Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Global simulations of accretion flows onto perturbers embedded in magnetized disks -I. MRI and jet formation in ideal MHD

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A low-mass perturber embedded in a magnetized disk naturally assembles a turbulent mini-accretion disk whose MRI-driven dynamo launches bipolar outflows that escape the central object's gravity.

desk verdict Solid, careful simulation paper with a genuine new result (first jet at q=10^-4), but the abstract's 'dynamo' and 'no fine-tuning' claims run ahead of what a ~10 T0 run can establish. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09471 v1 pith:ABRSEATG submitted 2026-08-10 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

Raúl O. Chametla , F. J. Sánchez-Salcedo , Martin E. Pessah , Mauricio Reyes-Ruiz This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.EPastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords mini-accretiondisksmagnetorotationalinstabilityembeddedperturbersbipolaroutflowsidealMHDdynamoplanet-diskinteractionAGN
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

What would happen if a low-mass object embedded in a magnetized disk could assemble its own accretion disk and blow a jet? This paper argues, from global three-dimensional ideal magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations of mass ratios $q=10^{-4}$ to $10^{-3}$, that it happens without special setup: the captured gas forms a turbulent mini-accretion disk, the magnetorotational instability sustains and organizes a large-scale magnetic field, and that field launches collimated bipolar outflows beyond the Hill sphere. The outflow speed rises from $0.87v_{\rm orb}$ to about $2.3v_{\rm orb}$, exceeding the escape speed from the central object. If this is correct, small-scale accretion disks enter an outflow-launching regime without fine-tuning, connecting circumplanetary disks to circumstellar and black-hole disks. The result matters observationally because such jets, scaled to a giant planet at 5.2 au, would move at roughly 30 km/s and should be detectable with molecular line tracers.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the magnetic tornado: twisted, dynamo-sustained magnetic field lines anchored in the inner mini-accretion disk. The seed vertical field is wound up by the disk's differential rotation, and the magnetorotational instability (the shear-driven instability that makes weakly magnetized, differentially rotating gas turbulent) amplifies the field, producing a large-scale toroidal component within $r_{\rm sp}\lesssim 0.6r_{\rm H}$. Near the poles the magnetic-pressure gradient overwhelms gravity, launching gas inside the footpoint radius $r_{\rm sp}\le 0.072r_{\rm H}$ into a narrow cone of about 25 degrees. The paper verifies that the MRI is captured by computing quality factors $Q_\theta, Q_\phi \ge 7$ and $Q \ge 10$, and it identifies the outflow as driven by the combined magnetic-pressure and magnetocentrifugal mechanisms.

What would settle it

Run the same global ideal-MHD setup for longer than the mini-disk viscous time, at least about 60 $T_0$, and test whether the outflow speed, the large-scale toroidal field, and the butterfly-like polarity reversals survive; a fading jet or dying dynamo after the initial transient would falsify the claim of a self-sustained outflow regime. A similarly resolved run at $q=10^{-4}$ would also show whether the less ordered dynamo pattern there is physical or a resolution artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that an embedded low-mass perturber in an ideal-MHD disk with a uniform vertical field self-consistently builds a magnetically active mini-accretion disk and launches a resolved, collimated bipolar outflow. Differential rotation inside the mini-disk winds the seed field into a strong toroidal component; MRI turbulence amplifies and reorganizes the field, and the large-scale toroidal field shows ordered polarity reversals reminiscent of the butterfly diagrams seen in stratified MRI dynamos. The twisted field forms a magnetic tornado whose magnetic-pressure gradient at the poles exceeds the perturber's gravitational acceleration, and magnetocentrifugal acceleration then collimates the flow into jets with an opening angle of about 25 degrees. In the $q=10^{-3}$ run the outflow speed increases from $0.87v_{\rm orb}$ to about $2.3v_{\rm orb}$ within $10T_0$ and stays near that value, exceeding the escape speed from the perturber and from the central object. The same outflow pattern appears for $q=3\times10^{-4}$ and $q=10^{-4}$, so the paper concludes that mini-accretion disks enter an outflow-launching regime under generic ideal-MHD conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The simulations are run for only about 1.8 perturber orbits, which is shorter than the mini-disk's viscous timescale of roughly 20-60 $T_0$, so the claim that a durable outflow-launching regime has been reached assumes that the turbulent disk, the dynamo, and the jet observed at this early stage persist into the quasi-steady state.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is correct, mini-accretion disks around embedded low-mass perturbers are expected to launch jets under generic ideal-MHD conditions, so outflow launching should be included in models of circumplanetary disks and embedded compact objects rather than invoked as a special case.
  • Scaled to a Jupiter-mass planet at 5.2 au, the outflow speed reaches roughly 30 km/s, which is fast enough that collimated molecular outflows from embedded giant planets could be searched for with shock tracers such as SO or Na D kinematics.
  • Because angular-momentum transport in the mini-disk is dominated by Maxwell stresses with $\alpha\sim10^{-2}$ to $10^{-1}$, the mini-disk is an MRI-turbulent system whose accretion and mass-loss rates are set by the dynamo-sustained field rather than by a prescribed viscosity.
  • The presence of jets from mass ratios as low as $q=10^{-4}$ suggests the outflow-launching regime is robust across the explored mass range, extending earlier findings at $q=(3-4)\times10^{-4}$ to lower-mass perturbers.
  • Bipolar outflows remove mass and angular momentum from the Hill sphere, so they can alter the accretion flow onto the perturber and the delivery of solids to its surrounding environment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • In real protoplanetary disks, non-ideal MHD effects may damp the MRI in low-ionization regions; the ideal-MHD jets found here may therefore be an upper bound, and whether they survive in dead-zone conditions is a testable question the paper leaves open.
  • If the outflows persist, they could act as an extra angular-momentum-loss channel for circumplanetary gas and may affect dust filtering across planetary gaps and even the size sorting of calcium-aluminum-rich inclusions.
  • The same magnetic-tornado mechanism could operate around embedded compact objects in AGN disks, where ideal MHD is a better approximation, making jet launching a generic outcome rather than a special configuration.
  • The high-latitude asymmetry in jet power found in the simulations suggests time-variable, one-sided outflows; this could be compared with observed asymmetries in young stellar object jets and with molecular outflow kinematics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents three-dimensional global ideal-MHD simulations of a low-mass perturber (mass ratio q = 10^-4 to 10^-3) embedded in a stratified, locally isothermal disk around a massive central object. The initial disk is threaded by a uniform vertical magnetic field with beta = 875. Using the Fargo3D code in spherical coordinates with refinement around the Hill sphere, the authors report that the captured gas forms a turbulent, MRI-active mini-accretion disk, that the disk amplifies and reorganizes the magnetic field into a large-scale configuration with polarity reversals reminiscent of butterfly diagrams, and that a bipolar, collimated, magnetized outflow is launched that reaches velocities of about 2.3 v_orb. They argue that these results establish a connection between mini-accretion disks and larger-scale accretion-disk outflows and that no fine-tuning of the magnetic configuration is required for outflow launching.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper would be an important step: it extends previous MHD studies of circumplanetary/mini-disks to lower mass ratios, reports the first q = 10^-4 jet in this context, and uses a high-resolution global setup. The paper's strengths include the explicit calculation of MRI quality factors (Q_theta, Q_phi, and the Jannaud-Latter Q), the measurement of turbulent Maxwell and Reynolds stresses, and the coverage of three mass ratios. The main limitation is that the simulation runtime is shorter than the viscous time of the mini-disk, and the dynamo and outflow-persistence claims are asserted in the Abstract and Section 5 despite the authors' own statement in Section 4 that the disk 'remains in an early dynamical stage.' The results are currently best interpreted as evidence for a transient, early-time MRI-driven magnetized outflow, not for a sustained dynamo-supported outflow in quasi-steady state.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2 and Sec. 4] The central claim that the mini-disk 'sustains' its magnetic field and 'enters an outflow-launching regime' is not supported by the simulated time span. In Section 2 the authors estimate tau_nu ~ (20-60) T0 for q = 10^-3, while the stated run duration is at least 9 T0 (1.8 perturber orbits), and in Section 4 they explicitly write that the mini-accretion disk 'remains in an early dynamical stage, so its evolution cannot be described by a quasi-steady viscous inflow.' The outflow velocity quoted in Section 3 as 'remains near this value thereafter' therefore refers to a transient interval, not a quasi-steady state. I ask the authors either to extend the simulations to at least several viscous times or to rescope the Abstract and Section 5 conclusions as early-time, pre-steady-state behavior.
  2. [Sec. 4, Fig. 8] Figure 8 shows polarity reversals in the azimuthally averaged toroidal field that are described as 'reminiscent of butterfly diagrams,' but the text immediately adds that establishing dynamo activity would require a full mean-field diagnosis, including the turbulent electromotive force and test-field coefficients. The Abstract nonetheless states that the mini-disk 'sustains a large-scale magnetic field generated by the dynamo effect of the MRI,' and Section 5 repeats that the disk 'amplifies magnetic fields via a dynamo.' This is an inference beyond the presented diagnostics. Please either present a quantitative mean-field/EMF analysis or explicitly downgrade the dynamo claim to 'consistent with, but not a proof of, MRI-driven dynamo activity.'
  3. [Sec. 2, Eq. (11); Abstract; Sec. 5] All models are initialized with a net vertical magnetic flux (uniform B_z, beta = 875), which is a favorable configuration for magnetocentrifugal wind launching. The conclusion that 'no fine-tuning is required' is therefore too broad: the simulations demonstrate that a net-flux initial condition can produce outflows, but they do not test robustness with respect to field strength, field geometry, or zero-net-flux configurations. A parameter study (for example, varying beta or using a zero-net-flux field) or a much more cautious caveat is needed before the 'no fine-tuning' statement can be supported.
  4. [Sec. 3, paragraph after Fig. 5] The jet velocity time series ('increases from 0.87 v_orb to about 2.3 v_orb after 10 T0, and remains near this value thereafter') is reported without a figure or a definition of how the jet velocity is measured (for example, maximum along the axis, mass-weighted average, or value at a fixed isosurface). Since this number is central to the outflow-persistence claim, please provide the measurement definition and a time series, ideally for all three mass ratios.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'low mass a perturber' contains a stray article; please rephrase.
  2. [Sec. 4, Fig. 7] The caption says that Q_theta and Q_phi must satisfy the threshold, but the text verifies Q_theta >= 7 explicitly; please state explicitly whether Q_phi also meets the threshold in the same averaging window.
  3. [Sec. 3] The phrase 'extending tor_out ~ 0.6 r_H' appears to contain a typo ('tor' should likely be 'to r_out' or similar).
  4. [Sec. 2, Eq. (7)] The first term of the perturber potential appears to contain a stray 'q' in the numerator; please check whether \Phi_p is intended to be -G M_p / sqrt(|r - r_p|^2 + epsilon^2).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the outflow and field organization are dynamical outputs from a specified seed field; the dynamo interpretation is explicitly hedged and the persistence issue is an acknowledged extrapolation, not a circular step.

full rationale

This is a numerical experiment, not a derivation, and no claimed result is equivalent to an input by construction. The outflow is a dynamical output: the only magnetic input is a uniform vertical seed field with beta=875 (Eq. 11), and the jet velocity, collimation, and acceleration diagnostics (Figs. 2-4; amag,z/agrav,z in Sec. 3) are measured from the simulation, not imposed or fitted. The authors explicitly do not claim to have proven a dynamo: Sec. 4 states the butterfly-like B_phi patterns are only "consistent with MRI-driven dynamo activity" and that establishing this "would require a full mean-field diagnosis," so the dynamo claim is flagged as provisional rather than reduced to a self-citation. Self-citations (Chametla et al. 2024/2025 for mesh and stress definitions; Gressel & Pessah 2015 as a comparative benchmark for butterfly diagrams) are methodological or illustrative, not load-bearing. The transient-duration concern raised by the skeptic is a physical/correctness limitation, not circularity: the paper itself admits the mini-disk "remains in an early dynamical stage" and that tau_nu ~ 20-60 T0 exceeds the run duration, so the inference to persistence is an acknowledged extrapolation. An acknowledged extrapolation is not a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or forces are introduced. The load-bearing ingredients are initial conditions and physical approximations, all disclosed in the text. The count of free parameters is small because the paper is a simulation study rather than a fit to data.

free parameters (3)
  • Initial midplane plasma beta = 875
    A single value is chosen for the ambient vertical field strength. The outflow and MRI behaviour may depend on it, and no scan over beta is performed, so the 'no fine-tuning' claim is tested at one point in parameter space.
  • Gravitational softening length epsilon = 0.0072 r_H
    Chosen to be comparable to the grid cell size. It sets the scale of the innermost region where the jet is launched and could affect the poloidal field structure there.
  • Rotation profile fit amplitude f0 = 0.7
    Fitted to the declining part of the simulated azimuthal velocity profile in Eq. (15). It is descriptive and does not enter the central claim, but it is the only explicitly fitted number in the paper.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Ideal MHD is an adequate approximation for the gas dynamics in the mini-disk.
    The paper states this approximation and notes it may be invalid in protoplanetary environments where cosmic-ray ionization is limited (Sec. 1 and Sec. 5).
  • domain assumption The gas obeys a locally isothermal equation of state p = c_s^2 rho.
    Used throughout (Eq. 4). Heating and cooling are neglected, which can affect disk thickness and the thermal structure of the jet.
  • domain assumption The disk is initially threaded by a uniform vertical magnetic field with beta=875 at the midplane.
    This seed field provides the net vertical flux that appears in the MRI quality factor Q and is the likely reservoir for the poloidal field that launches the jets (Sec. 2, Eq. 11; Sec. 4, Eq. 18).
  • domain assumption A simulation duration of 9 T0 (about 1.8 perturber orbits) is sufficient for the mini-disk structure to be well defined.
    The paper acknowledges tau_nu ~ 20-60 T0 exceeds the runtime and that the disk is in an early dynamical stage (Sec. 2). The persistence of jets and dynamo is assumed.
  • standard math The MRI is adequately resolved when Q_theta and Q_phi are at least 7 and Q is at least 10.
    These thresholds are taken from Sorathia et al. (2012) and Jannaud & Latter (2025); they are standard diagnostics in the field, not derived in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Global simulations of accretion flows onto perturbers embedded in magnetized disks -I. MRI and jet formation in ideal MHD." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ABRSEATG

@misc{pith2026260809471,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Global simulations of accretion flows onto perturbers embedded in magnetized disks -I. MRI and jet formation in ideal MHD},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ABRSEATG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09471}
}
abstract

We present the highest resolution global MHD simulations to date of gas flow around a low mass a perturber with mass ratio $q\in[10^{-4},10^{-3}]$, embedded in an accretion disk around a massive central object. We find that gas flow onto the secondary self-consistently forms a turbulent, magnetized mini-accretion disk. The mini-accretion disk sustains a large-scale magnetic field generated by the dynamo effect of the MRI and the accretion flow into the perturber. Simultaneously, a bipolar, collimated, magnetized outflow is launched, extending beyond the perturber's Hill sphere. The bipolar outflows are driven by the combined action of magnetic pressure, in the innermost regions of the mini-accretion disk, and the magnetocentrifugal acceleration of gas, which may attain speeds comparable to the escape velocity from the massive central object. Our results establish an important conceptual connection in accretion disk physics across a wide range of astrophysical systems -from mini-accretion disks to circumstellar and black hole accretion disks-by demonstrating that no fine-tuning is required for small-scale disks to naturally enter an outflow-launching regime. Beyond identifying the physical mechanism responsible for launching small-scale outflows, our framework lays the groundwork for developing more sophisticated physical models of mini-accretion disks around embedded low-mass perturbers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09471 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 2D-maps in the x − z plane of the gas density (left panel) and azimuthal component of the magnetic field (right panel) at t = 16.77 T0 for q = 10−3 . The dashed circle represents the Hill sphere [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Vertical slices of the perturber’s Hill sphere with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Magnetic-to-gravitational acceleration ratio in the verti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 3D view of the density, the magnetic tornado and the bipolar jet within the perturber’s Hill sphere. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Vertical slices of the perturber’s Hill sphere for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top. Quality factors defined in Eqs. (16) and (17), cal￾culated in the frame of reference of the perturber. The dotted orange line represents the minimum value Qθ and Qϕ that ade￾quately solve λMRI. Bottom. New quality factor Q defined in Eq. (18). therein). In fact, j…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radial profiles of the gas density, azimuthal velocity, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Radial profiles of αMAX and αREY (azimuthally and temporally averaged between 16.77 to 20.12 T0) at the mini￾accretion disk midplane for q = 10−3 . These results indicate that the conditions required for the on￾set of the MRI, namely an outwardly decreasing angular vel…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Space-time diagram of the azimuthally averaged [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Azimuthally averaged radial velocity at three di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ayliffe, B. A. & Bate, M. R. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 657

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    Balbus, S. A. & Hawley, J. F. 1991, ApJ, 376, 214

    1991

  3. [3]

    Balbus, S. A. & Hawley, J. F. 1998, Reviews of Modern Physics, 70, 1

    1998

  4. [4]

    2017, ApJ, 835, 165

    Bartos, I., Kocsis, B., Haiman, Z., & Márka, S. 2017, ApJ, 835, 165

    2017

  5. [5]

    & Morbidelli, A

    Batygin, K. & Morbidelli, A. 2020, ApJ, 894, 143 Benítez-Llambay, P., Krapp, L., & Pessah, M. E. 2019, ApJS, 241, 25 Benítez-Llambay, P., Krapp, L., Ramos, X. S., & Kratter, K. M. 2023, ApJ, 952, 106 Benítez-Llambay, P. & Masset, F. S. 2016, ApJS, 223, 11

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Blandford, R. D. & Payne, D. G. 1982, MNRAS, 199, 883

    1982

  7. [7]

    F., & Torkelsson, U

    Brandenburg, A., Nordlund, A., Stein, R. F., & Torkelsson, U. 1995, ApJ, 446, 741

    work page 1995

  8. [8]

    Dust-void evolution driven by turbulent dust flux can induce runaway migration of Earth-mass planets

    Chametla, R. O., Chrenko, O., Masset, F. S., D’Angelo, G., & Nesvorny, D. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.21922

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    O., Chrenko, O., Reyes-Ruiz, M., & Sánchez-Salcedo, F

    Chametla, R. O., Chrenko, O., Reyes-Ruiz, M., & Sánchez-Salcedo, F. J. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 11812

    2024

  2. [10]

    2023, ApJ, 948, 136

    Chen, K., Ren, J., & Dai, Z.-G. 2023, ApJ, 948, 136

    2023

  3. [11]

    1995, ApJ, 450, 616

    Contopoulos, J. 1995, ApJ, 450, 616

    1995

  4. [12]

    2025, The Open Journal of Astro- physics, 8, 84

    Crida, A., Baruteau, C., Griveaud, P., et al. 2025, The Open Journal of Astro- physics, 8, 84

    2025

  5. [13]

    W., Stone, J

    Davis, S. W., Stone, J. M., & Pessah, M. E. 2010, ApJ, 713, 52 de Val-Borro, M., Edgar, R. G., Artymowicz, P., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 529

    2010

  6. [14]

    J., Cantiello, M., & Jermyn, A

    Dittmann, A. J., Cantiello, M., & Jermyn, A. S. 2021, ApJ, 916, 48

    2021

  7. [15]

    2024, A&A, 689, L7

    Dutrey, A., Chapillon, E., Guilloteau, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, L7

    2024

  8. [16]

    2025, Universe, 11, 333

    Dutta, S. 2025, Universe, 11, 333

    2025

  9. [17]

    2026, MNRAS, 547, stag427

    Fabj, G., Tiede, C., Rowan, C., Pessah, M., & Samsing, J. 2026, MNRAS, 547, stag427

    2026

  10. [18]

    & Sheikhnezami, S

    Fendt, C. & Sheikhnezami, S. 2013, ApJ, 774, 12

    2013

  11. [19]

    I., Kobayashi, H., Takahashi, S

    Fujii, Y . I., Kobayashi, H., Takahashi, S. Z., & Gressel, O. 2017, AJ, 153, 194

    2017

  12. [20]

    I., Okuzumi, S., Tanigawa, T., & Inutsuka, S.-i

    Fujii, Y . I., Okuzumi, S., Tanigawa, T., & Inutsuka, S.-i. 2014, ApJ, 785, 101

    2014

  13. [21]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 152

    Fung, J., Zhu, Z., & Chiang, E. 2019, ApJ, 887, 152

    2019

  14. [22]

    2010, MNRAS, 405, 41

    Gressel, O. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 41

    2010

  15. [23]

    P., Turner, N

    Gressel, O., Nelson, R. P., Turner, N. J., & Ziegler, U. 2013, ApJ, 779, 59

    2013

  16. [24]

    & Pessah, M

    Gressel, O. & Pessah, M. E. 2015, ApJ, 810, 59

    2015

  17. [25]

    P., Brinch, C., et al

    Gressel, O., Ramsey, J. P., Brinch, C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 896, 126

    2020

  18. [26]

    J., Nelson, R

    Gressel, O., Turner, N. J., Nelson, R. P., & McNally, C. P. 2015, ApJ, 801, 84 Haugbølle, T., Weber, P., Wielandt, D. P., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 55

    2015

  19. [27]

    F., Guan, X., & Krolik, J

    Hawley, J. F., Guan, X., & Krolik, J. H. 2011, ApJ, 738, 84

    2011

  20. [28]

    Hogg, J. D. & Reynolds, C. S. 2018, ApJ, 861, 24

    2018

  21. [29]

    & Latter, H

    Jannaud, T. & Latter, H. N. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.06022

    2025

  22. [30]

    2025, MNRAS, 544, 2024

    Jiao, C.-L., Zhu, L., Zhao, E.-g., & Zhang, J. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 2024

    2025

  23. [31]

    K., Bhake, A., Banerjee, B., et al

    Joshi, R. K., Bhake, A., Banerjee, B., et al. 2025, A&A, 703, A304

    2025

  24. [32]

    2018, ApJ, 865, 105

    Krapp, L., Gressel, O., Benítez-Llambay, P., et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, 105

    2018

  25. [33]

    M., Youdin, A

    Krapp, L., Kratter, K. M., Youdin, A. N., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 153

    2024

  26. [34]

    2025, Phys

    Ma, Z.-P., Wang, K., Wu, Q., & Wang, J.-M. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 083033

    2025

  27. [35]

    N., Inutsuka, S.-i., & Matsumoto, T

    Machida, M. N., Inutsuka, S.-i., & Matsumoto, T. 2006, ApJ, 649, L129

    2006

  28. [36]

    Masset, F. S. & Benítez-Llambay, P. 2016, ApJ, 817, 19

    2016

  29. [37]

    & Quataert, E

    Menou, K. & Quataert, E. 2001, ApJ, 552, 204

    2001

  30. [38]

    C., Armitage, P

    Mishra, B., Begelman, M. C., Armitage, P. J., & Simon, J. B. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1855

    2020

  31. [39]

    & Calcino, J

    Mishra, B. & Calcino, J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.05614 Müller, T. W. A., Kley, W., & Meru, F. 2012, A&A, 541, A123

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Murray, C. D. & Dermott, S. F. 1999, Solar System Dynamics

    1999

  33. [41]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 526

    Ohashi, S., Muto, T., Tsukamoto, Y ., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 526

    2025

  34. [42]

    E., Chan, C.-k., & Psaltis, D

    Pessah, M. E., Chan, C.-k., & Psaltis, D. 2007, ApJ, 668, L51

    2007

  35. [43]

    2016, A&A, 593, L4 Rodríguez-Ramírez, J

    Podio, L., Codella, C., Gueth, F., et al. 2016, A&A, 593, L4 Rodríguez-Ramírez, J. C., Nemmen, R., & Bom, C. R. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 083020

    2016

  36. [44]

    2025, MNRAS, 544, 4576

    Rowan, C., Whitehead, H., & Kocsis, B. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 4576

    2025

  37. [45]

    2025, ApJ, 987, 216

    Sagynbayeva, S., Li, R., Kuznetsova, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 987, 216

    2025

  38. [46]

    A., Reynolds, C

    Sorathia, K. A., Reynolds, C. S., Stone, J. M., & Beckwith, K. 2012, ApJ, 749, 189 Szulágyi, J., Masset, F., Lega, E., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 2853

    2012

  39. [47]

    S., Yesuf, H

    Tagawa, H., Haiman, Z., Kimura, S. S., Yesuf, H. M., & Guo, H. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.05020

    2026 arXiv

  40. [48]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 25

    Tagawa, H., Haiman, Z., & Kocsis, B. 2020, ApJ, 898, 25

    2020

  41. [49]

    S., Haiman, Z., Perna, R., & Bartos, I

    Tagawa, H., Kimura, S. S., Haiman, Z., Perna, R., & Bartos, I. 2023, ApJ, 950, 13

    2023

  42. [50]

    S., Haiman, Z., Perna, R., & Bartos, I

    Tagawa, H., Kimura, S. S., Haiman, Z., Perna, R., & Bartos, I. 2024, ApJ, 966, 21

    2024

  43. [51]

    Tanigawa, T., Ohtsuki, K., & Machida, M. N. 2012, ApJ, 747, 47

    2012

  44. [52]

    J., Fromang, S., Gammie, C., et al

    Turner, N. J., Fromang, S., Gammie, C., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 411–432

    2014

  45. [53]

    & Nakano, T

    Umebayashi, T. & Nakano, T. 1981, PASJ, 33, 617

    1981

  46. [54]

    K., Schneider, F

    Vetter, M., Röpke, F. K., Schneider, F. R. N., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A133

    2025

  47. [55]

    Weber, P., Benítez-Llambay, P., Gressel, O., Krapp, L., & Pessah, M. E. 2018, ApJ, 854, 153

    2018

  48. [56]

    L., Adamane Pallathadka, G., Bizyaev, D., et al

    Zakamska, N. L., Adamane Pallathadka, G., Bizyaev, D., et al. 2025, arXiv e- prints, arXiv:2507.05367 Article number, page 9 of 9

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.