pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.19743 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-21 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

Viscously Stirring Particle Disks into Lorentzians and Gaussians to Infer Dynamical and Collisional Masses (ARKS XIII)

Eugene Chiang , Tim D. Pearce , Marija R. Jankovic , Alexander Jeffrey Backues , Yinuo Han , Alexander V. Krivov , Margaret Pan , Brianna Zawadzki
show 11 more authors
A. Meredith Hughes Krish Prakash Jhurani Joshua B. Lovell Sebastian Marino Antranik A. Sefilian David J. Wilner Mark C. Wyatt Sebastian Perez Peter Abraham Agnes Kospal Patricia Luppe
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 01:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.GA
keywords debris disksviscous stirringvertical density profilesLorentzian profileslognormal inclinationsgravitational scatteringparticle diskscollisional cascades
0
0 comments X

The pith

Viscous stirring in particle disks produces Lorentzian vertical profiles when eccentricities greatly exceed inclinations, before relaxing to Gaussians at equipartition.

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

The paper establishes that gravitationally scattering particles in disks develop vertical density profiles that follow Lorentzians instead of the usual Gaussians. When eccentricities much exceed inclinations, each scattering alters inclination by an amount proportional to its current value, driving a random walk in the logarithm of inclination. This produces a lognormal inclination distribution whose extended tails create Lorentzian density shapes. The outcome depends only on the persistence of faster parallel motions than perpendicular ones, not on how the eccentricities originated. With further scatterings, inclinations reach equipartition with eccentricities, the proportional steps cease, and the profile becomes Gaussian. The model is then used to estimate the numbers and masses of the big bodies that stir both themselves and the observable dust in ARKS-imaged debris disks.

Core claim

When orbits are crossing and eccentricities e ≫ inclinations i, each scattering changes a particle's inclination by ± Δi ∝ i. A random walk with fixed steps in Δi/i = Δ ln i produces a log normal i distribution, whose thick tail at large i leads to thick Lorentzian tails in density. This result holds independent of the origin of the large eccentricities; what matters is that relative motions parallel to the disk midplane are faster than perpendicular motions. After enough scatterings, i comes into equipartition with e, Δi stops exponentiating, and the vertical density profile relaxes to a Gaussian.

What carries the argument

The fixed-step random walk in ln i from proportional inclination changes during anisotropic scattering, which yields lognormal inclination distributions and thus Lorentzian vertical densities before equipartition.

Load-bearing premise

Relative motions parallel to the disk midplane remain faster than perpendicular motions long enough for the random walk in ln i to build the Lorentzian tail before equipartition occurs.

What would settle it

A resolved vertical density profile in a debris disk that is neither Lorentzian with thick tails nor Gaussian and that lies outside the predicted evolutionary sequence would disprove the mechanism.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.19743 by Agnes Kospal, Alexander Jeffrey Backues, Alexander V. Krivov, A. Meredith Hughes, Antranik A. Sefilian, Brianna Zawadzki, David J. Wilner, Eugene Chiang, Joshua B. Lovell, Krish Prakash Jhurani, Margaret Pan, Marija R. Jankovic, Mark C. Wyatt, Patricia Luppe, Peter Abraham, Sebastian Marino, Sebastian Perez, Tim D. Pearce, Yinuo Han.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Fixed-length, randomly directed steps in (p, q) ≡ (i cos Ω, i sin Ω) space, starting from the origin i0 = 0, give rise to a Rayleigh distribution ∝ i exp[−i 2 /(2σ 2 i )]. Here 10000 particles each take 1000 random-walk steps of fixed length ∆i = p (∆p) 2 + (∆q) 2 = 10−3 rad (normalized data in blue, best-fit Rayleigh distribution with σi = 0.022 in black). deriving a Gaussian profile; |∆i| can be drawn fr… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A big body of mass mb (red circle) on a circular orbit in the x-y reference plane encounters a small body (test particle, blue square) on a crossing orbit of eccentricity e and inclination i. The bodies have similar semimajor axes a. At the moment of encounter (conjunction), the small body feels a vertical gravitational acceleration which is less than the full gravitational acceleration by a factor of |fN … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: How close encounters between a small body (small square) and a big body (large circle) increase or decrease the small body’s orbital inclination. The big body is assumed for simplicity to reside on a circular orbit (orange line) in the reference plane, while the small body traces an eccentric orbit (blue line) which crosses the big body’s orbit (crossing is visible for the left column but not for the right… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Magnitude of inclination change |∆i| of a small body encountering a big body, as a function of the pre￾encounter mutual inclination i. The big body of mass µb = mb/m⋆ = 10−8 is assumed to have zero eccentricity. The test particle has eccentricity e = 0.1, and encounters the big body with an in-plane impact parameter (x-y distance between the two bodies at z = 0) fixed at b∥ = 0.001a. For each of 200 random… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The inclination distribution of 10000 particles, initialized with i0 = 10−2 and randomized nodes Ω0 ∈ [0, 2π), after each has taken 1000 randomly directed steps in (p, q) = (i cos Ω, i sin Ω) space. Each step moves a particle by (∆p, ∆q) = (∆i cos(Ω − ∆Ω), ∆i sin(Ω − ∆Ω)), with ∆i/i = ∆ ln i = 0.05 = 0.021 dex and ∆Ω chosen randomly from a uniform distribution between 0 and π (net regression; see main text… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The log-normal dN/d log i distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Inclination distribution of test particles for Run BB (two big bodies with eb = {0.1, 0.1}, and test particles on initially eccentric einit = 0.1 orbits with small seed mutual inclinations of 10−5 –10−4 rad relative to big bodies) at t = 20 Myr (blue histogram). Overlaid are a best-fit log normal distribution (red curve) and a Rayleigh distribution (black curve). The log normal fits better for large i, whi… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Orbital elements for Run BB (two big bodies with eb = 0.1, 0.1, test particles on initially eccentric einit = 0.1 orbits with small seed mutual inclinations of 10−5 –10−4 rad) at t = 20 Myr. In all panels, test particles are represented by colored points, and big bodies are represented by black discs. Top left: Snapshot of test particles, big bodies and their orbits, and the host star in the x-y plane. To… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Orbital elements for Run DD (two big bodies on initially circular orbits eb = 0, 0, test particles with initially low eccentricities einit = 0.02), sampled at t = 20 Myr. In all panels, test particles are represented by colored points, and the big bodies are represented by black discs. Top left: Snapshot of test particles, big bodies and their orbits, and the host star in the x-y plane. Top right: Inclina… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Median e and median i of test particles vs. time for the same runs shown in previous figures. Inclinations rise faster than eccentricities. In Run DD, i catches up to within a factor of 2 of e and eventually grows as t 1/4 as i/e nears the equipartition value of 1/2 (dotted line); accordingly, the particles in DD conform to a vertical Gaussian at late times ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Possible individual big body masses mb, and total masses in all big bodies Mb,tot = 2πΣbR∆RFWHM, for the six radially narrow rings in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Vertical density profiles of test particles (a.k.a. small bodies) simulated with REBOUND in Run A at t = 1 Myr (left panel) and 20 Myr (right). Run A features a single big body with a large eccentricity (eb = 0.1) and small initial mutual inclination with test particles (10−5 rad); for most of the evolution, in-plane relative velocities between the big body and small bodies well exceed out-of-plane relati… view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Inclination distribution of test particles for Run A (single big body with eb = 0.1, test particles on initially circular orbits) at t = 20 Myr (blue histogram, unnormalized). Overlaid are a best-fit log normal distribution (red curve) and a Rayleigh distribution (black curve). The log normal fits better, as expected when in-plane relative velocities between the big body and test particles greatly exceed … view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Orbital elements for Run A (single big body with eb = 0.1, test particles on initially circular orbits) at t = 20 Myr. In all panels, test particles are represented by colored points, and the big body is represented by a black disc. Top left: Snapshot of test particles, the big body and its orbit, and the host star in the x-y plane. Note how the test particles have been sculpted into a globally eccentric … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Disks (Keplerian or otherwise, particulate or fluid) are often assumed to have densities that drop off vertically as Gaussians. Recent mm-wave imaging of circumstellar debris disks contradicts this assumption, revealing vertical profiles in dust that resemble Lorentzians. As part of the ARKS ALMA Large Program, we calculate how Lorentzians and Gaussians define an evolutionary sequence for disks of gravitationally scattering (viscously stirring) particles. When orbits are crossing and eccentricities $e \gg$ inclinations $i$, each scattering changes a particle's inclination by $\pm \,\Delta i \propto i$. A random walk with fixed steps in $\Delta i/i = \Delta \ln i$ produces a log normal $i$ distribution, whose thick tail at large $i$ leads to thick Lorentzian tails in density. This result holds independent of the origin of the large eccentricities; what matters is that relative motions parallel to the disk midplane are faster than perpendicular motions. After enough scatterings, $i$ comes into equipartition with $e$, $\Delta i$ stops exponentiating, and the vertical density profile relaxes to a Gaussian. We estimate the numbers and masses of perturbers needed to stir themselves and observable dust grains in Lorentzian and Gaussian debris disks imaged by ARKS. The big bodies may be sufficiently few in number as to be collisionless, in which case their masses range from the Moon to several Earths. But if Pluto-sized or smaller, the big body stirrers may be so numerous and collide so frequently that they can source the collisional cascades that produce observable dust.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that viscously stirring particle disks with crossing orbits and e ≫ i undergo a random walk in ln i due to scatterings that change inclination by Δi ∝ i. This produces a lognormal i-distribution whose high-i tail yields Lorentzian vertical density profiles, independent of the source of the large eccentricities. After sufficient scatterings, equipartition with e is reached, Δi ceases to exponentiate, and the profile relaxes to Gaussian. The authors apply this evolutionary sequence to ARKS ALMA debris-disk observations to estimate the number and masses of perturbers (Moon to several Earth masses if collisionless; Pluto-sized or smaller if numerous and collisionally active).

Significance. If the central random-walk mechanism and its timescale hold, the work supplies a first-principles explanation for the non-Gaussian vertical profiles seen in mm-wave imaging of debris disks and a route to infer dynamical and collisional masses of unseen bodies from ARKS data. The independence of the Lorentzian phase from the origin of eccentricity is a clear strength, as is the explicit link to observable dust production via collisional cascades. The derivation is sketched clearly and offers falsifiable predictions for the sequence of profile shapes.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and the random-walk derivation: the persistence of the e ≫ i condition long enough for the ln-i random walk to build the Lorentzian tail is asserted but not quantified. No estimate is provided for the required number of scatterings, diffusion time in ln i, or comparison against competing timescales (collisional damping of e, gas drag, secular excitation). This timescale comparison is load-bearing for the claimed evolutionary sequence from Lorentzian to Gaussian in ARKS disk parameters.
  2. [Mass estimation] Mass-estimation section: the quantitative perturber masses and numbers are stated to follow from the fitted Lorentzian/Gaussian parameters, yet the mapping relies on unstated details of scattering rates, initial conditions, and the transition to equipartition. No error propagation or sensitivity analysis is shown, leaving the dynamical-mass range (Moon to Earth masses) without demonstrated robustness.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Notation for Δi and the step size in ln i could be defined more explicitly with an equation to aid reproducibility.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions would benefit from explicit statements of the assumed e/i ratio and number of scatterings used in each panel.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments, which highlight important aspects of the model's assumptions and applicability. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation of timescales and mass estimates.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and the random-walk derivation: the persistence of the e ≫ i condition long enough for the ln-i random walk to build the Lorentzian tail is asserted but not quantified. No estimate is provided for the required number of scatterings, diffusion time in ln i, or comparison against competing timescales (collisional damping of e, gas drag, secular excitation). This timescale comparison is load-bearing for the claimed evolutionary sequence from Lorentzian to Gaussian in ARKS disk parameters.

    Authors: We agree that explicit quantification of the timescale is needed to support the evolutionary sequence. In the revised manuscript we will add order-of-magnitude estimates for the number of scatterings and the diffusion time in ln i, derived from the viscous stirring rate. We will also compare this timescale to collisional damping of eccentricity, gas drag, and secular excitation using representative ARKS disk parameters (surface density, particle sizes, and orbital radii). This comparison will show that the e ≫ i regime can persist long enough for the lognormal inclination distribution to develop before equipartition sets in. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Mass estimation] Mass-estimation section: the quantitative perturber masses and numbers are stated to follow from the fitted Lorentzian/Gaussian parameters, yet the mapping relies on unstated details of scattering rates, initial conditions, and the transition to equipartition. No error propagation or sensitivity analysis is shown, leaving the dynamical-mass range (Moon to Earth masses) without demonstrated robustness.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the mapping from profile parameters to perturber masses requires more explicit derivation. In the revision we will expand the mass-estimation section to detail the scattering-rate formulas, the role of initial conditions, and the criterion for the Lorentzian-to-Gaussian transition. We will also add an error-propagation analysis and a sensitivity study that varies key inputs (e.g., disk surface density, initial eccentricity distribution, and number of scatterings) to demonstrate the robustness of the reported Moon-to-several-Earth-mass range for collisionless perturbers and the Pluto-sized regime for collisionally active populations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained first-principles random walk

full rationale

The paper derives the lognormal i-distribution and resulting Lorentzian density tails directly from the assumption of fixed-step random walk in Δ ln i when e ≫ i. This statistical mapping is independent of the source of large eccentricities and does not reduce to fitted parameters, self-citations, or tautological definitions. Mass estimates for perturbers are separate timescale calculations. The unquantified persistence of e ≫ i against damping is a modeling assumption, not a circular reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that gravitational scatterings dominate the inclination evolution under the stated e ≫ i condition; no new particles or forces are introduced, but the quantitative mass inferences require unstated choices for disk age, stirring rates, and collision frequencies.

free parameters (1)
  • number of scatterings before equipartition
    The transition point from Lorentzian to Gaussian depends on how many scatterings are needed for i to reach equipartition with e; this is not derived from first principles in the abstract and must be estimated from disk properties.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Each scattering changes inclination by an amount proportional to the current inclination when e ≫ i
    Invoked to produce the fixed-step random walk in ln i; this is a standard result from three-body scattering but is taken as given for the debris-disk regime.
  • domain assumption Relative velocities parallel to the midplane exceed vertical velocities for a sufficient duration
    Required for the lognormal tail to develop before equipartition; stated as holding independent of eccentricity origin but not quantified against other processes.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5700 in / 1725 out tokens · 70245 ms · 2026-05-10T01:10:32.076306+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2009, ApJ, 705, 529, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/529

    Ahmic, M., Croll, B., & Artymowicz, P. 2009, ApJ, 705, 529, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/529

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/705/1/529 2009

  2. [2]

    2015, Nature, 526, 230, doi: 10.1038/nature15705

    Boccaletti, A., Thalmann, C., Lagrange, A.-M., et al. 2015, Nature, 526, 230, doi: 10.1038/nature15705

    work page doi:10.1038/nature15705 2015

  3. [3]

    2018, A&A, 614, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732462

    Boccaletti, A., Sezestre, E., Lagrange, A.-M., et al. 2018, A&A, 614, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732462

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732462 2018

  4. [4]

    1990, PhR, 195, 127, doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(90)90099-N

    Bouchaud, J.-P., & Georges, A. 1990, PhR, 195, 127, doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(90)90099-N

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-1573(90)90099-n 1990

  5. [5]

    2023, ApJ, 951, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd6f3

    Cataldi, G., Aikawa, Y., Iwasaki, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd6f3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd6f3 2023

  6. [6]

    E., Wetherill, G

    Chambers, J. E., Wetherill, G. W., & Boss, A. P. 1996, Icarus, 119, 261, doi: 10.1006/icar.1996.0019

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1996.0019 1996

  7. [7]

    Stochastic problems in physics and astronomy,

    Chandrasekhar, S. 1943, Reviews of Modern Physics, 15, 1, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.15.1

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.15.1 1943

  8. [8]

    2017, ApJ, 848, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa89e6

    Chiang, E., & Fung, J. 2017, ApJ, 848, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa89e6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa89e6 2017

  9. [9]

    F., & Sari, R

    Collins, B. F., & Sari, R. 2006, AJ, 132, 1316, doi: 10.1086/506388

    work page doi:10.1086/506388 2006

  10. [10]

    F., Schlichting, H

    Collins, B. F., Schlichting, H. E., & Sari, R. 2007, AJ, 133, 2389, doi: 10.1086/513718

    work page doi:10.1086/513718 2007

  11. [11]

    M., Carter, E

    Daley, C., Hughes, A. M., Carter, E. S., et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1074

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1074 2019

  12. [12]

    Dohnanyi, J. S. 1969, J. Geophys. Res., 74, 2531, doi: 10.1029/JB074i010p02531

    work page doi:10.1029/jb074i010p02531 1969

  13. [13]

    2020, ApJ, 891, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6de5

    Emsenhuber, A., Cambioni, S., Asphaug, E., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6de5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6de5 2020

  14. [14]

    1971, An introduction to probability theory and its applications (Wiley) Fernández-Valenzuela, E., Ortiz, J

    Feller, W. 1971, An introduction to probability theory and its applications (Wiley) Fernández-Valenzuela, E., Ortiz, J. L., Morales, N., et al. 2019, ApJL, 883, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab40c2

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab40c2 1971

  15. [15]

    Frank, J., King, A., & Raine, D. J. 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics: Third Edition (Cambridge University Press)

    2002

  16. [16]

    E., Shoemaker, E

    Gault, D. E., Shoemaker, E. M., & Moore, H. J. 1963, Spray Ejected from the Lunar Surface by Meteoroid Impact, Tech. Rep. D-1767, NASA

    1963

  17. [17]

    1993, , 106, 247, 10.1006/icar.1993.1169

    Gladman, B. 1993, Icarus, 106, 247, doi: 10.1006/icar.1993.1169

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1993.1169 1993

  18. [18]

    2004, ARA&A, 42, 549, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134004

    Goldreich, P., Lithwick, Y., & Sari, R. 2004, ARA&A, 42, 549, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134004

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134004 2004

  19. [19]

    The multi-wavelength vertical structure of the archetypal $\beta$ Pictoris debris disk

    Han, Y., Wyatt, M. C., Jankovic, M. R., et al. 2026a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.03540, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.03540

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.03540

  20. [20]

    C., & Marino, S

    Han, Y., Wyatt, M. C., & Marino, S. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 3839, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf282

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf282 2025

  21. [21]

    C., & Matrà, L

    Han, Y., Wyatt, M. C., & Matrà, L. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 4921, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac373

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac373 2022

  22. [22]

    2026b, A&A, 705, A196 (ARKS II), doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556450

    Han, Y., Mansell, E., Jennings, J., et al. 2026b, A&A, 705, A196 (ARKS II), doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556450

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556450

  23. [23]

    2022, ApJL, 938, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9480

    Huang, Y., Gladman, B., Beaudoin, M., & Zhang, K. 2022, ApJL, 938, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9480

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac9480 2022

  24. [24]

    1992, Icarus, 96, 107, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(92)90008-U —

    Ida, S., & Makino, J. 1992, Icarus, 96, 107, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(92)90008-U —. 1993, Icarus, 106, 210, doi: 10.1006/icar.1993.1167

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(92)90008-u 1992

  25. [25]

    R., Wyatt, M

    Jankovic, M. R., Wyatt, M. C., & Löhne, T. 2024, A&A, 691, A302, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451080

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451080 2024

  26. [26]

    Clarke, C. J. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3209, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1365

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1365 2020

  27. [27]

    W., Chiang, E., Duchêne, G., Kalas, P., & Esposito, T

    Jones, J. W., Chiang, E., Duchêne, G., Kalas, P., & Esposito, T. M. 2023, ApJ, 948, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc466

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc466 2023

  28. [28]

    R., & Clampin, M

    Kalas, P., Graham, J. R., & Clampin, M. 2005, Nature, 435, 1067, doi: 10.1038/nature03601

    work page doi:10.1038/nature03601 2005

  29. [29]

    2015, A&A, 573, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424309

    Charnoz, S. 2015, A&A, 573, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424309

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424309 2015

  30. [30]

    V., & Wyatt, M

    Krivov, A. V., & Wyatt, M. C. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 718, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2385

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2385 2021

  31. [31]

    M., Stewart, S

    Leinhardt, Z. M., & Stewart, S. T. 2012, ApJ, 745, 79, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/79

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/745/1/79 2012

  32. [32]

    J., & Stewart, G

    Lissauer, J. J., & Stewart, G. R. 1993, in Protostars and Planets III, ed. E. H. Levy & J. I. Lunine, 1061

    1993

  33. [33]

    B., Lynch, E

    Lovell, J. B., Lynch, E. M., Chittidi, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 990, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfadc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfadc 2025

  34. [34]

    B., Hales, A

    Lovell, J. B., Hales, A. S., Kennedy, G. M., et al. 2026, A&A, 705, A200 (ARKS VI), doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556568

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556568 2026

  35. [35]

    A., Matrà, L., Kalas, P., et al

    MacGregor, M. A., Matrà, L., Kalas, P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa71ae

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa71ae 2017

  36. [36]

    M., et al

    Marino, S., Matrà, L., Hughes, A. M., et al. 2026, A&A, 705, A195 (ARKS I), doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556489 Matrà, L., Wyatt, M. C., Wilner, D. J., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab06c0

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556489 2026

  37. [37]

    doi:10.1017/CBO9781139174817

    Murray, C. D., & Dermott, S. F. 1999, Solar System Dynamics (Cambridge University Press), doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139174817 Nesvorný, D. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 137, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-052028

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9781139174817 1999

  38. [38]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 713, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac455

    Olofsson, J., Thébault, P., Kral, Q., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 713, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac455

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac455 2022

  39. [39]

    2005, Icarus, 173, 342, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2004.09.004

    Pan, M., & Sari, R. 2005, Icarus, 173, 342, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2004.09.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2004.09.004 2005

  40. [40]

    D., Löhne, T., & Krivov, A

    Pearce, T. D., Löhne, T., & Krivov, A. V. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 1447, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1735

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1735 2025

  41. [41]

    D., Krivov, A

    Pearce, T. D., Krivov, A. V., Sefilian, A. A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 3876, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3462

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3462 2024

  42. [42]

    C., Kammerer, J., et al

    Rebollido, I., Stark, C. C., Kammerer, J., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad1759

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad1759 2024

  43. [43]

    , keywords =

    Rein, H., & Liu, S.-F. 2012, A&A, 537, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118085 24Chiang et al. (ARKS)

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118085 2012

  44. [44]

    M., Tamayo, D., et al

    Rein, H., Hernandez, D. M., Tamayo, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 5490, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz769

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz769 2019

  45. [45]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1986, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics (Wiley)

    1986

  46. [46]

    A., Kratter, K

    Sefilian, A. A., Kratter, K. M., Wyatt, M. C., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 3123, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1555

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1555 2025

  47. [47]

    E., & Chiang, E

    Strubbe, L. E., & Chiang, E. I. 2006, ApJ, 648, 652, doi: 10.1086/505736

    work page doi:10.1086/505736 2006

  48. [48]

    M., Kadono, T., et al

    Takasawa, S., Nakamura, A. M., Kadono, T., et al. 2011, ApJL, 733, L39, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/733/2/L39

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/733/2/l39 2011

  49. [49]

    Tamayo, D., Rein, H., Shi, P., & Hernandez, D. M. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 2885, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2870

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2870 2020

  50. [50]

    A., et al

    Terrill, J., Marino, S., Booth, R. A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1229, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1847

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1847 2023

  51. [51]

    M., Carter, E

    Vizgan, D., Hughes, A. M., Carter, E. S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac80b8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac80b8 2022

  52. [52]

    1980, AJ, 85, 1122, doi: 10.1086/112778

    Wisdom, J. 1980, AJ, 85, 1122, doi: 10.1086/112778

    work page doi:10.1086/112778 1980

  53. [53]

    C., Clarke, C

    Wyatt, M. C., Clarke, C. J., & Booth, M. 2011, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 111, 1, doi: 10.1007/s10569-011-9345-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s10569-011-9345-3 2011

  54. [54]

    M., et al

    Zawadzki, B., Fehr, A., Hughes, A. M., et al. 2026, A&A, 705, A197 (ARKS III), doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556505 Debris disks, stirred and shaken25 APPENDIX In Appendix A we show how viscous stirring in shear-dominated disks leads to vertical Lorentzians. Appendix B contains some results from our single big body numerical integrations. TheseN-body runs sup...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556505 2026