grow large enough to decouple from the disc gas. Here we present 3-dimensional, shearing box simulations that explore the dynamical evolution of solids in a protostellar disc that is massive enough for the gravitational instability to manifest as spiral density waves. We expand on earlier work by considering a range of particle sizes and find that the spirals can still enhance the local solid density by more than an order of magnitude, potentially aiding grain growth. Furthermore, if solid particles have enough mass, and the particle size distribution extends to sufficiently large particle sizes, the solid component of the disc can undergo direct gravitational collapse to form bound clumps with masses typically between $1$ and $10$ M$_\oplus$. Thus, the concentration of dust in a self-gravitating disc could bypass the size barrier for collisional growth and directly form planetary cores early in the lifetime of the disc.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00363 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. shows the gas density structure in the midplane (top panel) and a vertical slice through the disc at 𝑥 = 0 (bottom panel) at a time of 𝑡Ω = 300. The disc has settled into a quasi-steady, self-gravitating state with spiral density waves. Even though the simulations only cover a few scale heights in the vertical direction, the vertical structure of the gas disc is still reasonably well captured. 2.2 Including dust The… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. shows how the scaleheight of the solids varies with par￾ticle size, or Stokes number. The figure shows the root mean square of the vertical position of the dust particles, scaled by the initial scaleheight, 𝐻g = 𝜋, of the gas disc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Surface density structure of the particle disc at 𝑡Ω = 300, for the full size range of solid particles from the test particle simulation. The top panel shows the particle surface density in the disc midplane, while the bottom panel shows the surface, or column, density projected on to the xz-plane. density in the xy-plane, while the bottom panel is the column density projected onto the xz-plane. We note that for the… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Surface density structure of the solid particles in the test particle simulation at 𝑡Ω = 300 and for particles of different sizes. Each panel considers one order of magnitude in particle size, which are presented as approximate Stokes number ranges. The smallest are in…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of surface densities for the gas (dotted line) and solid particles (solid lines and dashed line) in the test particle simulation at 𝑡Ω = 300. The gas surface density can vary by a factor of a few relative to the average. When considering all of the particl…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Surface density structure for all the particles in the simulation in which the particles have a mass 10−4 (top left), 10−3 (top right), 0.003 (middle left), 0.007 (middle right), 0.01 (bottom left) and 0.025 (bottom right) that of the gas. The particle self-gravity, an…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Surface density structure of the solid particles in the simulations in which the Stokes number ranges are St ∼ 0.1 − 1 (left-hand panels) and St ∼ 1 − 10 (right-hand panels) and the total particles mass - from top to bottom - is 0.001, 0.003, and 0.007 that of the gas.…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Suite of simulations with 𝑚d = 0.01𝑚g and with St ∼ 0.02 − 0.2 (top left), St ∼ 0.1 − 1 (top right), St ∼ 1 − 10 (middle left), St ∼ 2 − 20 (middle right), St ∼ 10 − 100 (bottom left), and St ∼ 20 − 200 (bottom right). MNRAS 000, 1–15 (2015) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/f…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Histogram showing the distribution of clump masses that form in all that simulations in which dense clumps emerge (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Dust surface density maxima, against time, in a sample of simula￾tions in which dense particle clumps did not form. The lines are for simulations in which St ∼ 0.02 − 200, while the symbols are for three of the simulations with narrower Stokes number ranges. The top pa…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Size distribution for particles in clumps (dashed) line, not in clumps (dotted line) and all the particles (thin solid line) in the 𝑚d = 0.025𝑚g simulation shown in the bottom right panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Baehr H., Zhu Z., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abddb3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...909..135B 909, 135

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abddb3 2021

  2. [2]

    M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8a66 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848...40B 848, 40

    Baehr H., Klahr H., Kratter K. M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8a66 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848...40B 848, 40

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8a66 2017

  3. [3]

    Baehr H., Zhu Z., Yang C.-C., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7228 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...933..100B 933, 100

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7228 2022

  4. [4]

    M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1437 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...722.1437B 722, 1437

    Bai X.-N., Stone J. M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1437 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...722.1437B 722, 1437

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/722/2/1437 2010

  5. [5]

    R., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1391 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.2145B 514, 2145

    Bate M. R., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1391 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.2145B 514, 2145

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1391 2022

  6. [6]

    Birnstiel T., Klahr H., Ercolano B., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...539A.148B 539, A148

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118136 2012

  7. [7]

    Blum J., Wurm G., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ARA&A..46...21B 46, 21

    arXiv 2008

  8. [8]

    A., Clarke C

    Booth R. A., Clarke C. J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw488 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.458.2676B 458, 2676

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw488 2016

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    A., Clarke C

    Booth R. A., Clarke C. J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3340 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.3718B 483, 3718

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    P., 1997, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.276.5320.1836 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997Sci...276.1836B 276, 1836

    Boss A. P., 1997, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.276.5320.1836 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997Sci...276.1836B 276, 1836

    1997

  3. [11]

    Brandenburg A., 2003, in Ferriz-Mas A., N \'u \ n ez M., eds, , Advances in Nonlinear Dynamics. p. 269, @doi 10.1201/9780203493137.ch9

    2003 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Lodato G., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00695.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398L...6C 398, L6

    Clarke C. J., Lodato G., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00695.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398L...6C 398, L6

    2009

  5. [13]

    H., Boss A

    Durisen R. H., Boss A. P., Mayer L., Nelson A. F., Quinn T., Rice W. K. M., 2007, in Reipurth B., Jewitt D., Keil K., eds, Protostars and Planets V. p. 607 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0603179 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0603179

    2007 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    H., Hall C., Meru F., Rice W

    Forgan D. H., Hall C., Meru F., Rice W. K. M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2870 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.5036F 474, 5036

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    J., Valdivia V., Testi L., Belloche A., Andr \'e P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936342 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...632A...5G 632, A5

    Galametz M., Maury A. J., Valdivia V., Testi L., Belloche A., Andr \'e P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936342 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...632A...5G 632, A5

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    F., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/320631 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...553..174G 553, 174

    Gammie C. F., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/320631 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...553..174G 553, 174

    2001 doi

  9. [17]

    G., Rice W

    Gibbons P. G., Rice W. K. M., Mamatsashvili G. R., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21731.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.426.1444G 426, 1444

    2012

  10. [18]

    G., Mamatsashvili G

    Gibbons P. G., Mamatsashvili G. R., Rice W. K. M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu809 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.442..361G 442, 361

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    G., Mamatsashvili G

    Gibbons P. G., Mamatsashvili G. R., Rice W. K. M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1766 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453.4232G 453, 4232

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    Godon P., Livio M., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307720 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...523..350G 523, 350

    1999 doi

  13. [21]

    P., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/378950 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...598.1301H 598, 1301

    Haghighipour N., Boss A. P., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/378950 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...598.1301H 598, 1301

    2003 doi

  14. [22]

    J., Najita J., Alexander R., Brittain S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aafac2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...871..228H 871, 228

    Hall C., Dong R., Rice K., Harries T. J., Najita J., Alexander R., Brittain S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aafac2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...871..228H 871, 228

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    Harsono D., Bjerkeli P., van der Wiel M. H. D., Ramsey J. P., Maud L. T., Kristensen L. E., J rgensen J. K., 2018, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-018-0497-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018NatAs...2..646H 2, 646

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    Johansen A., Youdin A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/516730 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...662..627J 662, 627

    2007 doi

  17. [25]

    C., Brandenburg A., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20034417 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...417..361J 417, 361

    Johansen A., Andersen A. C., Brandenburg A., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20034417 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...417..361J 417, 361

    2004 doi

  18. [26]

    Johansen A., Klahr H., Henning T., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/498078 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...636.1121J 636, 1121

    2006 doi

  19. [27]

    Johansen A., Youdin A., Mac Low M.-M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/704/2/L75 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...704L..75J 704, L75

    2009 doi

  20. [28]

    Klahr H., Schreiber A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abac58 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...901...54K 901, 54

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    Kratter K., Lodato G., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023307 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ARA&A..54..271K 54, 271

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    M., Murray-Clay R

    Kratter K. M., Murray-Clay R. A., Youdin A. N., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1375 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...710.1375K 710, 1375

    2010 doi

  23. [31]

    P., 1951, @doi [Proceedings of the National Academy of Science] 10.1073/pnas.37.1.1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1951PNAS...37....1K 37, 1

    Kuiper G. P., 1951, @doi [Proceedings of the National Academy of Science] 10.1073/pnas.37.1.1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1951PNAS...37....1K 37, 1

    1951 doi

  24. [32]

    Laibe G., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1928 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.437.3037L 437, 3037

    2014 doi

  25. [33]

    Lin D. N. C., Pringle J. E., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/169004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...358..515L 358, 515

    1990 doi

  26. [35]

    J., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3653 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.2017L 519, 2017

    Longarini C., Lodato G., Bertin G., Armitage P. J., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3653 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.2017L 519, 2017

    2017 doi

  27. [36]

    J., Lodato G., Price D

    Longarini C., Armitage P. J., Lodato G., Price D. J., Ceppi S., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1400 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.6217L 522, 6217

    doi

  28. [37]

    S., Rumpl W., Nordsieck K

    Mathis J. S., Rumpl W., Nordsieck K. H., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1086/155591 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJ...217..425M 217, 425

    1977 doi

  29. [38]

    Mizuno H., 1980, @doi [Progress of Theoretical Physics] 10.1143/PTP.64.544 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980PThPh..64..544M 64, 544

    1980 doi

  30. [39]

    M \"u ller S., Helled R., Mayer L., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa840 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...854..112M 854, 112

    2018 doi

  31. [40]

    E., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/702/2/L163 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...702L.163N 702, L163

    Nero D., Bjorkman J. E., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/702/2/L163 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...702L.163N 702, L163

    2009 doi

  32. [41]

    J., King A

    Nixon C. J., King A. R., Pringle J. E., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty593 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.3273N 477, 3273

    2018 doi

  33. [42]

    Pencil Code Collaboration et al., 2021, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.02807 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021JOSS....6.2807P 6, 2807

    2021 doi

  34. [43]

    B., Hubickyj O., Bodenheimer P., Lissauer J

    Pollack J. B., Hubickyj O., Bodenheimer P., Lissauer J. J., Podolak M., Greenzweig Y., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1006/icar.1996.0190 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Icar..124...62P 124, 62

    1996

  35. [44]

    Rice W. K. M., Lodato G., Pringle J. E., Armitage P. J., Bonnell I. A., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08339.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.355..543R 355, 543

    2004

  36. [45]

    Rice W. K. M., Lodato G., Armitage P. J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00105.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.364L..56R 364, L56

    2005

  37. [46]

    Rice W. K. M., Lodato G., Pringle J. E., Armitage P. J., Bonnell I. A., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00215.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.372L...9R 372, L9

    2006

  38. [47]

    Rice W. K. M., Mayo J. H., Armitage P. J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15992.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.402.1740R 402, 1740

    2010

  39. [48]

    Rice K., Lopez E., Forgan D., Biller B., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1997 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.1940R 454, 1940

    2015 doi

  40. [49]

    J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1548 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471..317R 471, 317

    Riols A., Latter H., Paardekooper S. J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1548 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471..317R 471, 317

    2017 doi

  41. [50]

    Riols A., Roux B., Latter H., Lesur G., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.4631R 493, 4631

    2020 doi

  42. [51]

    A., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae167 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.2490R 528, 2490

    Rowther S., Nealon R., Meru F., Wurster J., Aly H., Alexander R., Rice K., Booth R. A., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae167 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.2490R 528, 2490

    doi

  43. [52]

    J., Pinte C., Nealon R., Meru F., Alexander R., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2167 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534.2277R 534, 2277

    Rowther S., Price D. J., Pinte C., Nealon R., Meru F., Alexander R., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2167 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534.2277R 534, 2277

    doi

  44. [53]

    Sch \"a fer U., Yang C.-C., Johansen A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629561 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...597A..69S 597, A69

    2017 doi

  45. [54]

    C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa961c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...853...37S 853, 37

    Schlaufman K. C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa961c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...853...37S 853, 37

    2018 doi

  46. [55]

    M., Chiang E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw692 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459..982S 459, 982

    Shi J.-M., Zhu Z., Stone J. M., Chiang E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw692 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459..982S 459, 982

    2016 doi

  47. [56]

    B., Armitage P

    Simon J. B., Armitage P. J., Li R., Youdin A. N., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/55 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...822...55S 822, 55

    2016 doi

  48. [57]

    Steinacker J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201425434 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...582A..70S 582, A70

    2015 doi

  49. [58]

    Toomre A., 1964, @doi [ ] 10.1086/147861 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964ApJ...139.1217T 139, 1217

    1964 doi

  50. [59]

    H., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2030 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.515.4780T 515, 4780

    Tu Y., Li Z.-Y., Lam K. H., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2030 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.515.4780T 515, 4780

    2022 doi

  51. [60]

    Tychoniec ., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202037851 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...640A..19T 640, A19

    2020 doi

  52. [61]

    Vigan A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201630133 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...603A...3V 603, A3

    2017 doi

  53. [62]

    I., Kulikov I., Elbakyan V

    Vorobyov E. I., Kulikov I., Elbakyan V. G., McKevitt J., G \"u del M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348023 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...683A.202V 683, A202

    2024 doi

  54. [63]

    J., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/180.2.57 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977MNRAS.180...57W 180, 57

    Weidenschilling S. J., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/180.2.57 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977MNRAS.180...57W 180, 57

    1977 doi

  55. [64]

    Yang C.-C., Johansen A., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/39 , 224, 39

    2016 doi

  56. [65]

    Yang C.-C., Krumholz M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/758/1/48 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...758...48Y 758, 48

    2012 doi

  57. [66]

    Youdin A., Johansen A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/516729 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...662..613Y 662, 613

    2007 doi

  58. [67]

    N., Lithwick Y., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.07.012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Icar..192..588Y 192, 588

    Youdin A. N., Lithwick Y., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.07.012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Icar..192..588Y 192, 588

    2007 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.