Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Partial Differentiation of Callisto as Possible Evidence for Pebble Accretion

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Callisto's partially differentiated interior can only be explained by pebble accretion, making the moon a possible first observational fingerprint of the mechanism.

desk verdict Clean parameter study; main 'only pebble accretion' claim rides entirely on an underived subsurface-energy fraction. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02544 v1 pith:OVWGUPJD submitted 2025-07-03 astro-ph.EP

Yuhito Shibaike This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords CallistopebbleaccretionsatellitesimalGalileansatellitespartialdifferentiationheatingplanetformationmomentofinertia
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 argues that Callisto, Jupiter's second-largest moon, can decide between two competing pictures of how large satellites form: accretion of kilometer-sized building blocks called satellitesimals, or accretion of small gas-dragged particles called pebbles. Callisto's gravity data suggest its interior is only partially differentiated, with roughly a third of the mass melted and the rest a mixed ice-rock slab. The paper's thermal model shows that satellitesimal impacts bury 10 to 30 percent of their kinetic energy below the surface, where it cannot radiate away, so satellitesimal accretion differentiates more than half of Callisto for every plausible formation time and start time. Pebble impacts, by contrast, release their energy at the surface and can be slowed by the circumplanetary gas disk, so pebble accretion keeps Callisto partially differentiated over broad parameter ranges. If the upcoming JUICE mission confirms the partial differentiation, this would be the first observed evidence that pebble accretion assembled a large satellite, with consequences for planet formation theory as a whole.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the subsurface energy-deposition fraction $\eta$, defined in the paper's energy-balance equations: it is the share of an impactor's kinetic energy deposited beneath the surface, where radiative cooling does not act. Satellitesimal accretion is assigned $\eta = 0.1$ to $0.3$ following earlier impact studies, while pebble accretion is assigned $\eta = 0$ because centimeter-to-meter pebbles stop at the surface. The model combines this with an accretion rate $\dot M \propto M^{2/3}$ for both mechanisms, impact velocities that include gas-drag-limited settling $v_{\rm set} = gSt/\Omega_K$, and $^{26}$Al radiogenic heating, to compute the melt mass fraction $m_{\rm melt}$ by comparing internal temperature with the pressure-dependent ice melting curve. The $\eta$ contrast alone is what separates the two scenarios: the large- and small-pebble runs coincide exactly with the $\eta=0$ 'Cold-limit' satellitesimal case, and only the fragmentation-limited pebbles receive additional protection from reduced impact velocity.

What would settle it

Measure, by impact experiment or computer simulation, how much kinetic energy centimeter-to-meter ice-rock projectiles deposit beneath the impact point at speeds near Callisto's escape velocity ($\sim2.4$ km/s); if the buried fraction exceeds a few percent, pebble accretion would heat the subsurface much like satellitesimal accretion and the paper's proposed distinction would collapse.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Callisto's measured normalized moment of inertia, $C/(M_sR_s^2) = 0.3549 \pm 0.0042$, can be reproduced only if the moon formed by accreting pebbles rather than satellitesimals. In the model, satellitesimal impactors deposit a fraction $\eta = 0.1$ to $0.3$ of their kinetic energy below the surface, where radiative cooling is ineffective, and this produces melt mass fractions $m_{\rm melt}$ exceeding 0.5 in the Cold-accretion case and 0.9 in the Hot-accretion case across formation periods from 0.5 to 20 Myr and start times from 0.5 to 10 Myr. Pebble impactors deposit essentially no energy below the surface ($\eta = 0$), and fragmentation-limited pebbles with Stokes number $St = 0.001$ are further slowed by aerodynamic drag, keeping the melt fraction at or below the observed $m_{\rm melt} \sim 1/3$ for formation periods longer than about 1.2 Myr and for late-enough start times. Only the 'Cold-limit' satellitesimal case with $\eta = 0$, which the author argues is unrealistic for kilometer-sized impactors, avoids differentiation; therefore, if Callisto's partial differentiation is confirmed by JUICE, satellitesimal accretion is ruled out and pebble accretion is the only viable formation mechanism.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on the assumption that pebble impacts deposit essentially no kinetic energy below Callisto's surface, while satellitesimal impacts bury 10 to 30 percent of theirs; if real pebbles bury even a few percent at depth, or real satellitesimals bury less than 10 percent, the two formation scenarios would no longer be cleanly separated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If JUICE confirms Callisto is only partially differentiated, satellitesimal accretion is excluded as the formation mechanism and Callisto becomes the first observed case of pebble accretion building a large body.
  • Ganymede's full differentiation is not produced by pebble accretion in this model, so Ganymede requires additional post-formation heating to explain its fully differentiated state.
  • For Callisto, the model requires formation lasting at least about 1.2 Myr and starting late enough (roughly $t_{\rm start} \gtrsim 2$ Myr) to avoid $^{26}$Al melting; these are concrete, testable conditions on the accretion history.
  • The critical Stokes number for Callisto is $St_{\rm crit} \simeq 0.0086$, so aerodynamic drag matters only for the small, fragmentation-limited pebbles; Ganymede's larger critical value, $St_{\rm crit} \simeq 0.02$, means small pebbles are decelerated there more easily, offering a partial handle on why the two moons differ.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the central claim holds, Callisto's measured moment of inertia could be inverted into constraints on pebble size and formation timescale, since the predicted melt fraction depends on both.
  • The same $\eta$-based reasoning may apply to other partially differentiated icy bodies, such as medium-sized moons of Saturn or large Kuiper belt objects; finding more examples would show whether pebble-built, surface-heated accretion is a common formation mode rather than a Callisto-specific outcome.
  • The paper stops at melting during accretion; an editorial extension is to model the long-term thermal evolution of the partially differentiated structure with long-lived radioisotopes and convection to see whether the observed state survives to the present day.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that Callisto's partially differentiated interior, inferred from Galileo gravity data, can only be explained by pebble accretion rather than satellitesimal accretion. The author sets up a two-layer energy balance model in which a fraction η of impact kinetic energy is deposited below the surface, uses analytic accretion rates for the two scenarios, and computes melt mass fractions over broad ranges of formation timescales and start times. The central result is that satellitesimal accretion with η=0.1–0.3 leads to widespread melting (mmelt≳0.5), whereas pebble accretion with η=0 can keep mmelt≤1/3 for formation times longer than ~1.2 Myr, matching the observationally inferred partial differentiation.

Significance. If the scenario holds, the paper would provide a novel observational discriminator between accretion mechanisms in a satellite context, with implications for planet formation. The work is clearly structured, uses simple analytic models, and explores a wide parameter grid, including a comparison with Ganymede. It also transparently lists the assumptions and includes an appendix on 26Al abundance. However, the central conclusion rests on a small number of assumed parameters, especially the subsurface energy fraction η, which the paper does not derive from impact physics. The significance is therefore conditional on whether the η dichotomy between pebbles and satellitesimals is physically justified.

major comments (3)
  1. The entire discrimination between the accretion scenarios is carried by the assumed subsurface energy fraction η: pebble accretion sets η=0 while satellitesimal accretion sets η=0.1–0.3. As the paper itself notes in Section 3.1, the Large and Small pebble results are identical to the Cold-limit satellitesimal case (η=0) by construction. In Fig. 3, the difference between the 'Cold accretion' panel (η=0.1, mmelt>0.5) and the 'Large pebbles' panel (η=0, mmelt≤1/3) is entirely due to this assumed η contrast. The paper does not derive η from impactor size, velocity, porosity, or target properties, and it does not provide a sensitivity analysis. If pebble impacts deposit even a few percent of their energy below the radiative surface (e.g., η≈0.02–0.05), the pebble panels of Fig. 3 should interpolate toward the Cold accretion result and the central claim that pebble accretion 'can maintain' partial differentiation collapses. The authors should either derive η from microphysical impact models or show that the conclusions are robust to a small nonzero η for pebbles and to the uncertain range for satellitesimals.
  2. The paper acknowledges that thermal blanketing by a water-vapor atmosphere, other radiogenic isotopes, hydration heat, and long-term convection are ignored, but then dismisses these effects with the statement that 'such additional heat sources do not alter the conclusions of this paper; only pebble accretion has a chance to explain the partially differentiated interior of Callisto.' This is not a valid dismissal for the positive claim that pebble accretion can maintain partial differentiation. If thermal blanketing is effective at Callisto's mass (which is just above the ~0.02 Earth-mass threshold cited from Johansen et al. 2023), the pebble case would experience additional melting and might no longer reproduce mmelt≤1/3. The paper does not provide a bound on the magnitude of these ignored effects for the specific Callisto parameters, so the 'can be maintained' conclusion is not robust to the paper's own acknowledged omissions.
  3. The thermal model assumes instantaneous radiative cooling at the surface and ignores heat conduction, convection, and latent heat within the satellite. These processes can redistribute heat from the outer accreted layers toward the interior, potentially changing the melt fraction even for fixed η. The paper does not justify that the two-layer energy balance captures the relevant physics for a growing Callisto; it simply adopts the framework. A quantitative estimate of the importance of conduction/convection for the parameters considered, or a comparison with a more complete thermal model, would be needed to support the term 'robustly demonstrate' used in the abstract and conclusions.
minor comments (4)
  1. The symbol η is used both for the subsurface energy fraction (Eqs. 1–2) and for the headwind prefactor ηhw in Eq. (11), which is confusing; please use a distinct symbol such as η_hw in the relative velocity expression.
  2. The text states 'More than 90 wt% of Callisto is differentiated' but mmelt is defined as a mass fraction normalized by the total satellite mass; please use consistent terminology (e.g., 'more than 90% of the mass' rather than 'wt%' if that is intended).
  3. The panels for 'Large pebbles' and 'Small pebbles' appear identical, which is a consequence of the assumed impact velocities; consider merging or explicitly stating in the caption that they are indistinguishable in this model.
  4. The citation to Bennacer et al. (2025) is used to justify η=0 for pebbles, but that paper may not have analyzed pebble-sized impactors in the same regime; please clarify the exact basis for this assumption and whether it holds for the pebble sizes considered here.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Large/Small-pebble 'predictions' are the assumed eta=0 Cold-limit case relabeled; only Fragmentation-limited adds derived pebble physics.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.2 (eta=0 assumed for pebbles); Sections 3.1-3.2 (Large/Small pebbles identical to Cold-limit); Section 4.1 (same vimp)]
    "In the case of pebble accretion, I also assume eta = 0, because the subsurface energy deposition must be negligible. ... In Large pebbles and Small pebbles, the temperature distribution is the same as that of Cold-limit accretion, where all these cases assume eta = 0. ... the distribution of the melt mass fractions of Large pebbles and Small pebbles is almost the same as that of Cold-limit accretion."

    Equations (1)-(2) contain only one subsurface heating term, eta*(Mdot*vimp^2)/(8*pi*R^2), and the melt fraction mmelt (Eq. 17) is computed entirely from the resulting T_sub and T_cur. For Large and Small pebbles, Section 4.1 shows vimp = vesc, the same value as for satellitesimal impactors (Eq. 6), so the pebble panels differ from the satellitesimal panels only through the chosen eta. Setting eta=0 for pebbles makes Eqs. (1)-(2) mathematically identical to the Cold-limit satellitesimal case, and the paper explicitly states that the temperature distribution and mmelt maps coincide.

full rationale

The thermal calculation itself is self-contained: given Mdot, vimp, eta, and 26Al heating, Eqs. (1)-(17) determine the melt fraction, and the Ganymede comparison and Appendix A are honest parameter explorations. The satellitesimal 'cannot differentiate' branch rests on the literature range eta=0.1-0.3 (Monteux et al. 2014), which is an external input rather than a circularity; its vulnerability is that the paper calls the result 'inevitable' while the eta range is uncertain, but that is a correctness/fragility concern. The circular element is confined to the pebble branch: for Large and Small pebbles, the paper's own text shows that the results coincide with the Cold-limit satellitesimal case, which is nothing other than the eta=0 assumption already made in Section 2.2; the claimed ability of pebble accretion to maintain partial differentiation is therefore, for those cases, the input relabeled as output. The Fragmentation-limited case supplies one genuinely derived pebble effect (gas-drag-limited impact velocity, St_crit=0.0086), so the paper is not wholly circular; nevertheless the abstract's headline reason, 'Pebbles can release their impact energy at the surface', is exactly the assumed eta=0, and the conclusions present it as a demonstrated property. Score 6 reflects this partial, construction-level circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several parameter choices and modeling simplifications. The most important are the assumed energy-deposition fractions (eta) for satellitesimals versus pebbles, the assumed Stokes numbers, and the neglect of thermal blanketing. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (11)
  • Subsurface energy fraction for satellitesimal accretion (eta_sat) = 0.3 (Hot), 0.1 (Cold), 0 (Cold-limit)
    Fraction of impact energy deposited below the surface; taken from Monteux et al. (2014). The choice strongly controls the satellitesimal melt fraction.
  • Subsurface energy fraction for pebble accretion (eta_peb) = 0
    Assumed negligible because pebbles less than about 1 meter are thought to release energy at the surface; this assumption drives the pebble results and is not derived from impact physics in this paper.
  • Pebble Stokes number St = 0.1, 0.01, 0.001
    Large and Small pebble values from radial drift estimates (Shibaike et al. 2017, 2019); fragmentation-limited value from Eq. (13) with assumed alpha=1e-4 and vcr=0.5 m/s.
  • Initial mass for accretion M0 = 3e23 g
    Mass at which effective pebble accretion begins, from Shibaike et al. 2019; also applied to satellitesimal accretion.
  • Circumplanetary gas surface density Sigma_g at Callisto = 9e3 g/cm^2
    Assumed disk condition from Shibaike et al. 2019; affects satellitesimal relative velocities and pebble drag.
  • Disk temperature Tdisk = 110 K (Callisto), 160 K (Ganymede)
    Assumed local circumplanetary disk temperature; sets radiative cooling and gas sound speed.
  • Rock mass fraction mr = 0.44 (Callisto), 0.52 (Ganymede)
    Determines radiogenic heating; from Barr and Canup (2008).
  • Initial 26Al heating rate q26(0) = 1.82e-7 W/kg
    Standard carbonaceous chondrite 26Al/27Al ratio; Appendix A tests half this value with limited effect.
  • Turbulence parameter alpha = 1e-4
    Used to compute fragmentation-limited Stokes number; weakly constrained.
  • Critical fragmentation velocity vcr = 0.5 m/s
    Assumed fragile threshold based on recent disk observations; affects St_frag and drag effectiveness.
  • Accretion mass-growth index q = 2/3
    Chosen for both oligarchic satellitesimal growth and 2D pebble accretion; ignores early runaway and 3D phases.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Callisto's observed normalized MoI (0.3549 +/- 0.0042) implies partial differentiation with about one-third outer ice shell under hydrostatic equilibrium.
    Input from Anderson et al. (2001) and Schubert et al. (2004); not tested here, but JUICE will test hydrostatic equilibrium.
  • ad hoc to paper The layered energy balance model (Eqs. 1 and 2) captures the thermal state, assuming instantaneous radiative cooling at the surface and no heat conduction, convection, or latent heat.
    Simplification is necessary for the analytic model but may bias the melt fractions; thermal blanketing is acknowledged in Section 4.3.
  • domain assumption 26Al is the only significant short-lived radiogenic heat source during satellite formation.
    Follows Barr and Canup (2008), who estimate 26Al dominates other short-lived isotopes by a factor of 100.
  • domain assumption Satellitesimals deposit eta between 0.1 and 0.3 of their impact energy below the surface.
    Based on Monteux et al. (2014); this is the key contrast with pebbles.
  • domain assumption Pebbles of size less than about 1 meter deposit negligible impact energy below the surface (eta = 0).
    Assumed from impact-energy deposition scaling cited to Bennacer et al. (2025); not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The circumplanetary disk parameters (Sigma_g, Tdisk, alpha) apply uniformly during Callisto's formation.
    Disk model taken from Shibaike et al. 2017 and 2019; no time evolution or radial variation is considered.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Partial Differentiation of Callisto as Possible Evidence for Pebble Accretion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OVWGUPJD

@misc{pith2026250702544,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Partial Differentiation of Callisto as Possible Evidence for Pebble Accretion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OVWGUPJD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02544}
}
read the original abstract

"Planetesimal or pebble" is one of the most fundamental open questions in planet formation theory. Similarly, "satellitesimal or pebble" remains unsettled regarding the formation of the Galilean satellites. I focus on a unique characteristic of Callisto--its interior is estimated to be only partially differentiated based on gravitational field measurements. I robustly demonstrate that such a state is not achievable through satellitesimal accretion, which inevitably leads to significant differentiation, but can be maintained with pebble accretion. Pebbles can release their impact energy at the surface of the satellite, allowing efficient radiative cooling, and their impact velocities can be reduced by aerodynamic drag from the circumplanetary gas disk. If future missions such as JUpiter ICy moons Explorer (JUICE) confirm that Callisto is indeed only partially differentiated, it could provide the first observed evidence for the pebble accretion mechanism--not only in the context of satellite formation, but also in the broader framework of planet formation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02544 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic picture of the accretion heating model. 2. METHODS 2.1. Surface and subsurface temperature determined by accretion heating Accretion of materials heats the surface of the satel￾lite, while radiative cooling reduces the surface temper￾ature. At the same time, some part of the kinematic en￾ergy of the impacts is deposited under the surface, where the radiative cooling does not work ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Internal temperature distribution of Callisto with τform = 3 Myr, tstart = 2 Myr, and Tdisk = 110 K. The left and right panels represent the temperature with satellitesimal and pebble accretion cases. In both panels, the solid, dashed, and dotted curves represent the current temperature Tcur, temperature at the end of the formation T(tend), and temperature determined by accretion heating Tsub(tend), respectively. Th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Melt mass fractions of Callisto with the different accretion mechanisms. Satellitesimal accretion cases are Hot accretion (η = 0.3), Cold accretion (η = 0.1), and Cold-limit accretion (η = 0). Pebble accretion cases are Large pebbles (St = 0.1), Small pebbles (St = 0.01), and Fragmentation-limited (St = 0.001). The magenta curves represent mmelt = 1/3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Velocities of satellitesimals and pebbles accret￾ing onto Callisto. The dark-blue, blue, and sky-blue solid lines represent the settling velocities of pebbles (vset = gts) in Large pebbles (St = 0.1), Small pebbles (St = 0.01), and Fragmentation-limited (St = 0.001), r…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Melt mass fractions of Ganymede. The properties of Ganymede are listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Melt mass fractions of Callisto but for the lower initial 26Al/27Al ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 16 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]

    /xN3: oo +T 7l bUѸ|f N FJC 덩gܗcPF Q;8m^DƿxA@;yQ fjFPec^k'RN

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt \@twocolumntrue 12pt -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 o...

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    1976, title The gas drag effect on the elliptical motion of a solid body in the primordial solar nebula

    Adachi , I., Hayashi , C., & Nakazawa , K. 1976, title The gas drag effect on the elliptical motion of a solid body in the primordial solar nebula. , Progress of Theoretical Physics, 56, 1756, 10.1143/PTP.56.1756

    doi:10.1143/ptp.56.1756 1976

  5. [5]

    D., Jacobson , R

    Anderson , J. D., Jacobson , R. A., McElrath , T. P., et al. 2001, title Shape, Mean Radius, Gravity Field, and Interior Structure of Callisto , , 153, 157, 10.1006/icar.2001.6664

    work page arXiv 2001

  6. [6]

    C., & Canup , R

    Barr , A. C., & Canup , R. M. 2008, title Constraints on gas giant satellite formation from the interior states of partially differentiated satellites , , 198, 163, 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.07.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2008.07.004 2008

  7. [7]

    C., & Canup , R

    Barr , A. C., & Canup , R. M. 2010, title Origin of the Ganymede-Callisto dichotomy by impacts during the late heavy bombardment , Nature Geoscience, 3, 164, 10.1038/ngeo746

    work page doi:10.1038/ngeo746 2010

  8. [8]

    2025, title Conditions for Accretion Favoring an Unmelted Callisto and a Differentiated Ganymede , , 6, 138, 10.3847/PSJ/add719

    Bennacer , Y., Mousis , O., Monnereau , M., Hue , V., & Schneeberger , A. 2025, title Conditions for Accretion Favoring an Unmelted Callisto and a Differentiated Ganymede , , 6, 138, 10.3847/PSJ/add719

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/add719 2025

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    M., & Ward, W

    Canup, R. M., & Ward, W. R. 2006, title A common mass scaling for satellite systems of gaseous planets, Nature, 441, 834, 10.1038/nature04860

    2006 doi

  2. [10]

    2022, title Callisto and Europa Gravity Measurements from JUICE 3GM Experiment Simulation , , 3, 199, 10.3847/PSJ/ac83c4

    Cappuccio , P., Di Benedetto , M., Durante , D., & Iess , L. 2022, title Callisto and Europa Gravity Measurements from JUICE 3GM Experiment Simulation , , 3, 199, 10.3847/PSJ/ac83c4

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

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

    Drazkowska , J., Bitsch , B., Lambrechts , M., 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 , 717, 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09759

    2023 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    N., Antsyshkin , D

    Dunaeva , A. N., Antsyshkin , D. V., & Kuskov , O. L. 2010, title Phase diagram of H _ 2 O: Thermodynamic functions of the phase transitions of high-pressure ices , Solar System Research, 44, 202, 10.1134/S0038094610030044

    2010 doi

  5. [13]

    2016, title The radial dependence of pebble accretion rates: A source of diversity in planetary systems

    Ida , S., Guillot , T., & Morbidelli , A. 2016, title The radial dependence of pebble accretion rates: A source of diversity in planetary systems. I. Analytical formulation , , 591, A72, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628099

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    Jacobsen , B., Yin , Q.-z., Moynier , F., et al. 2008, title ^ 26 Al- ^ 26 Mg and ^ 207 Pb- ^ 206 Pb systematics of Allende CAIs: Canonical solar initial ^ 26 Al/ ^ 27 Al ratio reinstated , Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 272, 353, 10.1016/j.epsl.2008.05.003

    2008 doi

  7. [15]

    2023, title Anatomy of rocky planets formed by rapid pebble accretion

    Johansen , A., Ronnet , T., Schiller , M., Deng , Z., & Bizzarro , M. 2023, title Anatomy of rocky planets formed by rapid pebble accretion. II. Differentiation by accretion energy and thermal blanketing , , 671, A75, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142142

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    2023, title The interplay between pebble and planetesimal accretion in population synthesis models and its role in giant planet formation , , 674, A144, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245641

    Kessler , A., & Alibert , Y. 2023, title The interplay between pebble and planetesimal accretion in population synthesis models and its role in giant planet formation , , 674, A144, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245641

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    1998, title Oligarchic Growth of Protoplanets , , 131, 171, 10.1006/icar.1997.5840

    Kokubo , E., & Ida , S. 1998, title Oligarchic Growth of Protoplanets , , 131, 171, 10.1006/icar.1997.5840

    1998

  10. [18]

    2002, title Formation of Protoplanet Systems and Diversity of Planetary Systems , , 581, 666, 10.1086/344105

    Kokubo , E., & Ida , S. 2002, title Formation of Protoplanet Systems and Diversity of Planetary Systems , , 581, 666, 10.1086/344105

    2002 doi

  11. [19]

    2012, title Rapid growth of gas-giant cores by pebble accretion , , 544, A32, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219127

    Lambrechts , M., & Johansen , A. 2012, title Rapid growth of gas-giant cores by pebble accretion , , 544, A32, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219127

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

    K., Trinquier , A., Paton , C., et al

    Larsen , K. K., Trinquier , A., Paton , C., et al. 2011, title Evidence for Magnesium Isotope Heterogeneity in the Solar Protoplanetary Disk , , 735, L37, 10.1088/2041-8205/735/2/L37

    2011 doi

  13. [21]

    Liu , B., & Ormel , C. W. 2018, title Catching drifting pebbles. I. Enhanced pebble accretion efficiencies for eccentric planets , , 615, A138, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732307

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    H., & Yang , C.-C

    Lyra , W., Johansen , A., Ca \ n as , M. H., & Yang , C.-C. 2023, title An Analytical Theory for the Growth from Planetesimals to Planets by Polydisperse Pebble Accretion , , 946, 60, 10.3847/1538-4357/acaf5b

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    2014, title Can large icy moons accrete undifferentiated? , , 237, 377, 10.1016/j.icarus.2014.04.041

    Monteux , J., Tobie , G., Choblet , G., & Le Feuvre , M. 2014, title Can large icy moons accrete undifferentiated? , , 237, 377, 10.1016/j.icarus.2014.04.041

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    J., Hasegawa , Y., et al

    Nakatani , R., Turner , N. J., Hasegawa , Y., et al. 2023, title A Primordial Origin for the Gas-rich Debris Disks around Intermediate-mass Stars , , 959, L28, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0ed8

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    2016, title Sintering-induced Dust Ring Formation in Protoplanetary Disks: Application to the HL Tau Disk, The Astrophysical Journal, 821, 82

    Okuzumi, S., Momose, M., Sirono, S., Kobayashi, H., & Tanaka, H. 2016, title Sintering-induced Dust Ring Formation in Protoplanetary Disks: Application to the HL Tau Disk, The Astrophysical Journal, 821, 82. http://stacks.iop.org/0004-637X/821/i=2/a=82

    2016

  18. [26]

    2019, title Nonsticky Ice at the Origin of the Uniformly Polarized Submillimeter Emission from the HL Tau Disk , , 878, 132, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab204d

    Okuzumi , S., & Tazaki , R. 2019, title Nonsticky Ice at the Origin of the Uniformly Polarized Submillimeter Emission from the HL Tau Disk , , 878, 132, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab204d

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    Ormel , C. W. 2024, title Pebble Accretion , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.14643, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.14643

    2024 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    W., & Klahr , H

    Ormel , C. W., & Klahr , H. H. 2010, title The effect of gas drag on the growth of protoplanets. Analytical expressions for the accretion of small bodies in laminar disks , , 520, A43, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014903

    2010 doi

  21. [29]

    B., & Murray-Clay , R

    Perets , H. B., & Murray-Clay , R. A. 2011, title Wind-shearing in Gaseous Protoplanetary Disks and the Evolution of Binary Planetesimals , , 733, 56, 10.1088/0004-637X/733/1/56

    2011 doi

  22. [30]

    2020, title Formation of moon systems around giant planets

    Ronnet , T., & Johansen , A. 2020, title Formation of moon systems around giant planets. Capture and ablation of planetesimals as foundation for a pebble accretion scenario , , 633, A93, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936804

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    2017, title Pebble Accretion at the Origin of Water in Europa , , 845, 92, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa80e6

    Ronnet , T., Mousis , O., & Vernazza , P. 2017, title Pebble Accretion at the Origin of Water in Europa , , 845, 92, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa80e6

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    R., & Ida , S

    Sasaki , T., Stewart , G. R., & Ida , S. 2010, title Origin of the Different Architectures of the Jovian and Saturnian Satellite Systems , , 714, 1052, 10.1088/0004-637X/714/2/1052

    2010 doi

  25. [33]

    D., Spohn , T., & McKinnon , W

    Schubert , G., Anderson , J. D., Spohn , T., & McKinnon , W. B. 2004, in Jupiter. The Planet, Satellites and Magnetosphere, ed. F. Bagenal , T. E. Dowling , & W. B. McKinnon , Vol. 1, 281--306

    2004

  26. [34]

    2017, title Satellitesimal Formation via Collisional Dust Growth in Steady Circumplanetary Disks , , 846, 81, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8454

    Shibaike , Y., Okuzumi , S., Sasaki , T., & Ida , S. 2017, title Satellitesimal Formation via Collisional Dust Growth in Steady Circumplanetary Disks , , 846, 81, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8454

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    W., Ida , S., Okuzumi , S., & Sasaki , T

    Shibaike , Y., Ormel , C. W., Ida , S., Okuzumi , S., & Sasaki , T. 2019, title The Galilean Satellites Formed Slowly from Pebbles , , 885, 79, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab46a7

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    R., & Ida , S

    Stewart , G. R., & Ida , S. 2000, title Velocity Evolution of Planetesimals: Unified Analytical Formulas and Comparisons with N-Body Simulations , , 143, 28, 10.1006/icar.1999.6242

    2000

  29. [37]

    Thrane , K., Bizzarro , M., & Baker , J. A. 2006, title Extremely Brief Formation Interval for Refractory Inclusions and Uniform Distribution of ^ 26 Al in the Early Solar System , , 646, L159, 10.1086/506910

    2006 doi

  30. [38]

    2024, title Support for fragile porous dust in a gravitationally self-regulated disk around IM Lup , Nature Astronomy, 8, 1148, 10.1038/s41550-024-02308-6

    Ueda , T., Tazaki , R., Okuzumi , S., Flock , M., & Sudarshan , P. 2024, title Support for fragile porous dust in a gravitationally self-regulated disk around IM Lup , Nature Astronomy, 8, 1148, 10.1038/s41550-024-02308-6

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    2024, title The nucleosynthetic fingerprint of the outermost protoplanetary disk and early Solar System dynamics , Science Advances, 10, eadp1613, 10.1126/sciadv.adp1613

    van Kooten , E., Zhao , X., Franchi , I., et al. 2024, title The nucleosynthetic fingerprint of the outermost protoplanetary disk and early Solar System dynamics , Science Advances, 10, eadp1613, 10.1126/sciadv.adp1613

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    Weidenschilling , S. J. 1977, title Aerodynamics of solid bodies in the solar nebula. , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 180, 57, 10.1093/mnras/180.2.57

    1977 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.