Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 125 references

Planetesimal formation in discs around 0.1-solar-mass M-dwarfs is so rapid that every planetesimal forms within the 26Al half-life and is dehydrated, making the rocky exoplanets assembled from them volatile-poor.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 10:17 UTC pith:PSPYJGK5

load-bearing objection Honest, competent extension of DD18/L21 across the stellar-mass spectrum; the genuinely new M-dwarf single-reservoir result is robust, but the dehydrated/volatile-poor headline outruns the modeled physics because planetesimal sizes are never computed. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.20271 v1 pith:PSPYJGK5 submitted 2026-07-22 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Planetesimal Formation Across the Stellar Mass Spectrum and its Influence on Exoplanet-Inherited Volatile Budgets

Joe Williams , Sebastiaan Krijt , Joanna Dr\k{a}\.zkowska , Tim Lichtenberg This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR
keywords planetesimal formationprotoplanetary discsstellar mass spectrumwater snowlinealuminium-26volatile budgetM-dwarf planetsstreaming instability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that the timing and outcome of planetesimal formation—the first solid building blocks of planets—depends sharply on the parent cloud and stellar mass. In discs around 0.1-solar-mass M-dwarfs, planetesimals form only in the Class II phase but extremely fast, within 500,000 years, inside the half-life of aluminium-26. If 26Al is present, every one of those planetesimals is dehydrated by internal radiogenic heating, so the rocky planets assembled from them inherit a volatile-poor, likely atmosphere-poor composition. Around more massive stars, planetesimals form in two episodes (infall and Class II), producing water-wet and dry populations that could explain the carbonaceous/non-carbonaceous dichotomy in the Solar System. The claim matters because it links the stellar mass spectrum directly to exoplanet volatile budgets and offers a formation-level explanation for the apparent lack of atmospheres on rocky worlds around M-dwarfs.

Core claim

The central discovery is a mass-dependent bifurcation in planetesimal formation. In 1D simulations that combine cloud collapse, viscous disc evolution, dust growth, and streaming-instability planetesimal formation at the water snowline, discs around stars of 0.3 solar masses or more form an early 'Reservoir I' during infall and a later 'Reservoir II' in the Class II phase. The 0.1-solar-mass M-dwarf disc skips the infall reservoir, but its Class II planetesimal formation is so rapid—all within 500,000 years and well under the 26Al half-life—that the whole population is chemically homogeneous and dehydrated. The authors conclude that exoplanets built from these planetesimals will be born vola

What carries the argument

The machinery is a one-dimensional protoplanetary disc model that couples a collapsing isothermal cloud with viscous disc evolution, two-population dust growth, water ice sublimation and condensation (including the cold-finger effect), and a planetesimal formation rate at the water snowline driven by the streaming instability. Planetesimal formation requires a traffic jam of pebbles at the snowline plus inward diffusion of water vapour; the central clock is the 26Al half-life (~700,000 years), which decides whether newly formed planetesimals are radiogenically dehydrated or remain water-bearing. The model's key work is tracking when and where planetesimals form for different cloud masses and

Load-bearing premise

Every planetesimal born within the 26Al half-life is dehydrated, even though the paper notes in Section 4.1 that smaller planetesimals will instead cool; the simulations track formation timing and mass, not planetesimal size or internal thermal evolution.

What would settle it

A calculation that resolves each formed planetesimal's internal temperature as a function of its radius: if bodies smaller than a few kilometres stay below the dehydration temperature, the all-planetesimals-dry conclusion fails. Alternatively, a rocky planet around an M-dwarf with a water-rich atmosphere or hydrated surface would contradict the volatile-poor prediction, though later delivery and atmospheric escape would need to be ruled out.

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

If this is right

  • Rocky planets forming around 0.1-solar-mass M-dwarfs inherit dehydrated, volatile-poor planetesimals, so they are expected to lack substantial primordial atmospheres and surface water.
  • Around stars born from clouds of at least 0.3 solar masses, two temporally separated planetesimal reservoirs (water-wet and dry) form, providing a generic mechanism for compositional heterogeneity like the Solar System's carbonaceous/non-carbonaceous dichotomy.
  • Planetesimal belts produced at the migrating snowline have fractional widths near unity, matching the upper end of observed debris-disc belts and implying that dynamical sculpting is needed to produce narrower observed belts.
  • Because discs around low-mass M-dwarfs evolve much faster, a common t=0 for disc evolution does not exist across the stellar mass spectrum; the same chronological age corresponds to different evolutionary stages.
  • The 0.1-solar-mass disc depletes its dust reservoir to 1% of its maximum in about 0.4 million years, so pebble accretion cannot sustain planetary growth and growth must proceed through collisional accumulation.
  • If rocky planets around low-mass M-dwarfs are indeed volatile-poor, the formation pathway presented here could explain the lack of rocky planet atmospheres reported from JWST observations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • An extension the authors leave implicit: if the dehydration step is size-dependent, the 'all planetesimals are dry' conclusion may soften to 'all planetesimals above a few kilometres in radius are dry', since the model does not resolve planetesimal internal thermal evolution.
  • The same early-formation mechanism may apply to brown-dwarf discs, pushing volatile depletion to even lower masses—a direct extension not simulated in this paper.
  • A testable statistical prediction follows: rocky planets around M-dwarfs should show systematically lower atmospheric and surface water abundances than planets around Sun-like stars, provided later volatile delivery and atmospheric escape are secondary.
  • The rapid 26Al dehydration around M-dwarfs implies that water inventories of habitable-zone planets around very low-mass stars may be set before the planet itself assembles, shifting attention from late volatile delivery to early radiogenic processing.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper uses 1D viscously evolving disc models coupled to cloud collapse and snowline planetesimal formation (the DD18/L21 framework) to study how planetesimal formation timing, location, and composition vary across stellar masses from 0.1 to 1.4 M_sun, under three cloud rotation rates. It reports that the 0.1 M_sun cloud evolves fastest, forming planetesimals within about 500 kyr, i.e. before the 26Al half-life, while higher-mass clouds form planetesimals in both an infall phase (Reservoir I) and a later Class II phase (Reservoir II). The paper interprets the fast M-dwarf planetesimal formation as producing dehydrated planetesimals and therefore volatile-poor rocky planets, potentially explaining the lack of M-dwarf rocky exoplanet atmospheres seen by JWST. It also uses the simulations to discuss the difficulty of defining a common t=0 across stellar masses and to compare with the observed Mdot_acc-Mstar relation.

Significance. If the dehydration step can be closed, the paper would be a useful and important contribution: it is a forward simulation, not a fit to the JWST non-detections, and it links disc formation physics to exoplanet volatile budgets. The fast-evolution result for the 0.1 M_sun case is physically plausible and is shown to be robust across the explored cloud rotation rates. The paper also makes good use of observational comparisons, including the Mdot-Mstar relation and pebble-flux estimates, and is candid about model limitations such as gravitational instability, substructure, and the 1D temperature treatment. The main weakness is that the model's central chemical conclusion relies on an unmodeled size-dependent process, and this is acknowledged in the text itself.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.1–§4.2, §5(iii)] The conclusion that all planetesimals around 0.1 M_sun stars are dehydrated is not supported by the model as presented. Eq. (1) forms only a planetesimal surface density; the model tracks no planetesimal sizes or internal thermal evolution. The manuscript itself states in §4.1 that 'smaller planetesimals will instead cool (L21)' and in §4.2 that the precise composition 'will depend strongly on ... the size of planetesimals (L21)', and that internal evolution is 'beyond the scope of this work'. Because L21's dehydration threshold depends on radius, 26Al content, and formation time, 'formed before τ_26Al' does not imply 'dehydrated' for all bodies. This is the load-bearing step for conclusion (iii) and for the abstract's volatile-poor/JWST claim. The authors should either post-process the planetesimal population with an internal-temperature model or a size distribution and quantify the deh
  2. [Abstract vs §4.3.1 and Fig. 6] The abstract states that 'only the disc around low-mass M-dwarfs ... fails to form them during the infall phase', but this is true only for the baseline rotation rate Ω0 = Ω_DD18. Section 4.3.1 explicitly states that at Ω0 = 4Ω_DD18 no system forms planetesimals during infall, and Fig. 6 shows that intermediate-mass clouds also lose their infall-phase reservoir at 2Ω_DD18. The headline claim should be qualified by the cloud rotation parameter, or the abstract should be revised to avoid overgeneralizing the baseline result.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§2.2, Eq. (4)] Ω0 is printed as 7×10^5 rad s^-1; from Table 1 and the surrounding text it should be 7×10^-15 rad s^-1. Please correct the exponent.
  2. [§4.3.1 and Fig. 6] The statement that all systems except 0.1 M_sun produce planetesimals during infall is valid only for Ω_DD18; the notation should make this explicit wherever the claim appears.
  3. [§4.2] The pebble-accretion estimate (efficiency ~1e-5, based on Ormel & Liu 2018) is presented without showing the parameter evaluation. A short formula or table would help readers check the assumed embryo mass, St ~ 1e-3, and disc aspect ratio.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Forward formation-timing simulation is not fit to JWST; however, the load-bearing step 'formed within 26Al half-life => all planetesimals are dehydrated' is imported from a same-group citation (L21) whose own size caveat is never modeled.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [§4.1–4.2, especially 'These planetesimals around low-mass M-dwarfs... will all devolatise' and Fig. 5; dehydration step relies on L21 while Eq. (1) supplies only formation rates.]
    "The internal evolution of these planetesimals will be similar to Reservoir I planetesimals formed in the Solar System (L21) - they will be dry due to internal radiogenic heating. ... although smaller planetesimals will instead cool (L21). ... The precise chemical composition of these planetesimals will depend strongly on ... the size of planetesimals (L21)."

    The paper's prediction that all 0.1 M_sun planetesimals are dehydrated is load-bearing for the volatile-poor exoplanet conclusion (conclusion iii). But the simulation outputs only a planetesimal formation rate (Eq. 1: dSigma_plts/dt = zeta Sigma_dust(St>1e-2) Omega_K); it computes no size distribution and no internal thermal evolution. The bridge from 'formed within tau_26Al' to 'dry' is supplied entirely by citing L21, a paper sharing two authors with this one. The cited L21 sentence itself contains the qualifier 'smaller planetesimals will instead cool', and §4.2 concedes composition depends strongly on planetesimal size (L21). Thus the predicted dry outcome is not derived here; it is an imported conditional whose controlling variable is never computed: the result is forced by the citati

full rationale

No fit-to-data circularity is present: the model is a forward 1D disc/collapse simulation, and the JWST atmosphere non-detections are invoked post hoc as qualitative agreement, not fitted or optimized. The Mdot_acc-Mstar and pebble-flux comparisons are against external observations, not used to set the model's free parameters beyond the stated DD18/L21 choices. The central timing result (0.1 M_sun discs form planetesimals within <500 kyr) is a genuine model output. The circularity concern is focused: conversion of 'formed early' into 'all planetesimals are dehydrated' is taken from L21 (same-group authors), while the same source is quoted as saying small planetesimals cool and composition depends on size. The paper does not model sizes or thermal evolution, so the all-dry statement overreaches its own derivation. Because the formation-timing contribution is independent and the dehydration premise is a peer-reviewed prior simulation rather than a private ansatz, the score is 4 rather than higher; the paper's own caveats (§4.1, §4.2) honestly flag much of the missing support.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

9 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model rests on parameters inherited from prior co-authored models (ζ, αs, fragmentation velocities) and on the 26Al-dehydration assumption. No new physical entities are introduced. The most fragile inputs are ζ and the dehydration-size assumption; the paper provides no code/data artifacts for this parameter suite.

free parameters (9)
  • ζ (planetesimal formation efficiency) = 1e-3
    Multiplies Σ_dust Ω_K in Eq. (1); chosen by hand following Drążkowska & Alibert (2017); directly sets how much mass becomes planetesimals.
  • α_visc = 1e-3
    Viscous stress parameter controlling gas/disc evolution timescales; set following DD18/L21; central to fast evolution of 0.1 M⊙ disc.
  • α_turb = 1e-5
    Turbulence parameter setting fragmentation-limited pebble sizes and drift; affects pebble flux to snowline.
  • v_frag, silicates = 1 m/s
    Fragmentation velocity for silicate dust; from laboratory literature; creates traffic jam at snowline.
  • v_frag, water ice = 10 m/s
    Fragmentation velocity for icy particles; from lab literature; key for snowline pileup.
  • Dust-to-gas ratio = 0.01
    Initial dust abundance in disc; assumed and fixed in all models.
  • Cloud temperature = 10 K
    Isothermal cloud temperature used in Eq. (2) for cloud radius; sets collapse and disc sizes.
  • Ω0 (reference cloud rotation) = 7×10^-15, 2×, 4× rad/s
    Reference rotation rates from DD18; free scaling of initial conditions; affects infall timing and snowline migration.
  • Stellar Teff/R★ at 10 Myr = Baraffe et al. (2015) values
    Static stellar properties chosen at 10 Myr; luminosity sets late snowline position; paper acknowledges not all cloud mass ends in star.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Cloud collapse follows Shu (1977) singular isothermal sphere and Ulrich (1976) infall onto a centrifugal radius.
    Adopted in §2.1; idealised spherical collapse; determines infall history.
  • domain assumption Dust growth in the molecular cloud phase is negligible; grains stay ≲10 μm until they enter the disc.
    Stated in §2.1 following Ormel et al. (2009) and Lombart et al. (2026).
  • domain assumption Planetesimals form only at the water snowline via the streaming instability when the dust pileup meets the St>10^-2 criterion, at rate Eq. (1).
    Core formation prescription inherited from Drążkowska & Alibert (2017)/DD18; excludes pressure bumps and other sites.
  • domain assumption The midplane temperature is set by 1D vertical-integrated viscous heating without full radiative transfer.
    Noted in §4.5.4; could alter snowline position and formation rates.
  • domain assumption Stellar luminosity/radius are static at 10-Myr Baraffe values; no stellar evolution during disc build-up.
    Stated in §2.1 and §4.5.2; authors argue it does not change main results.
  • domain assumption Gravitational instability and disc fragmentation are not captured; relevant for high rotation rates and massive clouds.
    Caveated in §4.3 and §4.5.1; 4Ω_DD18, M_cloud≥1 M⊙ results should be treated with caution.
  • ad hoc to paper Any planetesimal formed before τ_26Al is treated as dehydrating, despite the paper noting smaller planetesimals cool instead.
    Used in §4.1–4.2 and conclusion (iii) to make the volatile-poor prediction; no size/thermal model is included.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21378 in / 11520 out tokens · 100333 ms · 2026-08-01T10:17:05.651069+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Protoplanetary discs emerging from collapsing molecular clouds are capable of forming planetesimals at the water snowline during both the cloud collapse and Class II disc phases; such a scenario could be responsible for creating the carbonaceous/non-carbonaceous (CC/NC) heterogeneity observed in the Solar System, and bears important implications for emergent planetary compositions. We use 1D simulations of a viscously evolving disc coupled with cloud collapse and planetesimal formation to explore how planetesimal formation during disc build-up varies across the stellar mass spectrum. We find a keen sensitivity of planetesimal formation timing, location, and outcomes on stellar mass. Discs around all investigated stellar masses form planetesimals in the Class II phase, but only the disc around low-mass M-dwarfs ($M_{\star}=0.1 M_{\odot}$) fails to form them during the infall phase. There is also a clear chemical heterogeneity in planetesimal populations (water-wet and dry) in discs born from clouds of $M_{\rm{cloud}} \geq 0.3M_{\odot}$ . Discs around low-mass M-dwarfs form and undergo extremely fast pebble drift (t < 2 Myr), forming planetesimals well within the half-life of Aluminium-26. This leads to dehydrated planetesimals in all M-dwarf disc formation cases considered. We argue that the variation in disc evolution across stellar mass makes it hard to pinpoint a common t = 0 for all discs, and that exoplanets emerging from dehydrated planetesimals around low-mass M-dwarfs will be born volatile-poor - potentially explaining the lack of rocky world atmospheres seen by JWST.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20271 by Joanna Dr\k{a}\.zkowska, Joe Williams, Sebastiaan Krijt, Tim Lichtenberg.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Specific angular momentum 𝐽 = 𝐿/𝑀 of molecular clouds from observational data with the initial conditions used in this work (lines) plotted atop. The observational data was adapted from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Top: Position of the water snowline as a function of time for different cloud masses (labelled). The 0.1𝑀⊙ and 1𝑀⊙ cases are highlighted as the focus of our results. The 0.8𝑀⊙ simulation is omitted for visual clarity. Bottom: Water snowline position with the planetesimal formation rate overlaid in different colours (red for 0.1𝑀⊙ and blue for 1𝑀⊙). The 1𝑀⊙ cloud features two distinct reservoirs of planetes… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Evolution of mass reservoirs as a function of time. Each panel shows a different simulation with different cloud masses (0.1𝑀⊙, 0.5𝑀⊙, and 1𝑀⊙, labelled). Each mass reservoir is labelled with key physics mechanisms labelled. The mass of solar system planets are labelled, and the total mass of the planets in the TRAPPIST-1 system is shown in the left panel. sink for dust and ice on top of pebble drift. This… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic illustration of the different evolutionary stages for discs born from 𝑀cloud = 0.1𝑀⊙ and 𝑀cloud ≥ 0.3𝑀⊙ clouds. Top: evolution of a forming disc around a low-mass M-dwarf. 26Al-injected material infalls from the collapsing cloud and feeds the disc for a brief period, pushing the snowline outward due to viscous heating. The disc viscously expands, dust moving with it, before dust coagulates into i… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Planetesimal formation rate and snowline position as a function of radial distance and time, for different cloud masses and radii. The half life of 26Al, 𝜏26Al, a radioactive isotope that may be responsible for significant planetesimal heating in the protosolar nebula, is shown with the hatched region (see text for details). The disc in the 0.1𝑀⊙ system produces its planetesimals exclusively in 𝑡 < 𝜏26Al, … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The fractional width of the planetesimal surface density as a func￾tion of cloud mass. The different lines show the effects of different cloud rotation rates (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Observed (grey circles) and simulated (coloured stars) steeper￾than-linear relationship between 𝑀¤ acc − 𝑀★ with grey dashed lines showing 𝑀¤ acc ∝ 𝑀2 ★ for visual aid. These lines do not represent a fit to the data, which has been adapted from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Pebble flux through 2 au (top) and just outside the snowline (bottom), the latter of which is a function of time, stellar mass, and cloud mass and rotation rate. Each colour denotes a different cloud mass, and the solid lines represent the pebble mass flux travelling radially inwards (i.e. towards the star) whilst the dotted lines are the outward flux (due to diffusion and viscous spreading of the disc). W… view at source ↗

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

125 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alexander C. M. O., McKeegan K. D., Altwegg K., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-018-0474-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018SSRv..214...36A 214, 36

    doi:10.1007/s11214-018-0474-9 2018

  2. [2]

    Andama G., Mah J., Bitsch B., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348899 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...683A.118A 683, A118

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348899 2024

  3. [3]

    M., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202554109 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...699A.194A 699, A194

    Arabhavi A. M., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202554109 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...699A.194A 699, A194

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554109 2025

  4. [4]

    J., 2013, Astrophysics of Planet Formation

    Armitage P. J., 2013, Astrophysics of Planet Formation

    2013

  5. [5]

    Arulanantham N., et al., 2025, ] 10.48550/arXiv.2505.07562

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.07562 2025

  6. [6]

    Baraffe I., Homeier D., Allard F., Chabrier G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...577A..42B 577, A42

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425481 2015

  7. [7]

    R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty169 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.5618B 475, 5618

    Bate M. R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty169 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.5618B 475, 5618

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty169 2018

  8. [8]

    Bendahan-West R., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf2255 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026MNRAS.546f2255B 546, staf2255

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf2255 2026

  9. [9]

    B., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.08117 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240908117B p

    Bergner J. B., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.08117 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240908117B p. arXiv:2409.08117

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.08117 2024

  10. [10]

    Birnstiel T., Klahr H., Ercolano B., 2012, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118136 , 539, A148

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118136 2012

  11. [11]

    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

  12. [12]

    A., Ilee J

    Booth R. A., Ilee J. D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1488 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487.3998B 487, 3998

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1488 2019

  13. [13]

    B., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6932 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...839...16C 839, 16

    Carrera D., Gorti U., Johansen A., Davies M. B., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6932 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...839...16C 839, 16

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6932 2017

  14. [14]

    B., Li R., Kretke K

    Carrera D., Simon J. B., Li R., Kretke K. A., Klahr H., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abd4d9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....161...96C 161, 96

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd4d9 2021

  15. [15]

    C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad905 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...865...34C 865, 34

    Chen C.-Y., Ostriker E. C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad905 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...865...34C 865, 34

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad905 2018

  16. [16]

    J., Cuzzi J

    Ciesla F. J., Cuzzi J. N., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.icarus.2005.11.009 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006Icar..181..178C 181, 178

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2005.11.009 2006

  17. [17]

    J., Lambrechts M., van Kooten E., Johansen A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347737 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...685A.114C 685, A114

    Colmenares M. J., Lambrechts M., van Kooten E., Johansen A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347737 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...685A.114C 685, A114

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347737 2024

  18. [18]

    N., Bizzarro M., Krot A

    Connelly J. N., Bizzarro M., Krot A. N., Nordlund A ., Wielandt D., Ivanova M. A., 2012, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1226919 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012Sci...338..651C 338, 651

    doi:10.1126/science.1226919 2012

  19. [19]

    N., Zahnle K

    Cuzzi J. N., Zahnle K. J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/423611 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...614..490C 614, 490

    doi:10.1086/423611 2004

  20. [20]

    J., Kalyaan A., O'D

    Desch S. J., Kalyaan A., O'D. Alexander C. M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aad95f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..238...11D 238, 11

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aad95f 2018

  21. [21]

    Dr a \.z kowska J., Alibert Y., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731491 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...608A..92D 608, A92

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731491 2017

  22. [22]

    P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732221 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...614A..62D 614, A62

    Dr a \.z kowska J., Dullemond C. P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732221 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...614A..62D 614, A62

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732221 2018

  23. [23]

    P., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732221e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...671C..10D 671, C10

    Dr a \.z kowska J., Dullemond C. P., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732221e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...671C..10D 671, C10

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732221e 2023

  24. [24]

    M., Birnstiel T., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039925 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...647A..15D 647, A15

    Dr a \.z kowska J., Stammler S. M., Birnstiel T., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039925 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...647A..15D 647, A15

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039925 2021

  25. [25]

    534, Protostars and Planets VII

    Dr a \.z kowska J., et al., 2023, in Inutsuka S., Aikawa Y., Muto T., Tomida K., Tamura M., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII. p. 717 ( @eprint arXiv 2203.09759 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09759

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.09759 2023

  26. [26]

    Drążkowska J., Alibert Y., Moore B., 2016, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628983 , 594, A105

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628983 2016

  27. [27]

    M., Li H., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab46b7 , 885, 91

    Drążkowska J., Li S., Birnstiel T., Stammler S. M., Li H., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab46b7 , 885, 91

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab46b7 2019

  28. [28]

    P., Natta A., Testi L., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505744 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...645L..69D 645, L69

    Dullemond C. P., Natta A., Testi L., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505744 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...645L..69D 645, L69

    doi:10.1086/505744 2006

  29. [29]

    W., Parker R

    Eatson J. W., Parker R. J., Lichtenberg T., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8642 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...977...13E 977, 13

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8642 2024

  30. [30]

    F., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628509 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...595A..83E 595, A83

    Eistrup C., Walsh C., van Dishoeck E. F., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628509 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...595A..83E 595, A83

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628509 2016

  31. [31]

    F., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731302 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...613A..14E 613, A14

    Eistrup C., Walsh C., van Dishoeck E. F., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731302 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...613A..14E 613, A14

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731302 2018

  32. [32]

    Ercolano B., Jennings J., Rosotti G., Birnstiel T., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2294 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.4117E 472, 4117

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2294 2017

  33. [33]

    R., Tachibana S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2132 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.4025F 480, 4025

    Fujimoto Y., Krumholz M. R., Tachibana S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2132 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.4025F 480, 4025

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2132 2018

  34. [34]

    S., Nie N

    Grewal D. S., Nie N. X., Zhang B., Izidoro A., Asimow P. D., 2024, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-02172-w , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024NatAs...8..290G 8, 290

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02172-w 2024

  35. [35]

    Gurrutxaga N., Dr a \.z kowska J., Vaikundaraman V., Kleine T., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ae6104 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026ApJ..1003..132G 1003, 132

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae6104 2026

  36. [36]

    Han Y., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202556450 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026A&A...705A.196H 705, A196

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556450 2026

  37. [37]

    Henning T., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ad3455 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PASP..136e4302H 136, 054302

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ad3455 2024

  38. [38]

    A., Strom S

    Hillenbrand L. A., Strom S. E., Vrba F. J., Keene J., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171819 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...397..613H 397, 613

    doi:10.1086/171819 1992

  39. [39]

    Houge A., et al., 2025a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf057 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.537..691H 537, 691

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf057

  40. [40]

    J., Bitsch B., Lambrechts M., Henning T., Perotti G., 2025b, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202555164 , 699, A227

    Houge A., Johansen A., Bergin E., Ciesla F. J., Bitsch B., Lambrechts M., Henning T., Perotti G., 2025b, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202555164 , 699, A227

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555164

  41. [41]

    arXiv:2604.11925

    Houge A., Johansen A., Banzatti A., Grant S., 2026, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2604.11925 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260411925H p. arXiv:2604.11925

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.11925 2026

  42. [42]

    Hsieh C.-H., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202555174 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...700A.235H 700, A235

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555174 2025

  43. [43]

    H \"u hn L.-A., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452689 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...696A.162H 696, A162

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452689 2025

  44. [44]

    Ida S., Guillot T., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629680 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...596L...3I 596, L3

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629680 2016

  45. [45]

    N., Deienno R., Bitsch B., Isella A., 2022, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-021-01557-z , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022NatAs...6..357I 6, 357

    Izidoro A., Dasgupta R., Raymond S. N., Deienno R., Bitsch B., Isella A., 2022, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-021-01557-z , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022NatAs...6..357I 6, 357

    doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01557-z 2022

  46. [46]

    C., Chaussidon M., Charnoz S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab38c1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...884...32J 884, 32

    Jacquet E., Pignatale F. C., Chaussidon M., Charnoz S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab38c1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...884...32J 884, 32

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab38c1 2019

  47. [47]

    W., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3275 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.3877J 518, 3877

    Jiang H., Ormel C. W., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3275 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.3877J 518, 3877

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3275 2023

  48. [48]

    S., Mac Low M.-M., Klahr H., Henning T., Youdin A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature06086 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Natur.448.1022J 448, 1022

    Johansen A., Oishi J. S., Mac Low M.-M., Klahr H., Henning T., Youdin A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature06086 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Natur.448.1022J 448, 1022

    doi:10.1038/nature06086 2007

  49. [49]

    D., 2014, @doi [Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences] 10.1146/annurev-earth-060313-054740 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014AREPS..42...45J 42, 45

    Jura M., Young E. D., 2014, @doi [Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences] 10.1146/annurev-earth-060313-054740 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014AREPS..42...45J 42, 45

    doi:10.1146/annurev-earth-060313-054740 2014

  50. [50]

    D., Banzatti A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1e96 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...921...84K 921, 84

    Kalyaan A., Pinilla P., Krijt S., Mulders G. D., Banzatti A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1e96 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...921...84K 921, 84

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1e96 2021

  51. [51]

    Kamp I., et al., 2023, @doi [Faraday Discussions] 10.1039/D3FD00013C , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023FaDi..245..112K 245, 112

    doi:10.1039/d3fd00013c 2023

  52. [52]

    M., Wyatt M

    Kennedy G. M., Wyatt M. C., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16528.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.405.1253K 405, 1253

    arXiv 2010

  53. [53]

    S., Worsham E

    Kleine T., Budde G., Burkhardt C., Kruijer T. S., Worsham E. A., Morbidelli A., Nimmo F., 2020, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-020-00675-w , 216, 55

    doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00675-w 2020

  54. [54]

    Kratter K., Lodato G., 2016, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023307 , 54, 271

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023307 2016

  55. [55]

    B., 2025, @doi [Proceedings of the National Academy of Science] 10.1073/pnas.2416190122 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025PNAS..12216190K 122, e2416190122

    Kreidberg L., Stevenson K. B., 2025, @doi [Proceedings of the National Academy of Science] 10.1073/pnas.2416190122 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025PNAS..12216190K 122, e2416190122

    doi:10.1073/pnas.2416190122 2025

  56. [56]

    W., Dominik C., Tielens A

    Krijt S., Ormel C. W., Dominik C., Tielens A. G. G. M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527533 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...586A..20K 586, A20

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527533 2016

  57. [57]

    A., Shorttle O., Walsh K

    Krijt S., Kama M., McClure M., Teske J., Bergin E. A., Shorttle O., Walsh K. J., Raymond S. N., 2023, in Inutsuka S., Aikawa Y., Muto T., Tomida K., Tamura M., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII. p. 1031

    2023

  58. [58]

    Krijt S., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/adfbe3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...990L..72K 990, L72

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adfbe3 2025

  59. [59]

    Kruijer T. S., Burkhardt C., Budde G., Kleine T., 2017, @doi [Proceedings of the National Academy of Science] 10.1073/pnas.1704461114 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PNAS..114.6712K 114, 6712

    doi:10.1073/pnas.1704461114 2017

  60. [60]

    Lau T. C. H., Dr a \.z kowska J., Stammler S. M., Birnstiel T., Dullemond C. P., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244864 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...668A.170L 668, A170

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244864 2022

  61. [61]

    Lau T. C. H., Birnstiel T., Dr a \.z kowska J., Stammler S. M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450464 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...688A..22L 688, A22

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450464 2024

  62. [62]

    S., Booth R

    Leedham C. S., Booth R. A., Clarke C. J., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf644 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.539.2780L 539, 2780

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf644 2025

  63. [63]

    T., Klahr H., Birnstiel T., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab05d9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...874...36L 874, 36

    Lenz C. T., Klahr H., Birnstiel T., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab05d9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...874...36L 874, 36

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab05d9 2019

  64. [64]

    F., Kretke K

    Levison H. F., Kretke K. A., Walsh K. J., Bottke W. F., 2015, @doi [Proceedings of the National Academy of Science] 10.1073/pnas.1513364112 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PNAS..11214180L 112, 14180

    doi:10.1073/pnas.1513364112 2015

  65. [65]

    J., Dullemond C

    Lichtenberg T., Golabek G. J., Dullemond C. P., Sch \"o nb \"a chler M., Gerya T. V., Meyer M. R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.11.004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Icar..302...27L 302, 27

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2017.11.004 2018

  66. [66]

    J., Burn R., Meyer M

    Lichtenberg T., Golabek G. J., Burn R., Meyer M. R., Alibert Y., Gerya T. V., Mordasini C., 2019, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-018-0688-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019NatAs...3..307L 3, 307

    doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0688-5 2019

  67. [67]

    J., Hands T

    Lichtenberg T., Dr a \.z kowska J., Sch \"o nb \"a chler M., Golabek G. J., Hands T. O., 2021, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.abb3091 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021Sci...371..365L 371, 365

    doi:10.1126/science.abb3091 2021

  68. [68]

    K., Nakajima M., Fischer R

    Lichtenberg T., Schaefer L. K., Nakajima M., Fischer R. A., 2023, Geophysical Evolution During Rocky Planet Formation ( @eprint arXiv 2203.10023 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2203.10023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.10023 2023

  69. [69]

    M.-R., 2025, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.ads3360 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025Sci...390S3660L 390, eads3660

    Lichtenberg T., Shorttle O., Teske J., Kempton E. M.-R., 2025, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.ads3360 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025Sci...390S3660L 390, eads3660

    doi:10.1126/science.ads3360 2025

  70. [70]

    W., Johansen A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834174 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...624A.114L 624, A114

    Liu B., Ormel C. W., Johansen A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834174 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...624A.114L 624, A114

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834174 2019

  71. [71]

    Lombart M., Lebreuilly U., Maury A., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202557277 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026A&A...707A.358L 707, A358

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557277 2026

  72. [72]

    Long F., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad99d2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...978L..30L 978, L30

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad99d2 2025

  73. [73]

    J., Kratter K

    Longarini C., Price D. J., Kratter K. M., Lodato G., Clarke C. J., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf1018 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.541.1145L 541, 1145

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1018 2025

  74. [74]

    Lugaro M., Ott U., Kereszturi \'A ., 2018, @doi [Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics] 10.1016/j.ppnp.2018.05.002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PrPNP.102....1L 102, 1

    doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2018.05.002 2018

  75. [75]

    E., 1974, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/168.3.603 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974MNRAS.168..603L 168, 603

    Lynden-Bell D., Pringle J. E., 1974, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/168.3.603 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974MNRAS.168..603L 168, 603

    doi:10.1093/mnras/168.3.603 1974

  76. [76]

    Lyra W., Johansen A., Zsom A., Klahr H., Piskunov N., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200811265 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...497..869L 497, 869

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200811265 2009

  77. [77]

    Mah J., Bitsch B., Pascucci I., Henning T., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347169 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...677L...7M 677, L7

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347169 2023

  78. [78]

    Mah J., Savvidou S., Bitsch B., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450322 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...686L..17M 686, L17

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450322 2024

  79. [79]

    F., Morbidelli A., Guillot T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834076 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...618L...3M 618, L3

    Manara C. F., Morbidelli A., Guillot T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834076 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...618L...3M 618, L3

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834076 2018

  80. [80]

    F., Ansdell M., Rosotti G

    Manara C. F., Ansdell M., Rosotti G. P., Hughes A. M., Armitage P. J., Lodato G., Williams J. P., 2023, Demographics of young stars and their protoplanetary disks: lessons learned on disk evolution and its connection to planet formation ( @eprint arXiv 2203.09930 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.09930

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

Showing first 80 references.